Jump to content

Talk:National Action (UK)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not Banned Yet!

[edit]

They're not banned yet and there's no evidence that they will be. It's all tabloid journalism speculation from The Mirror! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.75.173.234 (talk) 04:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you fail Political Prognostication 101, but don't worry, in political punditry, you can fail that course as many times as you want and people will still act as if you know what you're talking about. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:57, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

[edit]

If the media and NA themself call them national socialists why do they get the facism term rather than the neonazi term? nazism and facism is not the same — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.183.159.234 (talk) 17:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nazism is a fascism offshoot. Therefore fascist is correct, but neo-nazi is more specific. --94.226.129.61 (talk) 17:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dissolved in 2015?

[edit]

We need a source for the claim that this organisation dissolved in 2015. There's plenty of evidence that they've been active in 2016, and their website remains updated.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/national-action-launch-paedophile-hunting-investigative-journalism-series-even-though-one-of-its-members-is-a-sex-offender_uk_5756cfc7e4b0411d4de1fe4c

http://www.thenational.scot/news/14896123.Neo_Nazi_group_organise____soup_kitchen_of_hate__in_Glasgow/

Zcbeaton (talk) 12:35, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's clearly false. I removed the claim from the page. HelgaStick (talk) 00:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Logo - cf: Sturmabteilung !

[edit]

Perhaps something could be added about the logo? Derived from Sturmabteilung --195.137.93.171 (talk) 07:55, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely, but unless the connection to the SA is mentioned in reliable, third-party sources, the addition cannot be included in the article :/ HelgaStick (talk) 18:56, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Done with this edit :D HelgaStick (talk) 19:06, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2 islamic groups

[edit]

Al-Muhajiroun i guess is one and the other`? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.95.7.86 (talk) 21:17, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Attempted deletion of name of perpetrator

[edit]

An editor keeps trying to remove the name of Jack Renshaw from the article, on the grounds that the court did not name him, and UK publications are therefore forbidden to name him. However (1) his name was published by the Times in its article before the court action ([1]), in an article which describes his actions, which are identical to the actions of the individual found guilty by the court; (2) while editors from the UK are, presumably, controlled by UK laws, Wikipedia is not, as it is based in the US, and American law is controlling; (3) I am editing from the US, and therefore are also bound ny American law and not English law.

It may well be (I am not a lawyer) that UK-based editors could get into hot water by publishing his name, that is not the case with editors based elsewhere, and there is not reason that the name should not therefore be in the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've no idea about the legal position, but you've definitely wikilinked the wrong person in your comment. JezGrove (talk) 16:06, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll fix that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for delayed response - away from home. The Times does not name the person in its report of the trial; indeed, it specifically states that it cannot for legal reasons. All other media sources have done the same. Though it's rare, courts may issue a ban on reporting the whole case or a name for several reasons, for example to protect children or vulnerable witnesses, when the defendant is a child or, importantly, when to do so may prejudice another trial. I would not be surprised if lawyers at an upcoming trial for serious terrorism offences now try to claim with justification that their client's right to a fair trial has been denied by reports in Wikipedia. Well done. Emeraude (talk) 09:13, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Times names the person in their description of the precipitating event, and then describes that event in the article about the trial. It is abundantly clear that it is the same person. That UK law prevents the Times from publishing the name is irrelevant to us, and to newspapers outside the UK. Your accusation that publishing the name in Wikipedia will result in a reversal is ridiculous, since all the court has to do is refuse to take judicial notice of any non-UK source. It is also insulting to the editors who worked on the article, so I suggest you withdraw your comment, and withdraw from editing this article, since you seem not to understand the difference between UK law and US law, under which Wikipedia operates. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's a clear case of synthesis, however accurate, and The Times has not named the person sentenced in the trial. I have not used the word reversal - that's ridiculous. I am talking about a future case in which the defence is now able to argue, because of Wikipedia, that the accused cannot receive a fair trial because the jury may have read online something which the courts have said should not be published yet. As to insulting other "editors": you need to withdraw that as a personal attack on me. You are the only person involved; there are no others. I have asked for a delay until reliable sources are provided rather than synthesis; I have explained why; I fully undertand the distinction between UK and US law (and the primacy of court orders in both jurisdictions); your suggestion that I should refrain from editing this article on those grounds is outrageous. Emeraude (talk) 08:48, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"However accurate". You have not asked for a delay, your argument has always been that we cannot legally publish the name. Well, we can, and we are. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:05, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The whole tone of my edits has been that there was not a reliable source for the conviction - there still isn't. The effect, therefore, of not giving the name would be a delay. I notice you have still not given a reliable source for the conviction. Just because something is legal does not mean you have to do it. Emeraude (talk) 10:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"A person who had committed those same offences, whose name cannot be legally published in the UK, was found guilty at Preston Crown Court of inciting racial hatred on 8 January 2018.[16]". Is Wikipedia based in the UK? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.211.36.246 (talk) 15:14, 30 January 2018‎ (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is subject to American laws. The quote you cite does not say that we can't publish the name, it says that newspapers in the UK can't publish the name. Unfortunately, that means that -- since UK newspapers are the source for our information -- we don't have a reliable source that directly and specifically gives the name of the person convicted. It's abundantly obvious that it's the same person who is named in previous articles, but without a source to cite, our hands are tied -- hence the awkward circumlocution above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:33, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The circumlocution is helpful and hopefully only short term. However, while Wikipedia is most definitely subject to US laws, that does not absolve it (or editors) from the laws of other countries. A contempt of court is a contempt of court, wherever the perpetrator is located, though it's doubtful a UK court would ask for the extradition of someone from the US to answer the comtempt. (Of course, UK and US citizens are regulalry extradited to other countries to face charges.) It would be interesting to see what happened if an American editor turned up in an English court (or vice versa) and said he had published something the court had said should not be published. Could be awkward to move between jurisdictions! Emeraude (talk) 10:38, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Never happen. Judges generally have better sense than that. The only people at risk are those editors already under the courts' jurisdiction. If, for instance, a UK-based editor was fighting to keep the name in, that could potentially have consequences. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:56, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on National Action (UK). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jan 2018 arrests

[edit]

It appears that 6 people were arrested in the Oxford / Banbury area. I am by no means a skilled editor, so would appreciate if some could made the addition.

--Nozzer71 (talk) 16:34, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Details of July 2018 Court ruling

[edit]

Hi all, I recently updated the page to reflect the outcome of a trial involving a number of people accused of being members of National Action.

This edit has since been removed and I wondered if other people felt the outcome of the trial merits inclusion on this page. Details of my proposed edit can be found here Coverage of the story, from reliable media outlets, can be found here and here Thanks! Jono1011 (talk) 11:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted my deletion of your edit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:00, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Threat to kill MP as part of white jihad

[edit]

[4]. Doug Weller talk 11:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Birmingham trial

[edit]

A trial in Birmingham of four alleged members of National Action failed to reach a verdict and the CPS has indicated that it intends to seek a retrial. This needs to be included, but it is unclear whether this relates to any of the other people arrested who are mentioned in the article already. Anyone abe to to add this in and tidy it up? The Guardian report is "No verdict in trial of four alleged to be neo-Nazi group members". Emeraude (talk) 09:16, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed for "terrorist"

[edit]

Restored "citation needed" for "terrorist" again, because provided reference (the UK governments "proscribed terrorist organisations" document) does not call NA terrorist nor does it list any terrorist acts. Other references given for the first sentence of article don't do this either.

Inclusion in "proscribed terrorist organisations" list does not automatically mean that organisation is terrorist (in opinion of UK government), because 2006 amendment to Terrorism Act makes it possible to ban organisation just for "glorifying terrorism." And if you take a moment and actually read what it says in the document, it's exactly that - NA is not called terrorist or accused of committing terrorism, but did something that could be interpreted as gloryifiyng violent acts. If you look at other organisations listed, most of those are explicitly called terrorist or violent and specific acts of terrorism are listed.

So to call NA "terrorist" in voice of Wikipedia, stating this as established fact is wrong. Unless at least one solid source could be found which does call them "terrorist" AND backs it up with some facts, such as lists specific acts of terrorism they committed. 87.119.178.170 (talk) 13:46, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, we don't need "backs it up with some facts", that's not how we work. This paper [5] however says it was "Deemed to be concerned in terrorism" and that by August 2019 prosecutions had taken place "resulting in 11 successful convictions for membership alongside other offences, specifically three convictions for possessing information likely useful to a person preparing to commit an act of terrorism, and one conviction apiece for inciting racial hatred, distributing a terrorist publication, preparing an act of terrorism and making threats to kill a police officer." But of course those are in the article. There are plenty of articles like [6] and [7]. Doug Weller talk 14:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Restored citation needed, reasons as stated above, plus this - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Contentious_labels 146.255.181.120 (talk) 02:30, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Removed it. Read prvious comment and the source. The cahrges of "distributing a terrorist publication" and "preparing an act of terrorism" are clear. And every terrorist or terrorist organisation can fail your test up to the point they explode their first bomb or harm their first victim! Emeraude (talk) 08:51, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If providing a reference that clearly and actually says that NA is terrorist is so hard, then maybe it isn't terrorist. DO NOT REMOVE CITATION NEEDED UNLESS YOU PROVIDE AT LEAST ONE INLINE REFERENCE FOR "TERRORIST" LABEL. It is kinda required by Wikipedia's own style guide. 146.255.181.120 (talk) 12:19, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The sources and explanation given above by Doug Weller are adequate. Don't reinstate that template. GirthSummit (blether) 12:46, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1. Sources given don't explicitly call NA terrorist. If such source cannot be found, then NA cannot be labeled terrorist. How is this hard to understand? 2. So the "Manual of Style - Contentious labels" does not apply to this article for some unknown reason? Sorry to say but I'm starting to get an impression that I'm dealing with mentally ill people here. I've stated reasons for "citation needed" several times. None of those have been addressed, Doug Weller just added one paper of unknown reliability, which does nothing but references back to the "proscribed terrorist orgs" document. I already gave above the reason, why being in this list does not automatically mean being terrorist. Also it's UK government's opinion, not a fact. 146.255.181.120 (talk) 15:20, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am not persuaded by your arguments. If you comment on other editors' mental health again, I'll block your IP from editing for making personal attacks. GirthSummit (blether) 18:55, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How about you answer my questions instead of threatening me? 146.255.181.120 (talk) 20:22, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't asked any meaningful questions. I haven't threatened you - I have explained what will happen if you continue making personal attacks on other people. GirthSummit (blether) 21:29, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's for me to decide whether you have threatened me or not. As you present like you're some sort of boss around here, knowing the rules and such, you should be able to answer the question: Why doesn't "Manual of Style - Contentious labels" apply to this article? Another one: if a source calling NA "terrorist" cannot be found, why is it labeled "terrorist" here? Why have zealous bigots who patrol this article decided that reference for "terrorist" label is not needed, no matter what? Is the reasoning "nazi, therefore terrorist, obviously, duh"? I have now read many sources for this article, none of those support this label, except some sensationalist headlines in shit tier newspapers. 146.255.181.120 (talk) 07:08, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Referring to other editors as "mentally ill people" is a personal attack. Referring to an editor as "some sort of boss" is a personal attack. Referring to other editors as "zealous bigots" is a personal attack. Stop it. Emeraude (talk) 08:30, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They've been blocked for a month. Doug Weller talk 12:12, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Past Tense

[edit]

The group ceased to exist in 2016, it is inaccurate and inappropriate to speak of it as if it is an existing organisation. Even the prosecutors in court acknowledged that the original group no longer exists. The convictions were based around a series of separate organisations that were deemed to be successor groups. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.168.100 (talk) 10:56, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regradless, the article in the lead says, "It is believed that since its proscription, National Action has organised itself....", i.e. it secretly still exists. I'd have thought that covers it. Emeraude (talk) 16:55, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"It is believed" is not a factual statement and doesn't warrant publishing the misleading claim that the group still exists, which again is in contradiction with what the prosecution has claimed at various related criminal trials.
The article about the Provisional IRA refers to the group in the historic tense even though there's far more evidence that it continues to covertly exist. 194.80.168.100 (talk) 08:27, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Including trials of people who remain members after it wa proscribed...... Emeraude (talk) 07:32, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Remained members in 2017, yes. Is there any indication or evidence that the group still exists? 194.80.168.100 (talk) 10:12, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any that it doesn't?
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:National_Action_(UK)&oldid=1216355822"