To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: | B1 <!-- Referencing and citations --> = y/n | B2 <!-- Coverage and accuracy --> = y/n | B3 <!-- Structure --> = y/n | B4 <!-- Grammar and style --> = y/n | B5 <!-- Supporting materials --> = y/n
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This page should have a section on criticism of this 'charity', its association with the right-wing media, its politicised name etc. To avoid potentially libelous content, would anyone be interesting in starting a draft page and reviewing it until we can get a mandate. I shall start a minimal section on the page and we can add to that from there before refering to specifics. Mtaylor848 (talk) 16:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I've reverted your section . Although you provided sources, they don't back up the claims made. E.g., you cannot just link to the Sun, to support a claim that the charity gets criticised for its association with the Sun. Similarly, there is not much point using a source to support the claim that it has been criticised for harming support for the british legion, when the actual source says both charities are doing well, and finally, you cannot theorise about why people might be giving donations to h4h and not the legion, by linking to an irrelevant story which is really about the BNP's activities, with barely any mention of h4h. A critisism section is fine if you a), make sure what you say is actually backed by the sources provided, and b), that the section does not give undue weight to any criticisms described. MickMacNee (talk) 23:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
It definitely seems dodgy that there's no controversy section of this EDL-supported organisation. Turkeyphant 23:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Agree with the need for a 'controversy' section addressing the growing outrage that the donations received by this charity have effectively been used as an alternative to centralised government funding via the MOD - in that it has been used to construct buildings the MOD has clearly needed since the Crimean War. This has become focussed as a criticism of the Government however,regardless of political shade, and not a criticism of the charity.188.8.131.52 (talk) 22:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC)twl184.108.40.206 (talk) 22:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC)