Talk:Reclaim These Streets

	Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality 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.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom

	United Kingdom portal 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.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

[Untitled]

Sorry to anyone who is annoyed at how bad I do the proper formatting and Thank YOU so much to anyone who has time and energy to improve that.Rusl (talk) 02:24, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notability and merging

I think the details of the vigil and the appeal are definitely notable but I'm not convinced the organization itself is outside of these actions. So I guess I'm in favour of merging this into Murder_of_Sarah_Everard#Vigils. Talpedia (talk) 18:22, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

THe article on the murder itslef is already long. So I think it is better to keep this article separate. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:16, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reasonable argument. Should the vigils be split out into their own article? Talpedia (talk) 16:36, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you could argue that either way. I suggest you raise that on the Talk page of the murder article. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:57, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion piece in gal-dem

Tagishsimon (1) gal-dem was a magazine, not a news publication.

(2) WP:RSOPINION says Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. and Otherwise reliable news sources—for example, the website of a major news organization—that publish in a blog-style format for some or all of their content may be as reliable as if published in standard news article format. gal-dem is not an ‘otherwise reliable news source’ – there is no reason whatever to believe that it was reliable as a news publication. The general practice on Wikipedia is not to use opinion pieces as sources for facts.

(3) Your edit misrepresents what the piece in gal-dem says about use of funds. The opinion piece says: The money, which was gathered to cover Reclaim These Street original vigil’s legal costs, will now be going towards supporting (unspecified) women’s causes around the country instead, alongside cash raised in a separate charitable fundraiser. With appeals by Sisters Uncut for a commitment to share the money met by silence from Reclaim These Streets, it seems that they only regard covering the legal costs of women targeted by police as a worthy cause when it’s members of their own (hastily assembled) coalition. Solidarity indeed. and At the time of writing, not only have they not publicly recognised the work of Sisters, but they’ve also failed to respond to multiple requests for clarification on whether those fined and arrested at Saturday’s vigil will have access to the half a million pounds raised by Reclaim These Streets to cover legal costs. The writer is complaining that Reclaim These Streets is not funding Sisters Uncut (!) Your edit says: raised more than £0.5 million in respect of the event, but have been evasive and unaccountable about the disbursement of this money; and have refused to allocate any of the money raised to support people arrested at the protest which is not justified by the source. The suggestion in your edit that Reclaim These Streets is misusing funds could be interpreted as defamatory of the organisers of Reclaim These Streets, and is a breach of WP:BLP.

(4) Diyora Shadijanova is not a notable person, so her opinion has no significance in its own right, so including it is WP:UNDUE.

(5) See WP:ONUS The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content I am making some amendments to the material you have added, but the material should be deleted entirely. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:46, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear to me that you do not think this organisation should be criticised, and that the article should remain pretty much as a PR for the organisation would like it; bland, fawning and obsequious.

However wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and it should include diverse points of view; here, the POV that there are criticisms to be made of RTS. It is entirelty conventional to include criticism of organisations on WP pages. The critic is a professional journalist, the venue an edited news media ... all well within bounds.

One of the things that makes editing wikipedia so tiring is people who have decided that they WP:OWN pages, and who act as gatekeepers. In your case, you tried to get away with an entirely bogus pair of reasons for removing the entire criticism section. That having failed, you now wish to wikilawer, in green ink, each and every point that you think supports your position, as if, for instance, the difference between 'magazine' and 'news publication' has any bearing on anything.

When you have to lie, as you did in your first edit summary, to get your way, you have probably objectively jumped the shark, and done as much good as you are every going to do for the article you're 'protecting'. It's probably time for you to step away and trust the process. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:08, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have not answered any of my points. Accusing me of lying, behaving as if I OWN the page, ‘trying to get away with an entirely bogus pair of reasons for removing the entire criticism section’ , and wikilawyering using green ink, is not a substitute for a serious discussion of why this section should or should not be in the article. You should know better than to engage in personal attacks. You also should know that, since I had challenged your addition by reverting it, you should have started a discussion on this Talk page, instead of reverting me.

The fact remains that there is no encyclopaedic value in an opinion of a non-notable person being in this article, and that the ONUS is on you to obtain consensus for its inclusion. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:14, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]