Talk:Football Lads Alliance

October 2017

AusLondonder I watch with surprise how someone would just wake up to revert an edit that was fully sourced with 8 references, claiming the edit was not sourced and duly promotional. You just have to mention each sentence that was not backed up with a valid source and was promotional. I think some admins are needed here as soon as possible. KingMak1 (talk) 07:18, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm certainly not convinced that your proposed changes are an improvement. The sources you provided (opinion pieces, "britisharmedforcesthebest.com") are not acceptable. The wording you have proposed is self-serving and unduly promotional. AusLondonder (talk) 09:02, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Howdy @AusLondonder: & @KingMak1: - thought I'd bring an outside view into this. In general I'm inclined to agree with AusLondoner's view point, but I'd be happy for the section to be included if it was re-worded and explicitly referenced by the reputable news sources - Birmingham post and Bristol post included - because the addition of the 'Aims' of the FLA would actually be a useful addition to this page. I've not checked the specific text within the sources themselves, but more in this vein than the opinion piece flagged by AusLon above is absolutely necessary. To avoid getting into an edit war lets move on with that swiftly eh. Best. Zakhx150 (talk) 15:22, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Influential misleading links on this page

The EDL are not linked to the FLA. One ex EDL man appeared at the side of the road during the march and opposing groups grabbed an opportunity. Whilst there doesn’t seem to be any hard evidence of racism from the FLA, there is clear evidence of Diane Abbott’s racism. The links imply that she’s looking out for racism, where are the links to her saying ‘white people like playing divide and conquer’ or ‘West Indian mums would go to the wall for their children’. JoolsLM (talk) 20:58, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

@JoolsLM: Last time I checked this article wasn't about Diane Abbott. Am I wrong? Do you have any sources that contradict the sources currently used in the article which discusses allegations of racism against the FLA? AusLondonder (talk) 17:39, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

The article does not claim that the FLA and EDL are linked. It makes a well sourced observation that members of EDL, including Tommy Robinson, attended an FLA march. Sam Walton (talk) 19:19, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

^ This is not the case, he was only there as a reporter with Rebel Media. It is misleading to claim he "attended" as he was not part of the event. The people policing it did not "attend", and a claim they did would rightly be viewed as ridiculous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.232.103 (talk) 22:02, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

John "meme" Meighan

I just removed the addition of a nickname to the founder John "meme" Meighan, added by Spurs loyal (talk · contribs) on 5/12/2018 (here). Having looked at the sources in text related to him and a quick Google I couldn't substantiate this as a nickname. Not sure if it was vandalism or not, as it quickly followed an earlier edit by the same user changing the founder's name completely. Normally I'd just stick a citation tag on it, but the edit logs for these two changes ("John stole the idea" 1 and "Told the truth" 2) are a bit suspect. Query vandalism? Zakhx150 (talk) 17:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

John “meme” Mieghan

John never founded the FLA he just runs it and claims it’s his! He has robbed his supporters of money and claims he’s the messiah hence the nickname “meme”! As it’s all about him! Spurs loyal (talk) 17:33, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments on edits

@Snowded: let me comment on your edits:

First edit) "section is criticism and should be third party sources"

The criticism was from third party, secondary sources. In order to balance the article as per WP:BALANCE, I included the organisation's response to the criticism - which must of course originate from a primary source!

Second edit) "Wikipedia is not here to promote events for any group"

In no way was I trying to promote the Football Lads Alliance. As part of the "Movement" section of the article, I added a future event of the organisation to the article in order to provide readers with further information on the movement.

Third edit) The International Business Times "is NOT a reliable source"

In what way is this source unreliable? It provided the information used to back up points in the article, unlike those you used to back up how Britain First is 'fascist' where the source simply labels the group as such.

Fourth edit) You removed detailled information on the group's activity. You said "None of that is based on reliable third party sources".

You removed both primary and secondary sources on the group's activity: The group's official site, The Independent, and Vice. How are these sources unreliable? What factors have led you to believe that information from these sources cannot be cited? Rather than removing the information altogether, you could have cited what you feel are 'reliable' sources, or used the "citation needed" template.

Fifth edit) "Implied causal link requires reliable third party source"

Instead of removing this information, you could have used the "citation needed" template.

Sixth edit) You introduced a new piece of information, "however the Premier League has warned clubs that "the group is using fans and stadiums to push an anti-Muslim agenda", with a new source from The Times. You also erased the "Criticism section".

Here you have violated WP:SYNTH and therefore created a bias within the article against the group. In what way do you think this is acceptable and information already on the page was not? How is this source acceptable, and most other sources already cited that provided detailled information on the organisation with both primary and secondary sources were not?

You removed the "Criticism" section. How were the sources cited to back up the information here unacceptable? Why remove it altogether? It is true that Diane Abbott and Stand Up to Racism have criticised the organisation. Why couldn't you have used the "citation needed" template?

You claimed that the organisation is "far-right". The Times source that backs this up is unreliable - it claims in "QUOTATION marks" in the title of the article that it is far right, and does not directly support this claim. The term far-right is used for the second and final time in the article when it claims the group "has increasingly become associated with far-right activists".

Seventh edit) "relevance of who he supports needs third party reference"

There was a third-party reference here until you removed it. PlatinumHeron (talk) 15:43, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

You need to read WP:RS - there was nothing there that constituted a reliable source and you assertion that the Times is unreliable is risible. If you don't believe me on the international business times go to the reliable sources notice board and check it out. We do not use primary sources on wikipedia, its clearly stated in the policy you have been linked to. Please wise up and read policy. At least one other editor suspects you have edited before and I'm coming to agree with them. Carry on like this it ends of at ANI. -----Snowded ^TALK 15:58, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

@Snowded: I did not say that The Times is an unreliable source - I said that the article does not properly back up the statement you made.

I today discovered a policy that states: "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." implying that primary sources can in fact used on Wikipedia, but not excessively.

No. I have not edited on Wikipedia before. Doug Weller said he believes I have edited before because my "first edit shows knowledge of positioning edits and some of your other edits and edit summaries show more knowledge than I would expect of a new user". I looked at my first edit, and all I did was put a picture on my user page after reading about user pages before creating my account. Please bear in mind that I researched several things on Wikipedia before starting my account.

I do not understand what you mean by "Carry on like this it ends of at ani". Could you explain this?

I am simply trying to make sure that the way some political organisations are described on this website is fair.

I thought that this talk page was for the article - not my account. Will you respond to any questions I raised, or was that a waste of time? Regards PlatinumHeron (talk) 16:29, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Far Right

Ok lets deal with this issue. The article states " but has increasingly become associated with far-right activists" I think that, plus the article headline justifies it but we need other editors to get involved on that one. There is also an argument (given the lack of serious sources) that the article itself is non notable and should be deleted. I've asked other editors to get involved. -----Snowded ^TALK 16:08, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello @Snowded:. Apologies for the mess above but I think we edited at the same time? Thanks for your co-operation by creating the link above and getting others involved in this article. Hopefully we can all co-operate and finish with an article as detailled as possible, whilst being neutral and unbiased. PlatinumHeron (talk) 16:32, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Just don't insert material from primary or unreliable sources. I'm inclined to deletion at this point given the lack of valid sources -----Snowded ^TALK 16:36, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Just a quick question - the Wikipedia policy says (as I said in the message I posted at the same time you edited the talk page) that you can use primary sources, as long as they are not used excessively. Is it different for this article? PlatinumHeron (talk) 16:51, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Only for facts - not for controversial claims -----Snowded ^TALK 23:11, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I've inserted a direct quote about 'concerns' from a reliable source. I could have expanded that on the pretty obvious EDL connections but we should probably wait for more material. Labeling as Far-right in the first sentence is probably a step too far pending more assessment in 3rd party sources. -----Snowded ^TALK 00:41, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello again @Snowded: There is more criticism of the movement in the article than information about it. The article is utterly biased against it at the moment. We need to find secondary sources that explain information about its activity, leadership, other details, etc. These can be backed up by primary sources (or can't they?). PlatinumHeron (talk) 14:15, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

We are not here to assess if a third party source is bias or not, and it is not our role to balance the views of the group (primary sources) against those of reliable third party ones. The article has one primary source reference and that is as far as it does - in fact that might be too much. -----Snowded ^TALK 02:43, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Aljazeera article

I removed material from this reference as it was being used to support the groups statements about itself, but critical material was not included. As its an article about a planned march and appears an opinion piece I'm not sure if its relevant anyway but open to proposals for inclusion - ideally here first please -----Snowded ^TALK 02:59, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Content removal

Where did the content of this article go? Back when I rewrote it there were numerous paragraphs and citations. Sam Walton (talk) 11:09, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Citations were to primary sources which we don't accept - reduced to material supported by reliable third party material -----Snowded ^TALK 23:09, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Criticism

At the moment, the "article" is no longer informative and appears to be a critical piece. There is more criticism from media organisations that the user Snowded has picked and chosen for the article than actual information.

When I had edited the article in order to remove bias against the organisation (much of which that had unnecessarily but seemingly deliberately evolved from media bias) Snowded said that he "did not agree it was unbiased". He then went on to bring the page to its unacceptable current state.

All the criticism (which makes the entire article except the first sentence) is in the lede. This creates a significant bias. I had noted that WP:SYNTH had been violated. I tried to separate media criticism from information by adding a "Criticism" section, but this was removed by Snowded.

This problem must be sorted. PlatinumHeron (talk) 18:03, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

PlatinumHeron, where are the reliable, independent sources that give a different view of this group? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:49, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Normally we eschew criticism sections. I also note that I had to change PlatinumHeron's edit because it misrepresented the source. It seems obvious that except for racists the FLA isn't going to get a lot of positive comment. Doug Weller talk 08:08, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

The simple answer is to remove the "criticism" subhead. The content can stay: how relevant bodies like the Premier Leagues react to the group are obviously relevant Dtellett (talk) 22:13, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I didn't see any sourced material that wasn't already in the existing text. Open to proposals here -----Snowded ^TALK 05:22, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments on edits 2

User:Snowded. You're the one who needs to talk first. You have undone the following 3 edits on the basis that Vice is unreliable. Which one of the following 3 is Vice?

• Diff 1 - Newcastle Evening Chronicle, (Trinity Mirror) and BBC Three
• Diff 2 - Birmingham Mail, (Trinity Mirror) and BBC Three
• Diff 3 - Socialist Worker

From the Salford Star report, my bold Today, thousands of supporters of the Football Lads Alliance (FLA) were expected to attend a rally at Castlefield in Manchester but in the event only around two hundred turned up from all over the North. You have deleted here on the basis of "You can't use references reporting that something WILL happen to speak in wikipedia's voice as to something that HAPPENED." "Turned up", past tense. Why have you removed it? All of it is unexplained content removal. You've not even bothered to explain what is dubious about Vice. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 01:41, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

You have a range of issues here. If any of these events were significant then you should be able to read articles in the main national newspapers. So WP:WEIGHT applies. The references I read were stories about what was going to happen - if I missed one which actually reported an event - your Salford Star point - then I'll happily apologise but still raise the question fo weight. We get too many attempts to exaggerate the importance of these small scale right wing groups by using weak or inappropriate references. Vice was used in support of one of the edits I removed -----Snowded ^TALK 05:21, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Snowded. You have a range of issues here. I don't have any "issues". I'm not the one deleting. Birmingham Mail and Newcastle Chron are both part of Trinity Mirror. Mirror Group newspapers. BBC Three and and Socialist Worker are national and Vice is international! You said your complaint was that they weren't reliable now you're saying that not quite big enough for my liking. Which of your issues is it? --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 14:14, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

You are the one inserting. If these events had any notability whatsoever they would have been reported in the mainstream national press. All you have is a few brief pieces from provincial newspapers the majority of which are about plans for marches rather than marches. Vice is a former comic book and Socialist Worker is hardly neutral. Find some mainstream sources that describe the events with the benefit of hindsight and we can look at including it. -----Snowded ^TALK 14:29, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I am confused, Snowded. BBC Three is a mainstream national source, so satisfies your concerns. Can you address this? Bondegezou (talk) 10:14, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Not really, its a vox pop type article written on the day. If this event was in any way notable, it would be have been picked up and reported after the event. The fact that there is reference to something does not make it notable. These right wing movements are characterised by early claims and we are an encyclopaedia not a local newspaper or a propaganda tool. Hence the tests of [[WP:WEIGHT|significance) and general tests for notability. It is very doubtful if the organisation itself is notable at this stage, it is extremely doubtful if 30 of them turning up on deserted streets is in any way significant.-----Snowded ^TALK 16:41, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

From the BBC Three article It’s 11am, and there are about 30 Lads so far. ... Up to 10,000 people joined their first London protest on 24 June 2017, which ended at the site of June’s London Bridge terror attack. As also reported in the London Evening Standard Football Lads Association march: Thousands gather in central London in anti-extremism protest. Oh no, wait let me guess that's just a small provincial newspaper and they probably only reported it because there were no cats stuck up trees that day and... and... and... Seriously, this is getting ridiculous, BBC Three isn't good enough because it's the wrong type of article. Which policy is that from? --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 20:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Weight is the policy - just because you can find a reference it doesn't mean it was significant. -----Snowded ^TALK 09:11, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with what Snowded has written. There is an ongoing discussion on the reliability of the Evening Standard on WP:RSN, where it has been compared with the Daily Mail.[1] It is not comparable to the Guardian, Telegraph, Independent, Times, etc. For the BBC, either the rolling 24 hour reporting on BBC TV News (or radio) or BBC24 news on the internet are the standard places of reference. ITV, Channels 4 and 5 are also fine. The channel BBC 3 ceased to exist on terrestrial BBC TV a while back: it currently functions as some kind of blog. Mathsci (talk) 09:32, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

The London Evening Standard discussion WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Should The Evening Standard be considered an unreliable source? rests on a single source. It regards COI between big business and coverage of big business e.g. UBER. There is no suggestion that the turnout figures for the FLA march are wrong - what would business interests gain from such misreporting? Plus it's an ongoing discussion.

The BBC Three source is co-authored by Ben Bryant, a journalist who also writes for The Telegraph Ben Bryant's profile at The Telegraph. There are no unreliable sources here and WP:WEIGHT states To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. What "tiny minority" What "dispute"? (1) Present at an FLA march were members of Veterans Against Terrorism source: Newcastle Evening Chronicle & BBC Three. (2) The organisation split and the "Democratic FLA" was formed source: Birmingham Mail & BBC Three. (3) The DFLA's march organiser is Phillip Hickin source: Socialist Worker. Do you or User:Snowded have reliable sources that dispute these three facts? If so then bring them. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 11:36, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point - the test if if this stuff is significant enough for an encyclopaedia. If it was then there would have been coverage in the major broadsheets.-----Snowded ^TALK 13:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Snowded. Just because you can prove something happened doesn't mean that it belongs in an encyclopedia. Doug Weller talk 13:56, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

This is what the article looked like before I touched it. How do you recommend improving the article without mentioning "what happened" as an organisation? It strikes me that this is an attempt at an AfD by the back door. An AfD would fail because there are mentions in the national press. Next best thing - hamper any and all attempts to expand the article. Yes it happened, yes it is relevant to the organisation, yes they are reliable sources but... but... but... This is really silly. No article on WikiPedia could survive such interpretations. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 15:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

You improve it by finding material in reliable sources which is seen to nee significant per policy. All articles are subject to the same conditions and they generally pass. I think if there is no such material, or none emerges in the future then an AfD might be called for.-----Snowded ^TALK 06:17, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

RfC about restoring content

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the article be restored (Restore) to this diff, or stay at its current edit (Current). A previous discussion on this has comments from just four editors. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 16:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• Restore - Some of User:Snowded's edit summaries seem to suggest he didn't read the sources very well. Like this one for instance says the cited source can't be used b/c it is speculating about something that will happen in the future. It isn't. NickCT (talk) 16:11, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
• Don't restore but please engage on the talk page Three editors (and all very experienced ones) have made similar points. You need to provide evidence of notability. Also FYI Wikipedia is not a democracy so having an RfC without advancing some form of evidence is dubious. -----Snowded ^TALK 20:05, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
• Restore, I am always happy to engage on the talk page Start a thread, ping me and I will respond. RfC opening statements are meant to be brief and neutral. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 12:12, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
• Don't restore without a proper WP:RfC. This is not listed at [Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All]]. Doug Weller talk 12:59, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
• Restore most of it. I wouldn't use the second logo or Socialist Worker. I'm not seeing a problem with the version the Vintage Feminist linked to, unless I've missed the point of the objections. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:23, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Its a long list of planned events, or weekly sourced descriptions of minor events. Nothing really has been reported about this group in the main broadsheets so there are issues of notability and weight. A succinct sentence or two might be OK but there is an ongoing problem here with minority right wing organisations where a minor event in a provincial newspaper is elevated to give a false impression of significance. -----Snowded ^TALK 02:05, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

That's a good point. Perhaps there could be a shorter version of it, somewhere between the two versions offered. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:33, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

• Don't restore as per Doug Weller's comments about lack of proper RfC. I only saw this discussion through it being on my watch list and having commented and edited on reversions in the past - this page is always interesting to see how people are engaging with it, but this needs to be a wider discussion as it's already spiralled. Whilst I'm currently on the 'Dont restore' camp, I'm minded that there are some points that could be restored but am not willing to commit to that as per Snowded and SarahSV's comments immediately above - this whole thing is a notability/balance minefield. Seriously though, despite any reservations we should go full official RfC even it means repeating these discussions. Might be worth getting the article semi-protected to stall the edit war whilst we argue this out? Zakhx150 (talk) 08:34, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
• Restore information about the split - This information is clearly notable and important enough to be in the encyclopedia article. Plus it's covered by two reliable sources, one of which is relatively mainstream international media. (Yes, I know Vice, like many media companies, started out as a small local magazine, but it is now a respected international media powerhouse.) The other material is debatable, but that part isn't. Kaldari (talk) 18:07, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

You haven't really you know - and in setting up an RfC you should ping all editors involved todate -----Snowded ^TALK 13:17, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

You haven't really you know - haven't what? in setting up an RfC you should ping all editors involved todate - that's AfD's. There is nothing in the instructions for setting up an RfC to do any such thing. If you can find it quote it WP:RFC. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 22:24, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Haven't engaged with the issues raised on the talk page - just asserted a position. And it is normal practice on an RfC, at least a courtesy to those who have already contributed -----Snowded ^TALK 13:24, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

You think it's WP:UNDUE, I don't. We have both asserted our positions. You may not agree with my position on this but that not the same as saying I have not engaged. I started the previous discussion thread on this talk page. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 16:40, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Let's have a proper RfC first please. Preferably with a neutral statement of the issues - there must be some behind the request. Doug Weller talk 12:59, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Question for administrator

Can this be closed sooner rather than later please? Also can someone also look at this article's edit history and calm everything down? Thanks. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 14:10, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

@The Vintage Feminist: I can't see that closing the discussion would be very useful, it would simply be 'no consensus'. Perhaps instead you could summarise the content of the diffs, providing an overview of what exactly changed, and list it as a full RfC? As for the article history, both you and Snowded should quit reverting each other - there is a discussion happening below which should take precedent over any further edits adding or removing that logo by either of you. Sam Walton (talk) 14:47, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

All we need is some evidence - I stopped reverting and asked the question below (and I wasn't the first editor to remove the material). When a request for a RS is refused then its normal to remove the material per policy and I did that. -----Snowded ^TALK 14:52, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Sam Walton I tried a previous discussion with diffs, to no avail. The discussion below relates to this RfC, the logo image was tagged for deletion (diff) because it is not attached to any article. It is not attached to any article because 2 editors have decided to not wait for the outcome of this RfC! If I started a new RfC they probably wouldn't wait for the outcome of that one either. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 18:07, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

@The Vintage Feminist: this is not an RfC. Despite what you've called it, it's just a local discussion, an RfC is advertised through a bot. I told you a while ago when you first thought you'd started one. Read the documentation. Doug Weller talk 20:47, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: RfC id = 0005537 diff. I removed the tag in this diff over a fortnight later in a bid to bring things to a conclusion, which I am still keen to do. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 01:32, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

@The Vintage Feminist:, you shouldn't have done that unless you were withdrawing it, see WP:RFCEND. No one is going to come close this unless it's another editor who has this on their watchlist, since it's no longer listed. In any case, it would be closed either as no consensus or more likely as a no. Doug Weller talk 10:05, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Logo of the Democratic Football

@The Vintage Feminist: Please provide a reliable source as to this logo and explain why it is relevant. Articles of this nature normally have one logo. Without a reliable source and some justification its continued insertion is not acceptable -----Snowded ^TALK 00:36, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

This image relates to the RfC above. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 09:35, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry but the material in the RfC contains no reliable source that supports the insertion of the logo - there is no way of validating if it is or not. Further you have not addressed the issue of why this article should have two logos when the norm is one. Until you can provide a source it does not belong in wikipedia. Further putting up a statement which says "please restore my version" is not an RfC, contains no argument and is generally very un wikipedia in nature. I'm removing the logo for the moment. If you can provide sourcing then we can look at inserting it again. -----Snowded ^TALK 13:11, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposal

Per comments above - we could insert the following "“The FLA organised small marches in London and Birmingham during 2017 and on 19th May 2018, the the first anniversary of Manchester Arena bombing," with support from the privincial newspaper sources. All the stuff about splits and the like is woefully sourced and the attempts to insert FLA apologia in the lede is both unrepresentative and again not sourced. Despite requests no sourcing has been supplied for the second logo. I suspect (like many such movements) this will not even be a story in a years time. If it is then the broadsheets will pick it up along with academics who monitor these type of movements. -----Snowded ^TALK 14:20, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

• Agree - this seems like the path of least resistance so far, and the most constructive offer in the wider discussion to date so I support that (though I don't like the somewhat elitist tone RE: the need for broadsheet and academic interest for it to be verifiable in the long term...). In any case, happy with the suggested and fully agree that the second logo is not needed.Zakhx150 (talk) 14:54, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Vice

The suggestion that Vice is not a reliable source because it's "a former comic book" is wrong on many levels. Vice was never a comic book, it was a local New York magazine (mostly about culture), but that's completely irrelevant. Vice is now a huge international media powerhouse with multiple TV networks, websites, and magazines, as well as film and music publishing labels. Despite whatever it may have been 20 years ago, it is now a well-known and respected media outlet and has won several journalism awards (including two Peabody Awards). While its status as "mainstream" is debatable, it is definitely a reliable source for Wikipedia. In fact, I would argue that Vice's in-depth journalism style, political neutrality, and international scope makes it the most reliable source in this article. Kaldari (talk) 18:23, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Has this been discussed on the RS notice board? The piece I looked at did not encourage confidence -----Snowded ^TALK 00:03, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Don't sealion me. You're welcome to take it to the RS notice board, but you'll definitely be wasting your time. Kaldari (talk) 03:07, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Does anyone else have an opinion about whether the Vice article is a reliable source? Kaldari (talk) 06:54, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Cool it, I made one polite request; in contrast a sealion persistently trolls so you should wait a bit before making that sort of accusation. My WP:AGF matches :-) But more seriously, lets assume the Vice article is a reliable source. All it does is to report what some people from the organisation said so that raises issue about the authority of the facts inserted. We also then have the issue of relevance. We have a few local newspaper reports with interviews - hardly authoritative sources for a wikipedia article -----Snowded ^TALK 22:33, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Kaldari and Snowded, that looks like an RS to me. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:13, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Would appreciate your opinion about the use of the source for the material - it reads to me as reporting statements by the group members - more a vox pop article than anything considered in nature. The RS question sort of follows that although a simple read of the wikipedia article on Vice indicates that we should at least be cautious using it on its own: Vice was described as "gonzo journalism for the YouTube generation" -----Snowded ^TALK 22:33, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

You would have to show me an example. I saw the recent revert and can't see the reason for it, but perhaps there's something else you have in mind. Not sure what you mean by "notable" in your edit summary. Generally something is notable if independent RS cover it, and the Vice article is an independent RS. If there are BLP issues, we insist on better and more RS, but is that the argument here? Or if there appears to have been a PR campaign, we may not accept RS engaged in churnalism. But generally speaking several independent RS = notable. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:28, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

OK lets look at the most recent revert. The Birmingham Post article is all about the Pub Bombings campaign, it has one bullet point at the end which says the " The True Democratic Football Lads Alliance has split from the Football Lads Alliance, which will also be protesting in the city on Saturday" (my emphasis). The second supporting reference does not go to any article, but to the wikipedia article on Vice. mentions a split over funding issues. A google search for "True Democratic Football Lads Alliance" produces no main stream reporting. What there is, in what is weak sourcing at best, reports more on the fragmented nature of the FLA, its links with the EDL etc. We have a long history in Wikipedia of these groups using it to make themselves appear more important than they are. This is especially the case around the EDL Founder a controversial figure who has been imprisoned for contempt of court with lots of attempts to increase publicity. SO have no real source on the said split other than one footnote in a provincial paper, no evaluation of it is real or just PR, no indication of any of this is anything else but a one or two month phenomena anyway. I haven't yet seen anything in Searchlight on this which I would expect if it was in any way significant: what references there are cover the brief period from October 2017 to May 2018. There is a Vice report on an interview with John Meighan who is described as the FLA founder together with a general commentary that the group was either set up by, or has been infiltrated by the far right but we have the essence of that in the article anyway - nothing about the split.-----Snowded ^TALK 05:01, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Snowded, can you link to which version you're looking at? Your latest edit reverted this version. I can't find there what you're referring to; e.g. "The second supporting reference does not go to any article, but to the wikipedia article on Vice." SarahSV ^(talk) 05:41, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

(ec) :Sure, the sentence I removed was in this version.-----Snowded ^TALK 05:49, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@Snowded: "Vox pop" means an interview with a random member of the public about a current event or issue, not an interview with the founder of the organization you're writing about. First you call Vice a comic book, then you say the story is just a vox pop article, now you say that the Vice reference doesn't even link to an article. All of those statements are plainly untrue. I'm willing to assume good faith, but ASG is not a suicide pact. I understand your point about not inflating the importance of the new group, but I'm not suggesting we add a new section about the Democratic FLA, or even a paragraph, just a single sentence (with two reliable sources no less). That doesn't seem unreasonable. Kaldari (talk) 05:47, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

See above and one correction. Both references are passing, no commentary. You could add something to the effect that "Some leading members are reported to have split with the organisation over funding issues" to the earlier section. But I really don't see the relevance -----Snowded ^TALK 05:49, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for being reasonable. Personally, I think it's quite relevant as this new group is still active and someone might want to use Wikipedia to find out who they are and what their history is. Kaldari (talk) 06:05, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

The BBC mentions the "Democratic FLA". [2] SarahSV ^(talk) 06:09, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Again in passing - there is no serious commentary on either organisation -----Snowded ^TALK 06:18, 2 July 2018 (UTC)