Talk:Reclaim Australia/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Reclaim Australia. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Untitled
I'm not sure why you don't find it helpful to include information on what the group actually believes in. I would think this would be the point of such an article. Otherwise the page is merely reporting the opinions of journalists who have been too lazy to actually do any research or speak to any group members. It's not outside the bounds of wiki editing rules to occasionally use information that is sourced from the author, especially in a case like this where it is essentially a quote. Your reversal of my edits was not helpful. --Mekinna1 (talk) 18:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Right wing?
I've added a 'By whom?' tag to the paragraph which states that the group's goals aren't right wing. I realise that the definition of right-wing politics used in the paragraph is taken from the Wikipedia page on that topic. But the same Wikipedia page also goes on to say 'The term "right wing" has been used to refer to a number of different political positions through history' which I feel would easily include The Australian Oxford Dictionary (2nd ed., 2004) definition of right wing as being, 'The conservative or reactionary section of society, a political party, etc.'. I'd argue that the stated goals of Reclaim Australia are clearly conservative (goals 16 and 24, for instance) although I'd agree they don't seem to be right-wing in the neoliberal sense. I'm not trying to shut down this aspect of the debate but wonder whether citations could be added please? Has anyone found a reliable source discussing such things? Meticulo (talk) 03:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- Ignore the above - it's redundant since the paragraph in question was deleted by another user on 12 October 2015. Meticulo (talk) 01:08, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Nationalist?
I've also removed the phrase '...who assumes that Reclaim Australia is a nationalist group...' which had been added to the paragraph of analysis from Whitford. I don't want to spark an edit war but think - from the group's stated goals alone - that it's fair to describe it as nationalist. Also, the fact that Whitford is assuming this is implicit in his analysis, and spelling it out in this way smacks of editorialising. Meticulo (talk) 01:03, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Anarchists
Um, 195.16.77.115, I'm unsure why you've removed anarchists from the counter-protesters paragraph. I agree it's a good idea to add the other types of activists (anti-racist and human rights) who aren't necessarily either anarchists or members of the Socialist Alliance but I think 'anarchists' should remain. Your edit summary says you decided to 'remove subjective terms'. However, the term anarchists isn't always subjective, or pejorative - some groups and individuals proudly refer to themselves as such. There is a reliable source - the Vedalago and Gough article from The Age - which states that anarchists were present:
"Right-wing group Reclaim Australia had only just begun its rally at 11am when counter-demonstrators from anti-racism groups and anarchists attempted to breach police lines on Spring Street."
Is this reasonable? What do others think? (I haven't added it back in yet.) Meticulo (talk) 02:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- No response, so I've reinserted 'anarchists'. Meticulo (talk) 11:55, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, it isn't reasonable. Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 06:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Neutrality
I have restored the article to a previous neutral version after many POV edits that painted the organisation in a rather neo-Nazi light. It seemed to be relying on this Triple J article, but I don't see that article giving a basis for the recent edits anyway. StAnselm (talk) 14:03, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Bacondrum: you mention grammatical problems in the current version - obviously, I'm very happy for these to be fixed. What did you have in mind? StAnselm (talk) 22:18, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi, firstly I'd like to say thanks for correcting me on the Australian Conservatives page regarding the use of original research and reliable sources. You helped me improve and understand contributing to wikipedia.
Regarding Reclaim Australia. All change I made were well referenced and done in good faith, the first reference you questioned was one of many used throughout the page that refer to RA as far-right. I'm happy to provide dozens more, but I think the National Broadcaster and two renowned and credible journalists is more than sufficient, but as I said - I can provide dozens of others, why not just ask for a better source? (TripleJ Hack is an ABC news service, the journo's are all credible and respected, it is not a music show or the hottest 100, it is a news service provided by the most respected broadcaster in Australia) You have reverted a large edit arbitrarily. I sat there for hours checking my references and fixing grammatical mistakes, you should have at least read carefully and compared versions before reverting all of that work. All claims are referenced and I can provide hundreds of newspaper articles that refer to them as far right and note that neo Nazis attend and are part of reclaim Australia. If you've got good faith edits to make then do so, But I've been diligent and fair in my editing. Please don't revert again or I will report you for edit warring (I don't want to report you, so please don't force me). The version you've reverted also included unreliable sources which I took a significant amount time fixing. If there is a problem with my references then please let me know (I've provided a short list of credible news sources that refer to them as "far-right" below), I've been sincere in my efforts and I'm willing to work to improve the page.
It is not neutral to ignore widely reported extremist elements within the movement. To ignore the fact that nearly every single article on the subject refers to them as "far-right" and "extreme" and almost all refer to the presence of neo Nazis at RA rallies would demonstrate a cognitive bias. Here are Links to just a small selection (I've come across at least twenty more) of articles that make it clear that Reclaim Australia is a far right hate group associated with neo Nazism:
http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/reclaim-upf-rallies/6995292
http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/the-rise-of-the-far-right/7858282
https://www.northernstar.com.au/news/opinion-lets-reclaim-aust-from-reclaim-aust/2599841/
Thank you. Best regards.
Bacondrum (talk) 23:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
- OK, let's go from the top. I'll grant you "far right". I won't grant you "which draws support from numerous nationalist and neo-Nazi hate groups". That's not in the Triple J article and that's the only one that references the claim. I'm not going to go through all the other articles you've listed above - if there is one that references the claim just tell me what it is. Next thing - you've not a sneaky WP:EASTEREGG link with "opposes Islam" linking to Islamophobia in Australia. If the consensus among neutral, reliable sources is that they're Islamophobic, then we just say that. You see what I mean about non-neutral edits? StAnselm (talk) 23:28, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Almost all of those articles discuss links to nationalist and neo-Nazi hate groups, some in the headlines. You still deleted arbitrarily. Again, I'm editing in good faith and have provided credible sources, unlike the version you reverted to.
Thanks for filling me in on WP:EASTEREGG I did not know about or understand how that worked, I'm still learning. Won't happen again, I appreciate the info. Will go and fix that now.
Best regards Bacondrum (talk) 23:42, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
- Woah - hang on! Only two of the links mention nazis: one of them refer to just a single man, the other says the "Reclaim Australia event was "crashed by neo-nazis". It's hard to go from there to "draws support from numerous nationalist and neo-Nazi hate groups" and even then - it does not appear that RA is encouraging/condoning neo-nazism. And yet that's exactly what your edits are suggesting, what with the sidebars, see also links, etc. You may have spent a long time on your edits, but overall they've made the article worse. StAnselm (talk) 02:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Well now you're just being obnoxious, they almost all mention connections with neo Nazi's, did you read them? I doubt it very much. I just had a quick check and found 9 instances clearly stating a connection between RA and neo nazism, not to mention the 12 mentions of far right and hate groups attending - that was a brief glance, 2 make the connection in their headlines.
I'm fine with the removal of the sidebars. If you have reasonable critiques to make I'm all ears, I'm still learning.
As for your rude insults, anyone with even the most basic grasp of English can see I've improved the article, the article you reverted to had incoherent sentences, poor grammar, shockingly bad references including one from Brietbart and another completely self serving one from RA's own website - appalling by any standard. I now doubt very much that I can take you on good faith. I must assume you are a supporter of RA if you are not then why not help and be constructive, why not suggest improvements rather than reverting without justification to a far worse version? Why be nasty, unless you are personally invested in RA?
I've provided references for all my assertions, if you don't think they cut the mustard then let me know, I will find better ones or remove them.
poor form mate Bacondrum (talk) 04:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
- Actually, you're jumping to conclusions and your strong feelings suggest that you're not in a position to edit the article neutrally. Anyway, specific claims need specific references: giving a whole lot of citations and saying, "the all support the connection" isn't good enough. The two I pointed out above suggest a much weaker connection than what you are arguing. StAnselm (talk) 04:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
What the bloody hell is wrong with the "See also" links? Just admit you are a supporter of RA vandalising content you don't agree with, no need to be insincere.
Bacondrum (talk) 04:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
- If you feel like this, it might be right to step away from this article. In any case, as WP:SEEALSO explains, those links are only those that "would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic". There is no way in the world that such an article would mention Romper Stomper, for example. StAnselm (talk) 04:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
I have no feeling either way about Reclaim Australia. You're deliberately ignoring poorly evidenced assertions in the version you reverted to and ignoring evidence in others. Your cognitive bias is obvious. The director of romper stomper has made it clear that his new series is based to a significant extent on RA and UPF.
I stand by all assertions made, if you can provide evidence that any reference is not credible or does not relates I'll find better sources, but the breadth of reporting on RA's far right and neo-Nazi associations is astounding. Hundreds of credible journos have drawn the connection. I'm acting in good faith, your rude tone and insults are shameful and strongly suggestive of bias.
- See, once again you fail to understand the need for reliable sourcing. You say "The director of romper stomper has made it clear" but you have not provided a source. It isn't even in the Romper Stomper (TV series) article. And that wouldn't explain why the Romper Stomper film article would be included. StAnselm (talk) 12:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
See also section doesn't need references. Why are you so desperate to play down the far-right and neo-Nazi connections. I could provide hundreds of articles, but I'm certain it would have no effect on you.
From wikipedia: "The links in the "See also" section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics."
Romper Stomper (both the movie and the series) explore far right subculture in Australia. Far right subcultures, especially those with demonstrable connections to neo-Nazis, are related as far they should be in regard to the see also section.
Most sources above are different to those referenced on the page. They were given to demonstrate the breadth of reporting that refers to them as far-right and draw connections to Neo-Nazism. RA spplinter group United Patriots front is discussed - this is a far-right group whose leader has called for Hitlers portrait to be hung in all classrooms. I've provided the sources and you belligerently ignore them, because you are unhappy about the Nazi connection for some reason. To ignore the extensive reporting on Nazi attendance would be clear bias. You can't just question neutrality because you don't agree. Again, poor form - Your cognitive bias is plain to see.
Until someone acting in good faith without the kind of cognitive biased displayed by your reverting to a poorly written, self serving version without attempting to reword or act in good faith questions the neutrality, I'm afraid I'm going to have to ignore your clearly desperate and bias attempts to deny demonstrable truths. As for your claims of POV...they are ridiculous, my interest stems from my Honours studies - I was appalled to see the self serving page on Reclaim Australia that existed when I looked them up. That is my only motivation, that they be presented accurately, not some sanitized PR piece by their supporters.
Also, you should not have just reverted without attempting to help improve first. From wikipedia: "If you see a good-faith edit which you feel does not improve the article, make a good faith effort to reword instead of reverting it." You failed to do this, suggesting you didn't care to, you were not acting in good faith from the outset. You're just vandalising a page you don't agree with. I've provided a new reference (one of hundreds that contain similar claims, which you either ignor or don't bother reading) And I've removed your neutrality bar. If a non biased editor comes along and makes the same claims about neutrality I'll respect it 100%, however you've not been acting in good faith and are clearly biased, you're just being petty really. The previous source was just as strong, but I realised The Australian has a paywall, so not all could read and verify claims. The new source is from the Fairfax publication "The Age" one of Australia's most respected news outlets and includes this quote among others that draw the neo-Nazi connection: "Funded by volunteers and organised largely via Facebook, the first and largest such group, Reclaim Australia, attracted large crowds to its early rallies - which included ordinary, worried Australians, but also attracted groups of neo-Nazis and significant counter-protests from the left" [1]
That's a rock solid reference by any standard and I have heaps more that draw the same connection. If you have any more issues then call in a third party, I don't trust you.
Bacondrum (talk) 23:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
- You are flagrantly breaking numerous policies and guidelines - please read them when I link to them. MOS:NOTSEEALSO says not to include links in the "see also" section when they are already in the article; MOS:OVERLINK says not to link to words like "Australia", etc. And you've still made assertions about the Q Society without providing a reference in the article. StAnselm (talk) 01:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- Comment: Posted at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. StAnselm (talk) 01:13, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
I've read them and I'm not breaking the guideline, read them again. Please do not add maintenance templates without satisfactory explanation - references have been provided and you have not demonstrated how they are inadequate. The vexatious addition of POV tags may be considered disruptive editing
You are being vexatious in your editing. I am reporting you for edit warring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bacondrum (talk • contribs) 01:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
References
- ^ "ASIO monitoring of right-wing extremists uncovered alleged plan to attack radical left". the Age. 13 January 2016. Retrieved 3 January 2017.