Jump to content

Talk:Unite Against Fascism/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

disputed sources

Snowded, can you explain to me exactly why the reverted sources are disputed. an outline of facts and not opinion would be ideal.I will also be raising an RFC to ensure that we can have as much input as possible into the label resolution and will do this within 24hrs. Thanks for taking the time to bring this to discussions Johnsy88 (talk) 19:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you read the discussion above, the reference to the RS board and the current discussion at the NPOV board. I suggest one forum at a time. --Snowded TALK 20:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Excellent, I will have a good look through today and tomorrow. Johnsy88 (talk) 20:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
I must admit that I thought you had agreed to my compromise solution a few days ago. --Snowded TALK 20:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Johnsy88 in reinserting the disputed content, seems to misunderstand the issue. The Times itself is not disputed. The way it is being used is disputed. It's that a single sentence in a single article out of the Times' 50-article coverage of UAF making a passing mention (it's not at all clear why the Times uses the label even) is not enough sourcing for an unambiguous lede descriptor. It's an issue of WP:WEIGHT. It is simply not the case that UAF is generally described in RS as left-wing or any paraphrase of that. Not only is one sentence in one article pretty insubstantial, other RS of equal standing with the Times describes UAF as having cross-party support - i.e. that it is not exclusively "left-wing". That neutrality is the issue at hand, and not the Times newspaper itself, has been reinforced by outside input. In addition, Snowded is correct in saying that if there is no consensus, the material should stay out, not in. It is disappointing that certain editors appear to be ignoring this, much as they ignore the RS against the label, and the broad thrust of all the outside input so far.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 01:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Disagree. See no reason to recycle the arguments though. Please see this page along with the noticeboards.Cptnono (talk) 01:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
With what do you disagree? That the BBC and the Guardian are RS? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I have already provided all the reasoning. Just ignoring that it is not enough. But I do second the comment regarding why it makes sense that it was a "passing mention". Dont recall who said it but it was over at the noticeboard.Cptnono (talk) 02:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
This is yet another example of an editor refusing to engage in discussion. At no point has cptnono ever addressed the issue of weight or of RS that counters the Times. The argument at another noticeboard was "because it's barely mentioned, it must be true". Which is insanely silly.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Two noticeboards and this discussion page. It has been responded to.Cptnono (talk) 02:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Cptnono: I'm looking at your comments here and I have to say I find it hard to work out what you are trying to communicate. Do you think the passing reference in the Times is enough to support the POV that sees the UAF as "left-wing", or do you prefer the POV that an organisation with support across the political spectrum should not be characterised according to far-right propaganda plus a passing reference in the Times (I'll admit that's not entirley neutral phrasing of the question, but it is the one that needs answering). --FormerIP (talk) 02:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I believe that there has been enough RS calling them "left-wing" to use it as a definitive label per previous precedent across the project on multiple articles. I agree a likely reason that they are called "left-wing" with little reasoning provided is because there is no actual dispute. I agree that some of the associated organizations and people provide even further proof to the label.
Those sources have been rejected at RSN. The input from outside noticeboards has been from people saying it's a matter of weighting and that the Times is not enough for a lede descriptor (that's five editors at RSN and one extra at NPOV, against one canvassed POV editor making the insanely silly argument referenced above). Cptnono hasn't presented any arguments addressing the issue of weight despite repeated requests, and other editors pushing the issue have also failed to do so. I think it's actually about time we just reverted to the pre-"left-wing" version. The results are in. It's simply sour grapes to continue on like this.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
For anyone interested in understanding cptnono's methods, at the same time that he is insisting that a single mention in the Times is enough for a lede descriptor, despite being contradicted by RS, he's over defending radical rightist Glenn Beck against the use of CNN as a source for uncontested facts, claiming the issue has been "overblown". In other words, he does know what weight is, he just chooses not to apply it when it suits his POV. This doesn't speak of much respect for other editors.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
So now we are going down the road of ad hominem and red herring stuff again, huh? That is low. There is more than the Times. I provided three myself and someone else provided even more. So don't misrepresent it. Left wing is mentioned enough to mention it. And if you were paying attention to my edits here, you would have noticed that I have actually expressed concerns with the use of labels as a definitive statement in the first line. However, it has precedent and until the project stops doing it I see no reason for this article to get special treatment especially when there isn't a dispute. Did I miss a formal rebuttal from the group or an RS or is it just Wikipedia editors who disagree with the label?Cptnono (talk) 03:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
There is no special treatment. Undisputed RS disagrees on the label (Times on one side, BBC and Guardian on the other), ergo it cannot be used in the first sentence. It's really simple. If you are trying to attach a label as a way of protesting against labels (which your comments regarding the EDL strongly suggest) then don't be WP:POINTy but instead take it up on a policy page. By the way, what are your three sources? So many silly ones have been proposed, it's difficult to know. The Daily Mail was rejected as a source on RSN as either unreliable or at best not carrying enough weight. Express was out. The Daily Star too. Business Post was said not to support the lede. Pakistan.tv rejected. And I've come in from the outside too, remember. Incidentally, ad hominem doesn't include criticism of editing patterns. If you don't edit consistently, don't complain when it's pointed out.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I missed it then! That could certainly change my view on it. Would you mind providing the link again? The ones I provided were:[1][2][3]. There are others someone else provided and a Google News archive search turns up a handful. Some of them do not apply the label directly to the group but certainly allude to it:[4][5]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8091605.stm].Cptnono (talk) 03:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The discussion is here: wp:RSN#Times and IBTimes RS. Nuujinn describes the Mail as not carrying enough weight, and s1p1 rejects the Mail as non RS. Both reject the Express. slp1 says Sunday Business Post doesn't support the lede statement. Itsmejudith sees contradictory sourcing (The BBC article you cite describes UAF as having cross-party support, and the Guardian article as having successfully created a movement with a broad spectrum of support beyond the left) and rejects the label as undue. Jayjg says it's a bad idea to have a label if RS is contradictory. Fladrif says there is enough sourcing to mention "left-wing" once (so clearly not in the lede's first sentence descriptor). And I also came from outside (so that's six, not five), and wouldn't touch the Mail with a bargepole for sourcing on immigration issues (as they make stuff up and misreport on a regular basis on this topic, forfeiting any RS status), or on anything to do with the UAF chair Ken Livingstone. The Mail openly loathes him (it's a mutual, open feud), and this also has affected their ability to report without error or invention. WP:LABEL requires widespread use. In the Times itself "left-wing" is used only once in nearly 50 articles. In no other standard UK news RS (BBC, Guardian, Independent, Telegraph, Channel 4 news (ITN), reuters) is it used at all to describe the UAF. The Northern Echo reference hasn't been discussed, but it seems even less weighty than the Times, and doesn't overcome the fact that more detailed analyses in RS contradict these two. None of the outside editors have supported the label. That's pretty convincing.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I know where the discussion is but what link do you have to an RS that disputes the label? You see what you want to see. Cptnono (talk) 04:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC) 216.157.197.218 says they are reliable. Snowded did not challenge the times source per his own wording. Jayjg (thinks the Times is acceptable. Collect is OK with it. -Slp1 says it is not an RS dispute. Slatersteven provided even more sources. Nuujinn agreed with one of the sources. Fladrif says it is not an RS issue. VsevolodKrolikov says it is about undue weight not RS. Itsmejudith says the Times is RS. Do you need the time stamps?Cptnono (talk) 04:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Collect (the section starter for pity's sake) and slatersteven are not from outside, and the rest you just clean misrepresent on the quality of your sources. You've been given the contrary RS. Enough already. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Cptnono simply doesn't want to accept the community result. He refused to abide by WP:BRD on the first round, and now seeks to prevent change by obduracy. My view is the article should be changed back and if Collect (or any other editor) chooses to edit war then their behaviour should be reported to ANI. Going to yet another forum is time-wasting. There is also a possibility that this article could be considred to fall under the sanctions outlined in WP:DIGWUREN --Snowded TALK 06:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't see how Digwuren applies here. Digwuren refers to the topic of Eastern Europe. Apart from that, I agree. The outside input is pretty clear, policy is very clear (WP:LABEL is simply not being met), there is evidence of WP:POINTy editing as well as a hell of a lot of studied WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and refusal to engage in discussion. Some of the attempts at sourcing indicate google-mining to promote a POV, which is not what we should be WP:HERE for. Add to that, the dispute is about the inclusion, rather than the exclusion of material, so attempts to re-insert without consensus would be faulty editing.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
In the context of another discussion Sandstein suggested that Digwuren has been extended to general disruptive right wing editing. However I think we can deal with this directly via ANI if needed. I've restored the agreed position twice now so it needs someone else to implement the community agreement and then see if one of the disruptive editors is prepared to risk community sanction. --Snowded TALK 06:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I've changed the article to what seems best to reflect the outside input as well as wikipedia policy. The way it's now phrased, I wouldn't object to the Mail being used as well as the Times, given the Mail's wide readership.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I think that is fine, its similar to the compromise I proposed some time ago. Hopefully other editors will see sense. --Snowded TALK 07:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Stop throwing rocks in glass houses, Snowded. You have edit warred and misrepresented the community consensus to suit your wishes. I actually don't mind the recent edit, though. I don't know about "some" and "occasionally" since it seems redundant with a twinge of POV. I assume there will be no objection to doing something similar over at EDL? The two subjects are obviously in the same topic area so the neutrality issue is compounded.Cptnono (talk) 11:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
If you want to raise an RfC on my behaviour Cptnono feel free, I'll happily let the facts speak for themselves. --Snowded TALK 11:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
RfCs would be deferrable to making such charges on the talk page. Just don't do that. One interesting ting is that three editors wanting to remove the line have resorted o such comments while I have not seen them from those wishing to have it in. There is obviously something wrong and it is a disgusting tactic. So just stop it. And would you mind answering my question?Cptnono (talk) 11:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
As I say Cptnono raise an RfC, of course it means your own behaviour will also be examined. As to your question you are the one linking the articles. If you propose a change on EDL I'll happily look at it. --Snowded TALK 11:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
My behavior here has been perfectly acceptable. Yours has not been. I am not going to start that drama. I am simply letting you know that when you make accusations like that on the talk page it comes across underhanded. So just don't do it anymore. And depending on what happens with the recent revert I will open up another discussion about EDL.Cptnono (talk) 12:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I've reviewed my comments Cptnono and I can't see any that I wouldn't repeat in the same circumstances.--Snowded TALK 12:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Someone just reverted. I don't mind that either. By the way, where is the link for the group disputing that they are left wing. Without that this is still a waste of time but someone said one was provided so I don't mind waiting.Cptnono (talk) 11:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

failed verification template

Use this tag only if a source is given, you have checked the source, and found that the source says something other than what is contained in the text, or for whatever reason is illegible or unreadable. Explain in detail on the talk page. If the source given is an unreachable website, use [dead link] instead. Which is quite clear. Collect (talk) 21:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

You've read the results at the RS forum Collect. I used that tag to avoid edit warring with obdurate editors. --Snowded TALK 21:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
the above editor clearly seems to have applied the tag as a precautionary measure against edit warring but it is factually ill placed so would probably be best left out of the article Johnsy88 (talk) 21:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Tags which are not used in accordance with the explicit instructions on the template page are ill-chosen. Collect (talk) 23:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Again, the "dubious/discuss" tag is the correct one for the argument being presented. I diasagree with it still but the right tag seems best.Cptnono (talk) 03:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Contentious labels

The assumption that the left wing label is contentious when it clearly is not is explained here. The label is part of an article that does not attack in any way the UAF. it simply states in the source "Left-wing groups including Unite Against Fascism were alerted to the march and were able to organise a counter demonstration" ---- This is neither purposely inflammatory nor contentious due to the fact it is written in a neutral method simply making the reader of the article aware that "left wing Groups" Including UAF we alerted to the march.

... cult, racist, perverted, sect, fundamentalist, heretic, extremist, denialist, terrorist, freedom fighter, pseudo-, -gate, controversial ...pur

Shortcut: WP:LABEL

Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. (purposely inflammatory comments)

The prefix pseudo- indicates that something is ""false or spurious"", which may be debatable. The suffix -gate suggests the existence of a scandal. Use these in articles only when they are in wide use externally, with in-text attribution if in doubt. When using controversial, give readers enough information to know what the controversy is about. Make sure, as well, that reliable sources establish the existence of a controversy and that the term is not used to grant a fringe viewpoint undue weight. ------------ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnsy88 (talk • contribs) 12:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources but one editor said he provided a link from RS where UAF disputes the label. Even if it is a primary I could understand. Can you please provide that link again since this is the third time asked? Like usual, without the whole topic area getting straightened out I would rely on precedent to allow such a label.Cptnono (talk) 12:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
many organisations deny their label, such as the english defence league which is clearly a far right organisation but has denied this in press releases, however it is clear for anyone to see that given the fact that they are clearly made up of mostly the far right it is a far right organisation and this is how the media has reported it. the same stands for the UAF with the times article labelling left wing and thus makes it a factual label

Johnsy88 (talk) 12:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

what link would you like cptnono and i will get it for you? Johnsy88 (talk) 12:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for not being clear. VsevolodKrolikov said it was a disputed. I am not seeing any dispute except from a handful of Wikipedia editors. So it does not appear to be "false or spurious" as you mentioned. Cptnono (talk) 12:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I would add the UAF do not deny it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
The why is this even an issue? Cptnono (talk) 13:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Another tough one, it says that left wing rivals were denied tickets and then goes on to quote the UAF. But does not actually say they are left wing. But given context its hard to see how they are not saying the UAF are leftist http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/6408255/BNP-members-allowed-in-Question-Time-audience.html. This one seems a bit more precise its asks why do the left effectively promotes the BNP such as UAF (effectively). This says that being a member of the UAF ticks the box as part of the loony left http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100021953/the-home-of-labours-loony-left-is-to-become-a-strip-club-how-appropriate/ (it’s a blog but it is by a columnist). http://www.newstatesman.com/200512120020 says its “supposedly” broad front and says (in the following sentence) that the Trots (Trotskyites) had started a whispering campaign against Searchlight.Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Slater, the New Statesman article is certainly interesting. I think along with the Guardian article there is the beginnings of a paragraph on the role of the SWP within UAF (although right now there's too many dots we'd have to join ourselves without further sources). That's where, if we're interested in a balanced encyclopedia, all this speculation about alignment and SWP influence should go, rather than in the first sentence, which jumps in and takes sides.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I should add that the Telegraph blog isn't much good. If being a supporter of UAF is a tickbox for the loony left, it includes David Cameron, Teddy Taylor, Martyn Smith and Peter Bottomley, amongst others. Clearly grounds for not treating it seriously.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Agree on a possible paragraph about the SWP and UAF if properly sourced. Anti-facist groups back in the 70's also had documented issues with Trotskyite entryism. I'm not aware of any update in the New Stateman since that article which is several years old now.--Snowded TALK 14:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Another source. Peter Tatchels views [[6]] a left wing magazine, so even the left consider UAF leftist.Slatersteven (talk) 15:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Just to note: per WP:RS, op-ed material should not be used in support of unattributed statements of fact. I don't think scrabbling around and coming back with sub-par sourcing helps your case. It just makes your POV-pushing more apparent. What we have is various sources that indicate different things about the left-right character of the UAF. A majority of their support comes from the left, but they also have significant support from across the political spectrum, including from senior Conservatives and Lib Dems. That's the obvious and undeniable reality and it is what the article should reflect. Edit-warring in an attempt to present a half-representation of the true picture is clearly out-of-order. It's depressing to see editors engaging in propaganising on behalf of the far-right instead of writing an encylopaedia. --FormerIP (talk) 16:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
The right, not the far right as you'll like to add to the other side of the group, imo this lot are as far extreme as their chosen opponents, just the direct opposite. Off2riorob (talk) 16:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Rob, if you have sourcing to that effect, you can provide it. Thus far presented, there are fewer RS clearly describing the UAF as left wing than you or I have fingers on one hand. The EDL and BNP on the other hand, go into more fingers than all of the editors on this page have combined and then doubled. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I just came here to note the situation. If you think I would waste any more of my time against a goup aligned in favour of this group you are mistaken, I have moved on, you guys are all still here. Off2riorob (talk) 17:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I would point out that the Op-edd piece is not the only source for this, its another source. It demonstrates that this view is held acrros a wide political spectrum and has been stated by multiple sources some of which are indisputably RS.Slatersteven (talk) 17:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
You sure look like you're here, Rob... --FormerIP (talk) 17:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Just came to say hello to all the usual suspects. NPOV is the only way wikipedia can be the educational tool it is the vision of. It won't change the world by having it reflect one POV or the other, it needs to reflect the uninvolved position. When I sit and often the BNP comes on telly to be reported, it is always as a right wing group and yet all the users that support far right group are all here crying about this group being called left wing, hilarious. Off2riorob (talk) 17:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
The comparison with EDL is useful. The term "far right" has a clear meaning and we can find sources that explain what it means and why the EDL is "far right". The term "left-wing" has a clear meaning as well, and we can find no sources that explain why UAF is left-wing. Xenophobic nationalism combined with violence, the raison d-etre of the EDL is by definition far right. Opposition to fascism is not by definition left-wing. TFD (talk) 17:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Yea, right, go ahead. as I see it, this groups violent opposition to free speech is in itself fascist. Off2riorob (talk) 17:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
They have been called left wing by RS, we do not need to kn ow why they think they are RS, just that they do.Slatersteven (talk) 17:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

An other source a bit iffy but its just to demonstrate this is not a fringe view held by just the Times. http://www.hudson-ny.org/1562/english-defense-league ‘conservative think tank’? Bit right of that I think’ (by the way should we use this to start a homophonic section? http://www.petertatchell.net/politics/sacranie.htm).Slatersteven (talk) 17:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

This looks like a blog, is it?Slatersteven (talk) 17:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't think its reliable but it is reflective of a position that returns quite a lot of google returns. Also while am here, that peter thatchall cite is a primary and you shouldn't imo use it to start any section. Off2riorob (talk) 17:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I would disagree, we could say that 'according to Peter Tatchel the UAF has allied itslelf with Muslim homophobes". The we could work to find nay better sourcing. He has made the accustion.Slatersteven (talk) 17:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Self published source only good for opinions and comments about himself, no assertion of independent notability. Off2riorob (talk) 18:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
IS there a source that disputes the label and makes it contentious yet? So far there is no dispute by the group or commentators. It is only here. If a source is found then I can understand the concern but until then this is a waste of time.Cptnono (talk) 21:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

removal of reliably sourced material which was status quo for more than a week

I see no reason to wholesale delete reliably sourced information from multiple RS sources on the basis that "I have not agreed to it" or the like as a rationale. If the material is reliably sourced, live with it. The diff is [7] wiith the odd edit summary of "lets just restore the position when it went to the NPOV notice board shall we - we still have to resolve things there)" which would only make sense if there were some claim at all that the sources are somehow not RS. Unfortunately, they are definitely and absolutely RS, and removal of the material is absolutely a POV removal. Collect (talk) 17:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The removed material was inserted just before an admin protected the article and was never discussed. It would be normal while something is at the NPOV notice board for the content to be left as is until the dispute is resolved. As to the RS issue it is a nonsense to say that the text reflects the sources given (to take one example) that we only have one Times reference out of many which says left wing, all the other don't. The Daily Mail is not an RS as already established etc. etc. Weight is the issue at the RS and NPOV boards. I suspect behaviour will become an issue at ANI --Snowded TALK 17:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
The Daily Mail is definitely an RS source, and I do not recall anyone suggesting that a fact must be in multiple articles from each RS source :). I have revisited this at RSN, which is the proper procedure. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 18:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
The Mail is a tabloid not a broadsheet. The last RS discussion established that one passing reference in the Times was not enough per WP:WEIGHT and of course (as ever) you have not addressed the issue of process --Snowded TALK 18:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
The format of a newspaper does not determine whether it is RS or not -- The Times is now in very much a "tabloid" format, for that matter. Nor did anyone at RS/N state that the page format was the issue. The fact is that the sentence is as neutral in form as is conceivable, and I wish you would accept that. Meanwhile, let us see what others say at RS/N. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 18:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
As has been explained to you before, in the UK the terms Broadsheet and Tabloid only refer to the historical paper format not the current one. In general broadsheets (The Times, The Guardian, The Telegraph and the Independent) are considered RS as they put effort into editorial checking etc. The sentence is not neutral, the best that can be said is that some sources sometimes label it as left wing.--Snowded TALK 19:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Replying to unsigned comment: The Daily Mail certainly does "fact checking" and has "editors" as well. In the US, "tabloid" refers to "supermarket weeklies" as a rule. And I daresay "left wing" is not an "epithet" either. Collect (talk) 18:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Trivial use of a term cherry-picked from thousands of articles is really bad scholarship. The concern I have is that we do not write this article from the point of view of the far right, that seeks to discredit its detractors as left-wing etc. TFD (talk) 18:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Eh? The Times is "far right" in your opinion, then? The term at issue is "left wing" and not "far left" or "radical left" or "extreme left" at all -- just a simple "left wing." Much as the Labour Party (UK) is described as "centre-left" and "left wing." Unless, of course, the Labour Party is only called that by right-wing nuts? Collect (talk) 19:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
The Labour Party is called left-wing because it was established with left-wing objectives, maintains those goals and restricts membership to people who share them. It does not for example allow members of the Conservative party to become members. The UAF on the other hand has only one policy, opposition to fascism. Supporters of the EDL and BNP consider that to be left-wing. The fact that the UAF has occassionally been referred to as left-wing means nothing, any more than the fact that Donald Cameron has been called left-wing, right-wing and centrist means anything. BTW Collect, you claim that the political spectrum is meaningless, so it is ironic that you would be agreement with this labelling. TFD (talk) 19:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
The UAF is formed by the SWP. Really - the SWP says so. As for my position - it is consistent across all discussions - the use of "far", "extreme" or "radical" should be avoided entirely. And that "fascism" has been described by reliable sources as "left, right and centre" as is shown by the simple fact that reliable sources have used that precise phrase. I do not know why the simple fact that The Times has used "left wing" in the UAF description should be contentious at all. WP policies are clear on all this. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 19:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
The SWP website is only a reliable source for the opionions of the SWP and not for facts about other organizations. Otherwise you could use the SWP website for articles about a wide range of topics. In fact the SWP was only one of a number of organizations and people who founded UAF. You are using the same argument that conspiracy theorists use about the UN - the USSR was a founding member, therefore the UN is Communist. The fact that BNP and EDL supporters can find a few references to UAF as left-wing is irrelevant. TFD (talk) 19:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Try dealing with what I write, and not straw issues. The SWP is RS for what the SWP has started as an organization. It is not RS for statements about other organizations. As for claiming that I say the UN is Communist - that is the height of silliness and I would ask you redact that false claim, as well as any impitation that I am a "conspiracy theorist." Really! Collect (talk) 19:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
As you can see from the signatories to the founding statement, few if any belonged to the SWP.[8] The SWP was only one of several organizations that took part in the founding. While you may make logical connections, that is considered to be original research, and we need reliable sources that make these connections. The SWP website is not a reliable source for other organizations and I hope you do not use it for other articles. TFD (talk) 20:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
(ec)Um -- read WP:OR. It is not OR to use a single reliable source for a claim. OR is when you make a claim which is not found in a reliable source. The SWP is a reliable source for itself and the organizations it starts as far as the fact of starting them is concerned. Using the SWP source is not "OR" under any circumstances, and it is non-utile to turn this into a Monty Python skit. Nor did I use the SWP as a source for any edit, so that is another strawman issue. Collect (talk) 20:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
And the SWP web site is a reliable source for the claims of the SWP but not for the reliability of those claims. They have a long track record of claiming origination or control of multi-party groups. TFD's UN example is a very good illustration of the lack of logic in your argument COllect --Snowded TALK 20:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Cite for that particular claim that the SWP routinely lies about groups it starts? That would require an RS to be sure. Collect (talk) 20:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
If I decide to edit the SWP article Collect then I will find one. For the moment the simple fact remains that the SWP web site is only a source for their claims not for the reliability of those claims. Again I think this is something you know very well--Snowded TALK 20:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
And the RS and NPOV reference links here in the latest posting resolved that we should go back to the long term stable position that it was not labeled as left wing. However when that was put in place it was immediately reverted. --Snowded TALK 19:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
I find no such "result". Nor "resolution." And since the topic is scarce an hour old, I would expect that some more people will join in in any case. Collect (talk) 19:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
LOL, the topic is several weeks old as you well know Collect --Snowded TALK 19:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
And the current discussion is how old when you say it is "resolved"? Collect (talk) 19:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Collect this is not a new topic, its a consequence of your and other editors failure to accept the result of the previous one which has not yet been closed off. --Snowded TALK 19:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Enough already. The prior discussion was ARCHIVED. Which, I suggest, means it was, indeed, "closed off." Collect (talk) 19:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
No Collect, it means there was no activity for a period. The result stands, The issue is the refusal of Johnsy88 to accept that (at least he was the one who did the revert. To be fair you didn't revert that, you tried to reduce its impact with the insert of the text currently under dispute. Now if Johnsy88 or you remove the label "left wing" then I'll happily accept this one as a new subject Otherwise its a matter of spending the time to bundle up the various results and discussions and post to ANI for resolution. I'm not doing that until after Christmas. --Snowded TALK 20:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
HO HO HO merry Christmas editors of UAF article, Hopefully we can bicker less in the new year[citation needed] :D Johnsy88 (talk) 19:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
If you stop blind reverting after extended discussion on the RS notice board I'm sure there will be less disputes. --Snowded TALK 20:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Way forward

I'd like to respond to the positive movement by Johnsy88 above

  • We return to this edit which reflected the RS notice board position and the fact that there are 1/2 refererences
  • We add in to that "Concern has also been expressed about SWP involvement" with a reference to the Guardian.

That way we have respect for WP:WEIGHT we reflect the concerns about far left infiltration and we report that there are some references. Nothing like the volume on the EDL article (see the discussions between myself and Slater there). --Snowded TALK 05:09, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Unlike the EDL, this description is not disputed by the group. Since it isn't disputed by the group there should be no problem. However, if some editors think that it is derogatory for whatever reason then I will go back to my original comments about EDL for the UAF: There is nothing wrong with a line saying ""xxx has been described y as by b" or "xxx is often/sometimes called b" and so on. The double standard is bad enough but since it is the same topic area not treating them similarly is a glaring NPOV violation. LABEL (for EDL) is clear enough. I don't know what guideline applies to UAF (since WEIGHT is meaningless until there is a counterargument from a primary from reliable source) but you guys care so much I would love to be on board with making everyone happy.Cptnono (talk) 05:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Cpotno, when did you stop beating your wife? Mo ainm~Talk 10:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
When on earth has this been a polite way of talking to people. Please don't attack people Alexandre8 (talk) 20:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Be very careful with this line of reasoning. It is not correct to say There is nothing wrong with a line saying ""xxx has been described y as by b" or "xxx is often/sometimes called b". Suppose Y says "the moon is made of paper" or some such nonsense. There is absolutely no justification for including this comment in the article on the moon, or paper. (Though there may be a case for including it in the article on Y!) We must always take note of the degree of authority exhibited by Y in making his statement before including it, and if he is clearly talking bollocks or is a lone voice against an otherwise unanimous body of expert opinion then it is unacceptable. Emeraude (talk) 10:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The Times, Daily Mail, Sunday Business Post, International Business Times and other news organisations have described the group as "left-wing".[1][2][3][4] seems quite neutral enough to me. And danged accurate in its language. "Some" always strikes me as a WTA. Collect (talk) 11:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I oppose the inclusion of the sentence, "Some media outlets have occasionally referred to the organisation as "left-wing"". If the reference in media to UAF as left-wing were notable then we would find this observation made in reliable sources. Otherwise it is just our own original research. We can always find sources to back up any POV. Collect actually agreed with me when I argued against calling the John Birch Society "far right" because that is not how it is normally described in academic literature. Neutrality requires us to show the same standards whatever we think about an organization. And I do not think we should use labels such as left, right except when it is absolutely clear what meaning we intend them to have. TFD (talk) 14:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Can I ask those who wish to apply the 'left-wing' label to UAF whether they are proposing this as a general Wikipedia standard? If so, I look forward to finding sources to describe the US Republican Party, the UK Conservative party etc as 'right-wing', which presumably they will have no objections to. (Of course, we can then have a glorious edit-war over what label to apply to the US Democratic Party - I'd go with centre-right myself). AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
(ec)The UK Conservatives are, indeed, called "centre-right" in their article. The US Republican Party is labelled "center-right" as well. The UK Labour Party is labelled "centre-left". The US Democratic Party has a slew of ideologies listed, including "center-left." Nuff said. Collect (talk) 15:26, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Since the Pledge of Allegiance to the American flag was written by a socialist, Francis Bellamy, perhaps, following Collect's reasoning, we could add "left-wing" or "socialist" before every mention of it in every article. TFD (talk) 15:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Only if RS sources so state. Meanwhile we can call Bellamy a "socialist" according to the 19th century definition he used. Collect (talk) 15:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
So then your comment, "The UAF is formed by the SWP" is just a red herring. TFD (talk) 15:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
I should have stated "The SWP states that it formed the UAF" which is a sourceable statement. Indeed, I had thought this was clear - but I am happy to remove any doubt you might have. Collect (talk) 16:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
See Self-published and questionable sources: "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves... so long as: 2.it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities)." TFD (talk) 16:29, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Precisely - the SWP is RS for anything it says about itself -- which includes the fact it asserts it started UAF. Thanks for making this eminently clear. Collect (talk) 16:56, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
What we could do (and I would question its inclusion in the lead) is write that (assuming the source says it) "The SWP claims to have established UAF".Slatersteven (talk) 17:09, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Why, since it appears to be untrue, should the fact that the SWP claims to have started UAF be of relevance to this article? It might well be relevant to an article on the SWP, but since when have articles included statements merely so they can be denied? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:11, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
So if Collect posts that he is Napoleon or Jesus or the King, then we can enter those "facts" into those articles, because Collect is rs for himself. TFD (talk) 18:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Try not to make snide comments about editors. If an organization on its official site says that it started something, then the claim is that "Organization A states that it started Organization B" which is proper under WP:RS and WP:V. The "fact" is that SWP states it started UAF. Period. I trust this is clear. Collect (talk) 21:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Well they did not start it, which is why we require reliable sources for claims. As I pointed out, anyone may make any claim and that does not mean we stick this into articles. TFD (talk) 21:28, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Thats not what I said.Slatersteven (talk) 18:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
As I bleive I have said on many occasions. I oppose any non-self applied labels being used in info boxes or leads. I also ask that idf tehy are we apply the saem standerds to all such inclusions.Slatersteven (talk) 15:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Can someone actually provide a link to where the SWP is claiming to have formed UAF? It isn't anywhere obvious on their website, and I'd like to see what they actually say. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I think its reasonable (if sourced) to include the SWP claim but it has to be part of a balanced edit. The Guardian piece is more balanced that the Searchlight claim (I reversed that as its too one sided at the moment) but both have validity here. I come back to my proposal above which would mean

  1. Removing the "left wing" label in the lede per the RS, NPOV discussion
  2. Include in the lede towards the end the fact that there have been some references to "left wing", Some is the most that can be sustained and is a compromise. We can't say the Times says they are left wing when it does not use that label in 39 out of 40 articles on the subject. Equally it would be wrong to ignore the fact that that the UAF is accused of being left wing
  3. We need something on the SWP - the most reliable source here is the Guardian and we should use that, we should also note that the UAF and Searchlight have fallen out, but not just quote the accusations of one side.

We need to agree that or something else on the talk page as a whole --Snowded TALK 19:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Balance measn we put all views in. Has a counter view to the Searchlight accusation been made? If its one msided then find the otehr side, don'yt just remove material you don't like (especlay when its sourced to RS). The Searchlight material is a direct accusation. What are your grouinds for rejecting it (beyond its one sided, and if thats the case all one sided sources should be removed)? The UAF and searchlight had a falling out over this issue, its exclusion from the artciel measn we mention what happened but give no background to it.Slatersteven (talk) 19:15, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
The "Searchlight accusation" was misleadingly attributed, see below. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:35, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Searchlifght and UAF

Searchlight is an RS, the material was attributed to them why therefore was it removed?Slatersteven (talk) 19:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

See above post. Searchlight is in conflict with the UAF having previously supported it so we need to be careful not to just quote one side --Snowded TALK 19:11, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
If you have a quote from the other side include it, but that does not mean we should remove Searchlights side of why they split. Or a very serious allegation from an left wing RS that discuses in some depth their accusation.Slatersteven (talk) 19:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
We need to agree a balanced post - that is going to need a third party source about the split, not just the views of one party. As I suggest the Guardian piece expresses concerns so that is a starting point. But its also all part of the left wing issue so we need to resolve it as a whole. --Snowded TALK 21:28, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm confused. Searchlight was considered RS for the EDL even though it disagrees with the group. So it should be RS here, right?Cptnono (talk) 21:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
We can use Searchlight for their version. Yes we can have only one view, if thats the only view expressed. Do you have UAF's view? Balance and NPOV do nbot require us to put both views, but all expressed significant views. Yet again material is being excised from thjis artciel based on the idea that if the UAF ignore an accusation then we can. Now we are even being told that we cannot put one side of an argument between two parites if the other side refuses to comment. N or is it part of the left wing issue, unles you are now admiting that the Seachlight piece (a very reputable RS, according to a number of edds on this page including I belive snow) actualy does call them left wing, in an artciel about their aims and politics (as well as tactics). An anti-fascist and left of centre publication. Moreover we menmtion the split, we should also explain why.Slatersteven (talk) 01:27, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
This is nonsense. Searchlight cannot be a third-party source for events it was involved in itself. Unless this has been reported in an external RS, using their version alone is clearly a POV violation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:21, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
It is part of the left wing issue Slater, as the accusation from Searchlight is that a far left group (the SWP) has taken it over. Andy is correct, if the Daily Telegraph was involved in a major libel action then we would treat it differently in respect of that action. No one wants to exclude the SWP issue, but neither should we just take one aspect of that. We also need to get all this wrapped up together. --Snowded TALK 04:38, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
An editor has written, "Searchlight magazine have said that...." This is sourced to a response by the Bradford and Keighley TUC published in Searchlight magazine to UAF's attack on their anti-fascist campaign at a 2005 GMB conference. Searchlight writes, "Searchlight has given Bradford and Keighley TUC an opportunity to answer their critics".[9] Representing this editorial as the view of Searchlight and generalizing beyond UAF's actions in Keighley (in 2005) is misleading. TFD (talk) 14:04, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Interesting point. As it was published by Searchlight (without comment) I assumed (poor I admit) that it represented Searchlights views. I should have wordrd it better, So
"Bradford and Keighley TUC have said that the UAF’s real purpose is “probably an attempt to recruit Asian youth to the Socialist Workers Party”. And has accused them of disguising campaign work for George Galloways Respect party as anti-fascism campaigning.[5]", this of course was published in a third party RS.Slatersteven (talk) 14:09, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
And how exactly are Bradford and Keighley TUC's views on UAF (from 5 years ago) sufficiently important to merit inclusion in the article? Given the low level of participation in local TUC affairs, you may be basing the whole thing on the opinions of a few individuals. There can be no justification whatsoever for including this (and incidentally, the SWP is no longer involved with Respect, as I understand it) . AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:19, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
It is only a reliable source for the author's opinion. TFD (talk) 14:22, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

More SWP/UAF sources: workersliberty.org Whilst remaining — obviously, ostentatiously — an SWP front, UAF has been endorsed and tolerated by union leaders as a convenient, tokenistic gesture. [10], Socialist Party Again we agree, but it was his party that, just weeks ago, knowingly organised a national Unite Against Fascism demonstration on the same day, time and venue as Socialism 2010 [11], Times Higher Education [12] Knowing the SWP's long history of acting as incubus to transform legitimate anti-fascist organisations into recruiting fronts (a technique it employed over two incarnations of the Anti-Nazi League) I was suspicious, to say the least. Minimal further research suggests that UAF is at least worryingly close to being such a front. [13] It is rarely stated but widely known that bodies such as Unite Against Fascism and the Stop the War campaign are Socialist Workers Party front organisations. , SWP [14] announcing the UAF. International Committee of the Fourth International [15] The pseudo-left groups all participated in the mobilisation behind a Labour vote championed by Searchlight magazine’s “Hope not Hate” campaign and the TUC-sponsored Unite Against Fascism, led by the Socialist Workers Party and the Labour Party’s black sections SWP [16] is also actively involved in campaigns such as Unite Against Fascism, Defend Council Housing, the Campaign against Climate Change Not a single "Searchlight" one to quibble over. Collect (talk) 15:10, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Your first source is a blog on the Alliance for Workers' Liberty's website. You should read reliable sources that explains the limitations of this type of source. Do you believe for example to explain politics in the United States? Most of your other sources appear to support the mainstream view that SWP was one of the organizations that founded the UAF, along with groups and individuals from accross the political spectrum (except the far right). TFD (talk) 15:31, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Actually Pete Radcliff has a separate blog on that site -- this is a column by him. Read the difference between "column" and "blog." He was, in fact, a candidate for Parliament in Nottingham on the AWL line [17]. Collect (talk) 20:22, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
The AWL is "is a tiny ex-Trotskyist sect, numbering maybe 100 people... fast moving to the right as it abandons any pretence at internationalism and support for the oppressed of the world". They sound like neoconservatives. TFD (talk) 20:51, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
In short "size matters" and a small organization can never be an RS? I do not think neoconservatives are often Trotskyites who advocate common ownership :). YMMV it seems. Mr. Radcliff has received over a thousand votes in a single constituency in the UK -- so the idea that the entire group numbers only about a hundred total (or under 1/4 of a person per MP) seems a tad off -- perhaps a comment by an opponent of the group? I looked and looked and can not find a statement in WP:RS that "publications from small groups can not be RS" at all. Maybe you can show me the place where it says that? Collect (talk) 20:59, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
They are called neo-conservatives because they moved from Trotskyism to conservatism. TFD (talk) 21:29, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Standing as a Socialist Alliance candidate in 2001 (the SWP was part of that alliance), Radcliff got 1,137 votes (Nottingham east constituency) (result). In 2005, standing as a Socialist Green Unity Coalition he got 373 votes [18], and doesn't seem to have stood in the 2010 general election at all. Not much evidence for AWL support... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:35, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Likely more than 1/4 of a voter, I would suggest. And the claim that the AWL is "neoconservative" is unsourced for a really simple reason :). Collect (talk) 21:40, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps we should get the opinion of the Official Monster Raving Loony Party on this issue. Their best election results have been higher than Pete Radcliff's. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:57, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Not in a single district AFAICT. And this is far afield from the objection that a column is a "blog" for some reason, or that the AWL is "neoconservative" for which no source has been given at all. Collect (talk) 22:47, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
"District"? And regardless of what the AWL's politics are, they aren't RS for anything other than their own opinions. How about discussing sources that matter, rather than dragging ourselves into every obscure corner of British politics? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:09, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/aug/09/fighting-racism-united-we-stand (its been established that comment is free pages are RS) “The fallout centred on the Socialist Workers party, and its perceived influence over UAF. As a result Searchlight and its supporters left UAF.” So we have a third party RS saying seachlight left due to the influence of SWP. |I have re-aaed it according to BRD, as it’s a new sources and third party. I have also re-worded it to refelct the new sources claims. I would aske that those who are so fond of shouting BRD obey it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

That is the Guardian reference that we have talked about using in a sentence on the UAF and SWP to be combined with the resolution of the "left wing" label. Please propose wordings here so we can agree then rather than just moving to direct edits to the article. BRD means that if its it reverted you discuss it, you don't just be bold again but wait for consensus --Snowded TALK 21:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned ref

...to organizations supporting UAF fixed with the addition of appropriate content. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 21:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

POV Pushing

I thought you all might all be interested in this sugestion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Advocacy/Noticeboard.Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Should Unite Against Fascism (UAF) be described in the lead as "left-wing"?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Brief summary: The consensus of the discussion(s) opposes using the label 'left-wing' in the lead. Extended close explanation below.

To emphasize what this RFC is about: The question posed is whether the label 'left-wing' should be used in the lead.

The argument against using it in the lead is focused on the issue of undue weight. This argument claims that while there are some reliable sources that use the term 'left-wing' in reference to Unite Against Fascism, they are relatively few in number and use the label in passing without exploring the question of political classification in any depth. Since the lead is supposed to "summarize the most important points" about the subject (as stated in WP:LEAD), a label that is supported only weakly in a few sources is not appropriate content for a lead. This argument does not hold that the use of the label cannot be discussed anywhere in the article or that there is absolutely no reliable source that uses it, only that they are inadequate to support inclusion of it in the lead.

The primary argument in support of including the label is that some reliable sources do use the it, and the label is not explicitly contradicted by other sources. Other articles with political labeling in the lead are pointed to as indications that it is common Wikipedia practice to accept this type of label based on a similar level of sourcing.

Several other arguments are explored in the discussion that have little significance for deciding this question. Arguments about whether the organization actually is "left-wing" (as reflected in claims about who founded it and/or supports it) run afoul of the "verifiability, not truth" policy. Arguments about whether the term is derogatory are also not pertinent, as content is not ruled in or out based on whether it is derogatory (excepting certain claims about living individuals per WP:BLP, which is not applicable to the labeling of an organization). Arguments about whether edit warring occurred are also irrelevant and belong at a venue for discussing editor behavior, not this RFC.

Having reviewed all of the discussion below, along with the related discussions cited by Snowded in the first discussion bullet below, the argument opposing use of this label in the lead has both the greater number of editors and the stronger argument. Burden of proof typically lies on those requesting inclusion of material, and while the supporters of using the label have made a decent case that there are sufficient sources to justify mentioning it in the article, they have not successfully countered the argument that the use of the label lacks enough weight within the sources to justify inclusion in the lead. --RL0919 (talk) 04:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Should Unite Against Fascism (UAF) be described in the lead as "left-wing"? TFD (talk) 20:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose Since the UAF was set up with support from across the political spectrum, including the Left and Conservatives and has no agenda other than opposition to groups it considers to be fascist, in particular the British National Party and the English Defence League, describing it as "left-wing" is POV. While a handful of references have been found in newspapers that call it left-wing, these references are rare considering that thousands of articles have been written about the UAF. The BNP and EDL have tried to portray all their opponents as left-wing, and I do not believe that this article should present their POV. TFD (talk) 20:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support As already stated in previous statement in discussion the sources are reliable. the views that the sources for left-wing label as not reliable are simply POV statements which ignore clear printed facts and do not consider the clear fact that 4 news organisations of which 3 are trusted and 1 is disputable have labelled the organisation as left-wing. If such a label were to arise for any up and coming organisation that considered itself non-political but was labelled by 3 or 4 sources as right-wing the sources would be accepted. Also as stated before the "UAF was created in collaboration with the TUC (open Left-Wing Union), the T&G/Unite (open Left-Wing Union), The Socialist Workers Party (open Far-Left), Chaired by Livingston (open Left-Wing), Supported by Weynan Bennett (open Far-Left Socialist Workers Party executive member),Supported by Billy Hayes (open Left-Wing trade unionist), Lee Jasper (A supporter and colleague/Close friend of Ken Livingston), and Peter Hain (open Left-Wing Labour Politician). Johnsy88 (talk) 20:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Also supported by Conservative Prime Minister Donald Cameron, Conservative Monday Club vice-president Sir Teddy Taylor and numerous other leading Conservatives. TFD (talk) 20:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
its supporters make no difference. anyone can support a good cause and this does not mean that by supporting it you are giving up your beliefs. You could give money to the salvation army for example (which is a Christian organisation) and do the same each year and not necessarily consider yourself a Christian but a believer in philanthropy.another example... The pope recently visited the Arch bishop of Canterbury and was warmly welcomed but this did not make the arch bishop a catholic or the pop an Anglican. The simple fact is that in the view of Cameron and the others you mentioned, they support the UAF because the perceive them to be a good cause in the fight against the perceived rise against fascism. this does not change their political alliance nor the UAF's members Johnsy88 (talk) 20:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment This is a poorly framed question. At issue here is that some reliables sources view it as "left-wing"(see refs associated with the text in question here). WP:NPOV requires us to include all viewpoints with due weight. I don't see that this text is in any way given undue weight and the lead should only state "which some view as "left-wing"", or something along those lines, and this view point detailed in the body of the article. --Martin (talk) 20:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose but this discussion should be ignored I agree that the question could be framed better, and so I don't think the outcome of this discussion will necessarily be trustworthy as a guide to what to do about the article. Sorry, TFD. For what it's worth, from all the discussions that have been held over this, it seems to me that there is already a clear consensus that the term "left-wing" should not be used in the lead without attribution. It's just that we have a minority opposed to this view who are unlikely to shut up whatever happens. --FormerIP (talk) 21:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Prior stable state did not include the label, no consensus has ever been reached to insert it, its only there as a result of edit warring. Discussion at RS and NPOV notice boards shows a clear majority (especially of previously uninvolved editors) to the effect that there the quoted sources fail to establish the label per WP:Weight. There is only one passing reference in The Times and no mention of "left wing" in 48 other articles in the Times on the same subject. There are no other uses of "left wing" in the main stream British Press or in any academic article or any book. Per FormerIP this matter has been resolved and its only edit warring by a small number of determined editors which is preventing us moving forward. --Snowded TALK 21:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
There is nothing in WP:RS which says that facts can only be included if a RS uses the same fact in multiple articles. That is, alas, a straw issue at best. Further, your charges of "edit war" are best applied to those who repeatedly remove sourced material. Collect (talk) 21:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Collect the term was inserted and the insertion and sources were disputed, per WP:BRD it should have been resolved on the talk page. The RS and NPOV references produced a majority of editors saying that regardless of the limited references there was insufficient weight from reliable sources to support the label. Twice now attempts to restore the article to that agreed position have been reverted. Its edit warring plain and simple. --Snowded TALK 21:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
This is an RfC. I suggest you confine yourself to issues for the RfC instead of repeatedly asserting "edit war" which has nought to do with the issues here. Collect (talk) 21:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
It has everything to do with the issue Collect --Snowded TALK 21:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support(ec) with the proviso that the statement that it is called "left wing" be supported by several sources using that term. I would oppose any use of qualifiers such as "far" or the like as requiring a much stronger source than simply using "left wing" which is a mild term in the first place. Excising a simple statement of fact as deemed by reliable sources is silly, to be sure. Collect (talk) 21:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - This is a left wing (far left as far as im concerned) organisation there for it should be described as such in line with the description of its primary rival the right wing English defence league. As long as there are a couple of sources saying left wing there is no problem with it saying it. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose, though the question is so badly framed as to make any conclusion reached here more or less meaningless anyway. In a context like this, an assertion that an organisation is 'left wing' is opinion, and as such doesn't belong in the lede. I'm quite sure that Wikipedia readers are capable of making their own mind up about the politics of UAF, without having to be told by the Times, the Daily Mail or similar sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Right have spent the last hour reading over NPOVN and RSN I have to oppose as the one RS that has been produced to back the assertion that this group is Left Wing doesn't pass the grade IMO as it was a passing mention once out of the 40 or so mentions of the UAF. Also oppose per the reasoning raised by VsevolodKrolikov on the talk page of NPOVN. Mo ainm~Talk 22:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment:Why not add this instead then "Unite Against Fascism is a British anti-fascist, pressure group in Great Britain that has been described by national and international media organisations as politically Left-Wing although the political status of the UAF has not been officially confirmed by the Group" or something to that effect which would then address the POV issue? Johnsy88 (talk) 22:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Pardon? Are you seriously suggesting that because a few newspapers have described UAF as 'left wing', we should attribute this to 'national and international media organisations' in general? And UAF doesn't have to 'officially confirm' anything, beyond it's stated objectives, which are clear and explicit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
First of all thanks for the pedantic reply and complete lack of consideration or digestion for my suggestion andy. As stated at the end of my suggestion i said " or something to that effect" which means that my suggestion is not my formulation of a brand new lead for the article but a suggestion open for discussion and debate in a polite manner. Secondly, by adding something along these lines into the lead and removing the label of "Left Wing" we are clearly stating the the "label" of left-Wing is being applied by the media and not the group itself which is a FACT and an important one at that considering the fact that this is clearly a big issue hence the massive and ongoing discussions that have continued for such a long time over the Label. Adding something to this effect would diffuse the issue, represent the article in a fair and balanced manner which is exactly what WP is trying to achieve.
We are all aware that the UAF doesn't consider itself left wing "officially" much like the EDL doesn't consider itself Far right when it clearly is being made up of ex combat 18 and the national front or Scientology not considering itself a cult when some evidence points out that it is. What we should do is make an article that is fair and balanced and by Compromising we can achieve this. However it seems quite apparent that some WP editors wish to have no mention at all of the fact that the UAF has been linked by multiple media sources to the Left wing or been labelled left wing and this in itself is a simple form a denial in its most basic state which looks only to hide a potential truthJohnsy88 (talk) 22:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Johnsy, I think you are partly on the right lines. The material is suitable for inclusion somewhere in the article and it should be attributed. But this is also about weight. If something that's debatable in the first place has been said in passing once by the Mail and once by the Times, does that really make it something that should be given high prominence, or is it something that we should mention later on in context? --FormerIP (talk) 22:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
And a few other RS sources to boot. Not just the two. Collect (talk) 23:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
I believe it should be mentioned in the lead for this simple reason. The whole article comes under the scope of Political pressure groups of the United Kingdom and the article comes under the WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom. The label be it contentious or not (which is clearly under debate) has been mentioned by to my knowledge 3 sources as we all know. The label is of a political persuasion and is also notable because it is considered contentious by some in the UK including the UAF itself which claims to remain neutral so gives readers scope of the politics involved and of the broader spectrum of infighting involved between organisations and pressure groups on both sides in the UK Johnsy88 (talk) 23:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Articles are supposed to be written from a neutral perspective. The BNP and EDL wants to portray all its opponents as left-wing, etc., and I am loathe to go along with this. TFD (talk) 18:53, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose: The WEIGHTing isn't deep enough to make this a clearly cut issue for the lede. Raise in the body in relation to groups who have supported it, period of support, etc, etc. (half of wikipedia's social science issues seem to be concentrated in lede content debates). Fifelfoo (talk) 22:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support: Is the problem the lead or the first sentence? Of course it should be in the lead. Multiple RS, no dispute from the group so it isn't controversial, not a derogatory label (let alone description).Cptnono (talk) 05:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

'::*And that is a problem. You have accepted one of the refs and some of the others you have disputed since they are in tabloid format even though they are RS. And you have still not provided an RS contradicting it so it still doesn't even seem contentious to me still. But that is a repeated argument and gets to my primary concern with this RfC. It appears to be throwing enough poo at the wall to see what will stick. We have had multiple conversations here, at various noticeboards, and now this one. It comes across like if making enough noise and IDIDDNTHEARTHAT to finally get a desired result. It could also just be being really thorough which is never a bad thing. Not sure. This RfC is also problematic since it is worded in a way that sways the debate which is against RfC standards and should actually invalidate it. Editors have also changed their preferance from it not being in the first line to now not being acceptable in the lead at all. Seems a little gamey but I would prefer to not assume the worst so am not going to throw the accusation at anyone. As I have stated multiple times, I see a few options 1) Keep it in the first line since there is no dispute from the group about it. As soon as they do dispute it then option 2)Keep it in the lead with some sort of explanation (z"They have been associated with the left-wing in the British press" or something like that. And option 2.5)The precedent to label a group in the topic area (EDL) needs to be handled since the double standard presents a neutrality issue. It would not be as big of a deal if they were not related articles but giving favor to one group and not the other reads horribly if someone is browsing both articles (which is likely). OPtion 2 should apply to EDL as well. Cptnono (talk) 21:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

When it went to the RS notice board Cptnono it was clear that there was one passing reference in an RS, your other sources came from newspapers with no great reputation for journalistic accuracy. The long standing stable version did not have the label, it was inserted by edit warring at the start of this dispute. This has now gone to NPOV as well as RS and now RfC all with the same result so I agree that IDIDNTHEARTHAT applies. There are no double standards in respect of the EDL article where multiple RS (mainstream British Newspapers) and academic papers say that they are far right. --Snowded TALK 06:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
if sourced to RS then yes. But controverisal and extraordinary claims need extraordianry sourcing. (and if its well-sourced for an infobox, then i dont see why not -- it would be borderline cenosrship)Lihaas (talk) 18:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)).
  • Oppose. When there is a valid dispute about the controversial depiction of a group, we default to a neutral description that can easily be agreed upon by reasonable people. Viriditas (talk) 21:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I think its time to close

OK we had the original insertion of "left wing" which did have consensus, It then went to the RS notice board and a majority were against, the NPOV posting did not change that. Now we have an RfC with a clear majority against "left wing". At no stage has a consensus being established for this change, its been to three forums now. Time to go back to the original wording. --Snowded TALK 12:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

But some seem unable to accept consensus

Sigh, see here --Snowded TALK 07:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

That edit warring report is about edit warring and not consensus. In regards to consensus, consensus finally shiftd back to what you wanted after there was not consensus on three other boards. People got sick of arguing the same thing over and over while the RfC should be invlalidated due to its opening statement and disregard for previous discussions. Furthermore, now it is out of the lead completely when it being a label was the primary argument for those against its inclusion. There are ways to include it but this RfC was a joke. The edit waring is a separate issue though which is why I did not take it to ANI or even the POV board (again) where another case could also be detailed. In the future, you should let an uninvolved admin close something like this out since it is obvious how problematic it was. And as I have already stated, if the revert was made after an uninvolved admin took a look there would not have been an edit warring report.Cptnono (talk) 07:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
There was never consensus to insert the term in the first place Cptnono, I've put it back to the long standing position which is where it should have been left until you and others could establish some evidence to support that could gain community support. The edit warring report smacks of petulance to be honest and/or an attempt at intimidation. I'm more than happy you took it there though, maybe we will get some review of the whole process. --Snowded TALK 07:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I also support the cited description as left wing - hardly controversial is it, and reading the reports seems quite correct. Actually the way they operate and attempt to stifle free speech and have used violence you could easily describe them as fascist themselves, still looking for a reliable citation for that. Off2riorob (talk) 10:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Consensus can not ever override WP policy. WP policy says that RS claims which are properly stated belong in articles as a rule (some BLP exceptions for "contentious claims" which do not apply here). What is happening here is that RS claims made by multiple RS sources, including major UK newspapers, are being deleted under the guise of "consensus." Collect (talk) 11:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I imagine the left wing commies don't want to be associated with such a violent fascist group of bigoted activists. Off2riorob (talk) 11:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
To add my twopence, I'm very surprised that it was lifted after all the sourcing that went into it. Could someone neatly sum up for me how that was managed to be passed? They are left wing and the labelling is not controversial since being left-wing by default is not controversial. Alexandre8 (talk) 13:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Groups are "left wing" if that is how they are described by reliable sources. We do not go through a checklist and make the call ourselves. Do you not understand why they are considered "left wing", or do you merely object to the term?Slatersteven (talk) 14:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
On the other hand we do not begin with search for isolated quotes in order to discredit critics of the BNP and EDL. TFD (talk) 14:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
So what criteria do we use to incldue a label in the lead, OK more then isolated quotes. So letsa aply this to all political labels on all pages shall we.Slatersteven (talk) 14:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
No that is correct TFD and Slaterstephen, User:Snowded has supported cites and opinions from the Daily Mirror that were attacking towards the BNP - the double standards applied is a joke, users that are unable to be NPOV should edit topics they are not so opinionated about. Attempting to keep an article that reflects your POV is severely detrimental to the project and to the educational value of the article, Snowed should stop editing here and the BNP article and allow people to add cited content without a big fuss and claiming this is the consensus version - there is no such thing as a consensus version and such is not an excuse to revert to your favored version. Off2riorob (talk) 16:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
(ec)6+ RS cites != "isolated quotes." Especially when one was a former ally of the group. Meanwhile I would suggest that The description is sourced. TFD (talk) 13:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC) also applies here. Collect (talk) 16:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
You guys are raising the same arguments again that were raised in three separate venues. In each case you failed per WP:WEIGHT, two of you now seem to think that the right tactic is to try and exclude editors per the specious charge of edit warring. If you really feel strongly about this then you may need to refer it to Arbcom and there may be a case for that given the number of these issues over articles associated with the far right. --Snowded TALK 17:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Nope. RS/N found the sources to be reliable sources. So that part is wrong. As for assertions of "undue weight" - the fact is that consensus can not be used to eliminate stuff some editors find inconvenient - the fact that UAF is called "left wing" even by its erstwhile allies! ArbCom, by the way, does not touch "content disputes". Collect (talk) 17:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
RS/N found that one of the sources was reliable, but a "passing reference" with over 40 other articles from the same newspaper not using the term. Editors at the RS/N also thought per WP:WEIGHT that the label should not apply. Armcom does not touch content disputes, but it does deal with behavioral issues where there are long running content disputes. --Snowded TALK 17:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
We should mention that the BNP and EDL and their supporters routinely call their opponents, including Conservatives (and even UKIP) as "left-wing" and "liberal". I will look for a source for this. TFD (talk) 17:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
You mean the ultra-right wing The Times, I suppose? Collect (talk) 17:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
The term is "far right". Please read what I wrote, "the BNP and EDL and their supporters routinely call their opponents, including Conservatives (and even UKIP) as "left-wing" and "liberal". The Times does not routinely call UAF and the Conservatives as "left-wing" and "liberal". By the way, Collect, could you please read the articles about BNP and EDL. I know that you spend a lot of time supporting right-wing groups and people in articles (Palin, Beck, etc.), but you should be aware that the BNP and EDL are far right, not the same thing. TFD (talk) 18:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
The far right wing The Times then? I think that is a bit of a stretch for a person who insisted The description is sourced. TFD (talk) 13:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC) . Don't you agree? As for your claim that I am "right wing" - you do not know me, and I would suggest my edits on Alex Sink and several hundred other BLPs do not support your attempt at characterizing my edits. All I support is WP:NPOV and other WP policies. Collect (talk) 18:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Finding an isolated remark to support a POV about a group is tendentious editing. That it represents the view of the BNP and EDL makes it egregious. You might want to do further research on the BNP and EDL - being opposed to them does not make one ipso facto left-wing. There is a broad political spectrum between them and the Left. TFD (talk) 18:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Can I ask who is calling The Times 'far right wing', Collect? I can't see this anywhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
This so called consensus does not exist. The RFC was unreliable as stated through if you read the comments. consensus needs to be reached to disprove left-wing label before either being removed or remaining in current state. ADD: I would also like to say yet again that this issue can be resolved in some way and a consensus can be reached if users agree on listing in the lead that the UAF are clearly or have clearly been linked to Left-Wing politics by the media which is more factually correctJohnsy88 (talk) 20:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Lets wait for an uninvolved admin to close the RfC and see, the majority is pretty clear. As it Johnsys88, as you should know by now at no stage has a consensus being established to insert Left wing. --Snowded TALK 20:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

(od) And still No consensus can violate WP policy. This means "consensus" can not state that reliably sourced material can be excluded which is relevant to the article. The fact is that a number (not just one) of sources say "left wing", and, contrary to TFD above, [The Times]] is a solid RS source, and is not "far right." Collect (talk) 20:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

All three of the forums who looked at this Collect all considered the policy issues and the nature and balance of the sources. You just don't like the conclusions they reached --Snowded TALK 20:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I think that if we're going by the usual sources like the maintstream papers, the EDL are Right Wing, the BNP are extreme right wing and the UAF are left wing. I mean we really can't be getting into a debate about the papers now, or half the articles on wikipedia would have to be changed. I guess if the "tag" word is mentioned enough, or discussed in some detail in a mainstream paper it's worthy of including in an article. The UAF are in reality two entities. One who marches on paper, and one who marches on the ground. The make up of these two groups are very different. Alexandre8 (talk) 21:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Sadly what you say is correct alexandre8. Johnsy88 (talk) 21:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I think maybe the best way to deal with this would be to source the theoretical split I've proposed just above. I would suit both parties I think. The paper UAF is spans the political sprectrum, but the activists are by and large all left wing. Alexandre8 (talk) 21:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
If you can find sources that draw the conclusion that most activists are left-wing, then please provide it. It would be better however to use more specfic terminology, e.g., are they Trots or wets? TFD (talk) 00:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Alex said nothing of the sort, so asking him for proof of what he did not say is not helpful. Collect (talk) 00:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Collect, no idea what you are talking about, could you please read the discussion before commenting. TFD (talk) 00:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

(od) Alex stated clearly that the activists at UAF are "left wing". From that you decided he has to show that most activists, in general, are left wing. As he did not make such a statement, I suggested that asking him to prove what he did not say was not all that helpful. Clearly you feel that asking him to prove what he did not say is helpful. Thanks for making that clear. Collect (talk) 00:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, you do not appear to be following the discussion. May I suggest that you read it again and comment tomorrow. TFD (talk) 00:53, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
If Alex's proposal can be sourced, then that would be appropriate for the article, although we don't need an analysis of UAF's political alignment in the lead.
Saying that the RS board said a single sources is RS is simply not true. Snowded has asserted it and many sources were questioned but many were ignored or only disputed by Snowded. There are multiple RS that say they are left wing or link them with the left. Although it is not a contentious label (since there has never been any dispute) Wikipedia editors say there is so it cannot be a label. There is an easy fix for that. "The British press has sometimes linked the group with the left wing." or something similar. This shouldn't even be disputed. And since Alex and other have brought up labels, the same can be done for the EDL. I would alter that to say "often" and that it is disputed by the group "The EDL is often called far-right in the British press, but the group disputes this." or something. Both articles should be treated similarly since they are in the same topic area. Wikipedia has shown to much bias on these two groups for a year now.Cptnono (talk) 02:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Your easy fix was suggested as a compromise back on the 14th December but reverted by Collect and Johnsy88. I'm still happy with that along within including a sentence on the SWP issue raised by the Guardian, namely that concerns have been raised about about SWP infiltration. Otherwise the contrast with EDL is a useful one. In the case of the EDL every broadsheet newspaper consistently describe it as far right as do academic papers. In the case of UAF its one broadsheet, and then only in one out of more than forty articles and no academic papers. --Snowded TALK 08:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

(od) I did not "revert" anything - I replaced a weasel word "some" (see Weasel word and WP:WEASEL) with specific media names. Which is fully proper, and correct. Is there a reason why you did not want a claim to be specifically sourced in the claim? Collect (talk) 12:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

You changed it to give a completely different meaning. As Cptnono says its reasonable to say "sometimes linked" but that is about the limit of what can be supported. --Snowded TALK 13:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Snowdeds proposal 14th December is the factually correct way to go with this issue. Stating the link to Left-Wing by the media in this manner is the way forward as i see it because it represents the whole truth as it stands on the issue. Who agrees or disagrees? Johnsy88 (talk) 13:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
We should not edit this article in order to include a fringe view. The signed article in The Times does not say "Some media outlets have occasionally referred to the organisation as "left-wing". It says, "Left-wing groups including Unite Against Fascism were alerted to the march...." Is this mention notable? No. TFD (talk) 14:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
No TFD, I think you should rephrase the above comment to "I dont not think we should edit this article to include a fringe view" because that is your POV and whether you like it or not you cannot deny the verifiability and standing of the times news group as a trusted source and i and i would also expect other will push for the inclusion of the mention of the Left-Wing link by the press to the UAF article because it clearly does exist and has been stated as existing by up to but not including 4 sources. It appears to me that you wish to hide the truth and in no way wish to accept any sort of compromise which in turn drives other editors to edit warring. ADD:Also that is correct that the times have not worded the article in that way. they have simply said the left wing group thus labelling UAF left wingJohnsy88 (talk) 17:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I hate to further warring, but I have to agree with Johnsy on this one, if the Times isn't the best source what is. I think can think of no better mainstream English newspaper which could be seen as more neutral and credible than the Times. Alexandre8 (talk) 18:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I think it's obvious from the above discussion that the reliability of the Times is not disputed and that that is not the issue. The issue is what weight to attach to a passing reference in the Times (I whether to include it as an undisputed fact in the first sentence of the article) when there are other, equally reliable sources that give different indications. --FormerIP (talk) 18:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I couldn't care a less where it is mentioned as long as it is because it gives scope to the media portrayal of the politics involved with the group but TFD will not have mention of it anywhere because of blatant WP:CRUSH on left wing articles Johnsy88 (talk) 19:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
The RfC is about the lead though. Maybe one way forward would be to agree that it shouldn't be included in the lead, close the RfC and then discuss the body of the article. --FormerIP (talk) 19:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
can you link me the rfc please. thanks Johnsy88 (talk) 20:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Its above this Johnsy88. I agree with FormerIP, the RfC is about the lede which settles the lede. We can then look at how to phrase material in the main body which covers the SWP concerns, this is properly referenced and notable if properly phrased. --Snowded TALK 20:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

(od) Whiich would be fine if such a consensus occurred (it did not) and if consensus could override WP policy (it can not). So aside from the two negative aspects which fully negate the claim, your claim would be right. As there are two negating circumstances, the claim is not right. And "proof by iterated assertion" is not a valid logic. Collect (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The talk page, the RS/N, NPOV and RfC have repeatedly considered policy issues as well Collect. --Snowded TALK 20:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Johnsy88, I resent that inference. You may believe that all three major parties in the UK are really one Communist/socialist/fascist party, and hence left-wing, but I do not follow that logic. TFD (talk) 20:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
TFD i could not care a less to be quite frank because as it is clearly shown from the above discussions you are completely unwilling to compromise and so cannot be talked to properly or reasoned with and your apparant lack of understanding when it comes to humour and satire surprises me for such an educated individual.------------------------------------------With regards to snowded comment's i am of the opinion that it does not matter if it is mentioned in the lead of the article. It should however be mentioned in the article regardless and i back this with my comments above. Johnsy88 (talk) 20:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I can agree with that, but would add that it requires discussion about how best to do it. A sub-section on the topic of UAF's political makeup might be appropriate, although some of this information is currently included under the "history" heading. --FormerIP (talk) 20:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
A discussion would definatly be needed to insure that POV is avoided etc and that it pleases all involved parties. A sub-section would be a good idea if supported by a majority. Johnsy88 (talk) 20:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

(od) Noting, of course, that material in sections should be referred to in the lede. That is what a lede is for. Collect (talk) 12:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Lede summarises the content, it doesn't repeat it. Best to sort out the section first then see --Snowded TALK 13:27, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
IOW you feel that material of significance with a section can simply be ignored in the lede? Seems to be a misue of the concept, that. Collect (talk) 13:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't see how you can read that into what I said. The lede summarises the main content, it needs to be a fair summary and pay proper attention to matters of weight. That would necessarily include reference to significant material. However this is premature, first matter is to agree the content for the main section. --Snowded TALK 13:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
for now lets leave the lead and see if we can at least agree a passage ofr the main body.Slatersteven (talk) 14:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't have the weight of sources to be mentioned in the lede and is also information not a summary of the group. gotta agree with snowded on that. Johnsy88 (talk) 16:44, 23 January 2011 (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.


Far Left Communism is a ideology of the far left, the UAF have been seen flying the Communist flags. http://photos-f.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs105.snc3/15328_1302287848956_1583259959_722105_14456_n.jpg

Martin Smith has even spoken at a Marxist Festival http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjWKsNNPZYY —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.17.72.78 (talk) 23:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Protection

I've fully protected the article for two weeks, due to the ongoing revert war. This article was recently discussed at WP:AN3#User:Snowded reported by User:Cptnono (Result: No action). The exchange of views there did not stop the reverting of the article. Please note that an RfC is currently open on how to word the lead of this article and people may still contribute to that. Since the dispute has been raging since November, something to be considered is indefinite full protection of the article, with changes to be allowed only through the {{editprotect}} template. This may be the only practical solution if we can't get a better quality of discussion here, and if the reverts won't stop. EdJohnston (talk) 16:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

With protection and filibustering came a dead conversation. This is ridiculous. How hard is it to create a verifiable sentence for the lead? Editors now say focus on the body which is of course fantastic but that ignores the lead which is an important aspect of the article. Everyone reads an article differently and we still have the POV issue of one article in the topic area LABELING one group while the other gets shuffled down to th body. This is lame. The close made it clear that the LABEL was the probelm. The consensus (no matter how hard editors say otherwise) of the other conversations was nonexistent. So as it stands, the LABEL is no good (even though it was inline with the guideline) but now if everyone ignores the conversation it will just keep on comming back up as IPs start edit wars with a couple editors who patrol this page. SO all of that bickering fixed nothing but instead left the article in an incomplete shape that begs for trouble (as it should). I'm not slighting the admin for locking, just the fact that nothing got fixed during this protection. And the shenanigans were unfortunate.Cptnono (talk) 05:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
We have just had an RfC which came up with a clear statement that the case had not been made for a change to the lede, you may not like that but you have to accept that. I and others have suggested that we include material in the body which relates to the concerns about the SWP per the Guardian quotation. Given the history of edit warring it makes a lot of sense to get agreement to that wording on the talk page. --Snowded TALK 06:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Sources for left wing

Associated press (CP) link to left wing label http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5gSZ_OJk__zLIXKHB0uhIUk7Ad8qA?docId=5862456

ABC (AU) News - http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/02/05/3131007.htm?section=world

Atlanta Journal - http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/uk-police-on-alert-828713.html

Northern Echo (contentious) http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/4426947.Left_wing_group_to_meet/

The Times - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6790067.ece

Hillingdon&Uxbridge Times (contentious) - http://www.hillingdontimes.co.uk/uk_national_news/8285512.BNP_s_Griffin_at_Royal_garden_party/ Johnsy88 (talk) 14:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

A single reference. Hardly useful. AP is not an arbiter of the left-right spectrum; this issue has been discussed ad nauseam and the left wing description is simply not appropriate for an organisation that garners support from a wide range of political positions and has no policies of its own to propose. Emeraude (talk) 14:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Whilst I agree we need more then one source it is not true (as you seem to imply) that this issue is closed for ever, Consensus can change.Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Can you provide a book from the academic press or a peer-reviewed article that explains why the UAF is a left-wing organization? we have done that for the BNP and EDL. TFD (talk) 15:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I was not aware that I have come down on either side of this new debate. I am just pointing out that consensus can change.Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
now now lets not get excited and start getting narky haha. im only listing these to build up a list for a mention in the article of links by the media to the UAF being left wing so can we drop this old argument on mentioning it in the lede and slamming sources before you even know why i have listed them. I will continue to build up this list and then enter discussions as to how this can be included in the article. Johnsy88 (talk) 15:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Might be better to build up the list and publish it as a whole. But in any case, I would refer people to the archives where this issue was thrashed out at considerable length less than two months ago - see here - in the hope that we do not pointlessly go over old ground. Johnsy88 is, of course, well aware of this - he lost then but can't take no for an answer. I doubt that "consensus can change" in 6 weeks! (I've taken the liberty of changing this scetion header to lower case, and retitling - the source is not left wing.) Emeraude (talk) 15:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I seem to recall that the consensus was that it shuolod not be in the lead, not that there should be no mention in the articel.Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Lost? Cant take no for an answer? I dont exactly see what you are getting at but i find your comments quite insulting. As i already stated and as was discussed before their is no reason why their cannot be a mention of the fact the media organisations have touted the UAF as left-wing and no one has even mentioned that this should go into the lede which is what the above editors still seems to think i am trying to push? a consensus was already made that their should be no mention in the lede so why are you lot so defensive on the matter still??. mentioning that media has touted UAF as left wing does not mean in any way that UAF actually are left wing but gives the reader of this political article a background into the method by which the worldwide media have occasionally portrayed them and any idiot who has half a brain cell can clearly see that by adding this into the article will not compromise or insinuate that the UAF are left wing but simply show how certain parts of the media's portray the UAF with regards to a political stance Johnsy88 (talk) 15:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I came across a similar discussion where editors argued that the Queen should be referred to as the "Queen of England" because some newspapers have called her that. (10,300 Google News Archive hits since 2000[19] vs. 1,020 hits for "Queen of the United Kingdom.[20]) TFD (talk) 15:49, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Right well from what you have just put i feel you clearly did not understand my whole point above. I am not trying to label anyone and if you re-read it again you will see this. What i am saying (which i have said for some time) is that you cannot ignore that media outlets have labelled them as Left Wing. Therefore this is of relevance to the article because its part of the Politics of the United Kingdom section of WP. By mentioning this media link in the article is portrays the article in a NPOV and gives the reader the chance to make their mind up as to whether or not they are left-wing or a pressure group or what ever the conclude with their own Brain. Omitting facts from the article to potentially shield readers from coming to one conclusion or the other because you do not agree with it is wrong and acts as a way of dictating a POV to the reader! Johnsy88 (talk) 15:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Something like "The UAF have been portrayed by certain elements of the media as left wing or far left.".Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes something that simple would suffice and has been proposed before Johnsy88 (talk) 16:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
however there would be no mention of far-left as there is not source to support it Johnsy88 (talk) 16:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Source for far left http://uk.ibtimes.com/articles/91592/20101213/english-defence-league-invites-would-be-koran-burner-terry-jones-to-speak-at-rally.htm Slatersteven (talk) 16:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
The relevant policy is WP:WEIGHT: "Neutrality requires that each article...fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint". It is also original research to form conclusions based on the usage of the term "left-wing" unless you have a source that explains it. Incidentally, what do you think these sources mean by the term "left-wing"? Are we talking SWP, Labour Party or David Cameron's Conservatives? Does this provide information about UAF or merely label them? TFD (talk) 16:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Thr will be one sentance (hardley undue) that will just say they have been called left wing and far left. its up to the reader to decide the truth of that (or what it means) we are repporting what RS have said.Slatersteven (talk) 16:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Just to let you know WP:WEIGHT also works in favour of my proposal, due to the fact that adding the media mention of the attribution to left-wing politics being relevant due to the nature of the political article (pol of uk).

With regards to speculation over the meaning of the label, i would not like to dive into my own opinions on the matter but rely on the facts as they are portrayed by 6 varied sources provided above. by adding into the article that multiple media organisations have labelled them as left wing and one as far left is not original research but facts as they stand as reported by media. Why do you appear to be afraid to allow such a mention in this article? is it down to POV because if i believed that strongly in left, right or centre i would not be ashamed to see myself of something i supported labelled with a political stance but see it as an acceptable fact that (be it contentious or not due to POV) supports the media consensus as it stands. Johnsy88 (talk) 16:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

(out) They are trivial references which lack notablity. Why don't you add to the Cameron article that he is a supporter of the far left? TFD (talk) 16:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

They are not trivial sources and that is clearly POV on your part. the sources provided are varied and portray the issue from multiple countries and not just the UK. The notability of the sources provided speaks for themselves if you actually research who they are. However as mentioned in my above posts there are 1 or 2 which are contentious as mentioned before. And i wouldnt mention something like that about david cameron because that would be orginal research but if you can find a source which clearly says "david cameron is a supporter of the left wing/far left UAF then i will gladly add it to his WP Article Johnsy88 (talk) 16:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
WP WEIGHT: --Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents **all significant viewpoints** that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and **avoiding giving undue weight** means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views-- Johnsy88 (talk) 16:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
More sources for left wing
http://www.jewishtribune.ca/TribuneV2/index.php/201101123882/Despite-controversy-EDL-rally-against-political-Islam-goes-on.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1304139/Police-halt-English-Defence-League-march-riot-fears.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-police-on-alert-as-far-right-group-protests-2205429.html
This is not a label we are applying, its a one sentence reference to a wide spread accusation. This clearly does not violate undue weight .Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Ok you will find a new paragraph under history in article where i have added in mention by media. Can you add in new sources on top of others. PS:Jewish tribune is privately owned and very contentious source and i would advise against using it Johnsy88 (talk) 16:53, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I would not add any new sources, the ones we have should be enoough. The purpose of the above sources is to demonstrate that this is not a rare view.Slatersteven (talk) 17:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
okJohnsy88 (talk) 17:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
You cannot present an article about an event in Canada that did not even involve UAF published in the Canadian Jewish Tribune as a notable source for the description of UAF. Ask yourself, if you want to determine the ideology of a British group who you look for a reference in a foreign of limited circulation. This is classic POV-pushing. Rather than identifying proper sources and reflecting what they say, decide what the article should say and data-mine for sources. TFD (talk) 20:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
We have presented many articels, one of which is a dogey Canadian/Jewish source. Besides as far as I am ware we do not disbar opinions becasue they are not from the right country. Indeed this goes some way to show that its not only the British press that think the UAF are left wing. Nor (and I have to say this again) are we saying the UAF are left wing, just that they have been accused of being left wing.Slatersteven (talk) 20:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
This has been explained to you ad naseum. We do not search for sources to support our personal beliefs but we reflect what sources say. TFD (talk) 21:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Which we are. The sources say tehy are left wing, there are a lot of sources that do (and this came about because (in my case) I found sources calling them left wing in an unrealted topic and wonderd why the articel makes no mention of the accusation, AGF please).Slatersteven (talk) 21:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
have to agree with TFD with regards to the Jewish tribune article. it is highly contentious and should not be used. However other than that their is no POV pushing. many media sources have now mentioned that the UAF is left wing and this should of course be represented in the UAF article (But not as a fact that the UAF are left wing) as it represents the broader spectrum of media opinion on the matter with regards to the whole issue Johnsy88 (talk) 21:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)Johnsy88 (talk) 21:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

(op) see AP article discussion below. Collect (talk) 01:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

With two exceptions those sources are all agency reports of demonstrations, We have two broadsheet uses of "left wing" which are both isolated from other reports by those newspapers and again link to reports of demonstrations. Unlike the BNP and EDL we have no academic references that support left wing, or considered comment from the mainstream British Press for that matter. The "far left" reference shows its ignorance with the Cameron link, although I suppose that given many in the US think Obama is a socialist it would not be surprising if they thought Cameron was a Trot. We do have legitimate concern that the UAF is being infiltrated by the SWP (which is far left) and that is supported by the Guardian reference. I have amended the recent addition to reflect these facts and properly used the far left label for the SWP. I think that satisfies the need for the proper use of context and for balance. --Snowded TALK 07:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Guess what the following media outlets have in common (and I should stress that this but a small sample gathered in a few minutes by simple data mining)? BBC News Beds, Herts & Bucks (5 Feb 2011); Luton Today (5 Feb 2011); CNN (5 Feb 2011); Sheffield Star (27 Jan 2011); Hasting & St Leonards Observer (16 Jan 2011); Flintshire Chronicle (27 Jan 2011); Daily Mail online (6 Feb 2011); The Bolton News (13 Jan 2011); Metro (28 Jan 2011); Skegness Standard 4 Feb 2011. None of them, not one, describes the UAF as left wing! (Though they do refer to EDL as [extreme] right wing.) And this is just as valid an augument as put forward by those who have found some articles that do.

People are missing the whole point here. Never mind what (lazy) journalists write, often by merely adding their name to agency reports compiled by equally lazy journalists. We know without their help why the SWP is left wing - it wants workers' control of industry. We know why the French Socialist Party is left wing - it wants greater control of banks. We know why the Bolsheviks were left wing - they wanted to overthrow the Tsar. We know why all sorts of political parties and individuals are left wing - it's in their programmes, policies, agendas. So what is there in the UAF's agenda that is left wing? Er...... Well, nothing really. Go on, find anything in the UAF's programme that is left wing. Other than opposing fascism, which puts them alongside such well known lefties as Roosevelt, Churchill and de Gaulle! (And let's not forget UAF supporter Mr Cameron.)Emeraude (talk) 12:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

An imteresting view not supported by a single WP policy or guideline. Perhaps we should not say "John Doe committed muder at Gnarf Stadium" because he can produce thousands of people who did not see him do it? Alas - courts do not consider having absence of mention be admissible in court when reliable sources do mention a fact, the absence of mention is not even close to denial of a fact. So much for that interesting claim. Collect (talk) 12:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia policies do however distinguish between the quality of sources and their nature. Using Google to create a long list of regional newspapers picking up on one paragraph agency reports does not really stack up against considered investigative journalism and academic articles. --Snowded TALK 12:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Precisely the point I was making. Emeraude (talk) 13:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
The Times, Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph, International Business Times etc. etc. are "regional newspapers"? The AP is a "regional newspaper"? Curiouser and curiouser! Collect (talk) 13:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Not aware that I said they were Collect. If you check the list in the thread above you will find they are all regional newspapers bar the Mail. As to those non-regional sources we have been through this many times before and I see no value in repeating what has already been said for the sole reason that you disagree with it. --Snowded TALK 13:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
So the Daily Mail is not regional, but the AP, The Times, International Business Times and The Telegraph are still "regional." By the way, most newspapers are "regional" if you go that far! The fact is that WP:RS does not make the distinguishment you assert. As for disagreement - asside from you and TFD, most folks accept what the AP states. Collect (talk) 14:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm responding to a long list of regional newspapers Collect, and if you bother to check I did edit the article to say that it had been called left wing, and pulled that one back to the references from Broadsheets - even though in the main those broadsheets do not use the label. I also included the concerns about far left infiltration.--Snowded TALK 14:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I fail to see why we need the line out reporting of demos.Slatersteven (talk) 14:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Cause all the references are to demos, none come from any considered article on the UAF either in the newspapers or the academic press. --Snowded TALK 14:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
The IBT artciel is not about a demmo, but only that they may hold a counter demmo.Slatersteven (talk) 14:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
That is the article which calls it a far left group supported by the leader of the conservative party? I think that damages its credibility a little and it only talks about the UAF in the context of a demo anyway --Snowded TALK 14:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Just becasue he supports their opposition to a rival political party does not change what they may be. Animal rights protests include anti-semites, does that make the animal right campighn anti-semitic?Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
It makes it an animal rights campaign, neither semitic or ant-semitic. The UAF is an antifascist group, it contains people from the far left, that does not make it a far left group (to use your own argument). --Snowded TALK 15:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
But being part of the Animal rights lobby does not mean you are not anti-semitic just becasue others who agree with your support of animal rights are not. So we report what RS say, which we are.Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I think you are hung on your own logic there --Snowded TALK 17:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Notm at all. Having some one say they support one view you hold does not mean that they support all your views. Someone saying that I disagree with that does not mean that they do not disagre (or have other opposing agends) in other areas. Its clear that ther has been accusation that the SWP has attmepted to (or has) hijack the UAF. Others have stated they are a left (or far left) group. Not one source has been provdied where they dent this (or demonstrating that those who initaly supported them still do or disagree with the accusation (or perhaps I should say analysis).Slatersteven (talk) 17:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


I do not unserstand this so I shall ask Snowded are you for or agaisnt inclusion of this material, you sem to be arguing for its exclusion.Slatersteven (talk) 21:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Associated Press article

[21] states clearly and without any equivocation:

Officers formed cordons to separate about 2,000 supporters of the English Defense League from 1,000 members of left-wing group Unite Against Fascism and Muslim organizations marching through Luton, a working-class town near London with a history of racial tension.

The AP is considered a reliable source. Collect (talk) 00:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

They are a reliable source for facts, they lack notability for opinins expressed. Incidentally could you explain to us what the AP considers them to be left-wing and what they mean by the term. Obviously we are here to provide information to readers not label groups. TFD (talk) 00:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Strange that this is the opposite of a usual claim. The article states the UAF position as a matter of fact, and is not an op-ed or opinion column at all. Collect (talk) 01:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Whether or not the UAF is "left-wing" is a matter of opinion. In fact, I cannot think of any article where we would describe groups as left-wing or right wing except for articles about the Right and Left. It is not or role to label organizations or present minority opinions as facts but to leave readers with information, not misinformation and bias. PS, how do your sources define their use of the term left-wing? TFD (talk) 01:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
How do you know how your sources define anything? The term is in common English usage', and presumable the AP uses the term in a manner consistent with common English usage. At least you are not claiming the AP is not RS :). Collect (talk) 01:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
When we assign ideologies to political groups there are sources that are clear in what the terms mean. For example, if we call the Nazi Party fascist, then there are sources that both explain what fascism is and why the Nazis are fascists. If we call the SWP Trotskyist then we can find sources that define Trotskyism and why the SWP is Trotskyist. In most cases political groups actually self-define. If we call the British Conservative Party conservative, then we can find a book about conservatism that says that they are conservative. TFD (talk) 01:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The Australian Associated Press characterise the UAF as "Left-wing" too, see here, while the Jewish Tribune goes even further and characterises the UAF as a "controversial militant left-wing organization". --Martin (talk) 05:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Then you should have no problem in finding a source explaining that UAF is generally seen as "left-wing", explaining what left-wing means and why this description is used, similar to what was provided for the far right groups BNP and EDL. TFD (talk) 05:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
First comment says it all. AP is RS and that is clear. They applied a label much like other RS did. The label is not disputed but we still can simply lay it out in the lead as a description since a label was frowned upon. We could of course use it as a label but that has been rejected. Of course, more and more sources means we could revisit it or editors could instead be satisfied that NPOV and verifiability are both followed.
I think it should be noted that a label is still used at EDL while even a description here is disputed due to the way some are applying policies and guidelines. The double standard is [insert your description here].Cptnono (talk) 09:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I really wish you would stop trying to state this as an RD issue, when it has always been one of WEIGHT. The radical difference between the weight of evidence on BNP and EDL which includes academic material, and that which has been suggested here remains. The standard is consistent, get the equivalent authorities and there will be no opposition --Snowded TALK 09:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
OK, treating this as a Weight issue... are there any reliable sources that apply a different label to UAF? If not, then we must accept that the multiple reliable sources that call it "Left-wing" represent the mainstream, majority view... and mainstream views should be given a fair amount of weight in our articles. Blueboar (talk) 14:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Check out the RfC and other prior discussions on this - all closed very recently --Snowded TALK 14:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Thats a no then. What thre are a sources that say that there is support for the group from a range of political spectrums, none of them discuse what the groups actual political beleif or direction is.Slatersteven (talk) 14:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Well in theory for a multi-party group there should not be a political belief per se, other than the declared goal of being antifascist. You are right however that we do need some articles on the group itself, rather than just reports of activities at demonstrations. --Snowded TALK 14:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Reliable sources say that the UAF is contains supporters from across the political spectrum, from the Socialist Workers Party to the Conservative Party. The Conservatives are only considered to be left-wing by the far right. TFD (talk) 14:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
The IBT is far riihgt, can we have a souirce for tahyt please.Slatersteven (talk) 15:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's be honest, it wouldn't matter if every single member of the UAF was left wing, any more than it would matter if every single member of my bridge club was left wing. The purpose of the bridge club is to play bridge. It has no place on the left-right spectrum, whatever the political views of its members, so to refer to it as left wing is pointless. Similarly with the UAF. It exists to oppose fascism - it has no programme beyond that, just as my bridge club has no programme beyond playing bridge. As I said above, you don't have to be left wing to oppose fascism - ask Churchill, Roosevelt, de Gaulle or David Cameron - all good right wingers. When the UAF issues a manifesto that includes workers' control of industry, nationalisation of the banks, overthrow of the monarchy etc, you can call it left wing. Until then, anyone who does so is (a) wrong and (b) making a political point by using "left wing"as a bogey man type insult. Let me ask you all a couple of simple questions. 1. Are you opposed to fascism? 2. Are you left wing?

Please, either find some evidence from what the UAF says that it has a left wing programme (and that does not mean simply opposing fascism) or accept that the description is entirely inappropriate for such a group, whatever the individual views of its members, never mind its supporters. (POV declaration: I am not a member of UAF, I have not joined it in the streets, I am not a member of a left wing or any other political group. Oh, and actually one of our bridge players is a Tory.) Emeraude (talk) 15:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Actualy there is an accustion out there thats it purpose is th recruit Asian youth into the SWP (published in, but not writen by Searchlight magazine). I would again point out that sourcves have accused them of being left wing.Slatersteven (talk) 15:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
What do you mean by left-wing and why do you think UAF is left-wing? Please show where this is explained in the sources you provided. TFD (talk) 16:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I do not mean anyhitng by left wing, I am repeating what RS say. I donot jusge that I just report it. I agree that the lack of anaylisi means we shuold not give this more then the breifest of mentions. But its clear they have been accused of being left wing.Slatersteven (talk) 16:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
What do the sources mean by left-wing? TFD (talk) 16:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
That they politicaly on the left of Britsh politics. Becasue they have been accused of being a SWP front.Slatersteven (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Where does the AP say they are left-wing because they have been accused of being an SWP front. It seems odd that the AP would report an accusation as fact. TFD (talk) 16:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I was not aware you were asking about one source but all the sources for the claim they are left wing (I of course included those from the discusion aboove you rfer to more then once).Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Well it is briefly mentioned and I can't believe your statement timed at 1617. For a start its not an accusation, its a concern and secondly an accusation of something is not a proof of something. Are you seeking to legitimize switboating? --Snowded TALK 17:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I was not sawre I said it proves anything, I was aware that I had said its been amde (not that it was true). I am not seeking to legitimise anything I am saying that a statment (or accusation, or analysis, or concearn or however you wish to put it) has been made and that therefore we should mention it. I was not aware that that implies I bleive anythying ot endorse it.Slatersteven (talk) 17:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
So instead of saying that there is a concern that SWP dominates the UAF, which is reliably sourced, you would rather the article just say that UAF is left-wing, with no explanation of what that means. Please note that this is an encyclopedia article, not an opinion piece. TFD (talk) 17:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I mwas not aware that on wikipedia we provide definitions of words withiin artiels.Slatersteven (talk) 17:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (words to watch): "Be cautious with expressions that may introduce bias, lack precision, or include offensive terms. Use clear, direct language". One way to avoid ambiguity is to define terms used within the article. In other cases it is clear from the context. In all cases the reader should be able to understand how terms are being used in articles. If they cannot, then it must be re-phrased. How do you plan to resolve the ambiguity here? TFD (talk) 18:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
By doing what we do in most other UK political articels and provide a link to hte wiki page on the subject.Slatersteven (talk) 18:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
The article you would link to, Left-wing politics does not resolve the ambiguity. What part of the article explains what you mean by "left-wing"? TFD (talk) 19:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
‘I’ do not mean anything by it I am only repeating what RS have said. Is there a definition of conservatism in the conservative party article? Is there a definition of what centre left means in the labour party article (indeed it also calls them left-wing, oddly without needing sources or definition hardly an indicator this is a negative label)? There is no evidence that we put definitions of labels in articles.Slatersteven (talk) 19:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Fallacious argument. TFD (talk) 19:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
It does not preculde drawing comparisions.Slatersteven (talk) 20:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no need to provide a definition, please link to the policy which says a defination must be given. There are multiple WP:RS which describe this group as left wing, that is more that enough to use it in this article. They have also been described as Militant and Radical, perhaps that also ought to be mentioned? Tentontunic (talk) 21:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (words to watch): "Be cautious with expressions that may introduce bias, lack precision, or include offensive terms. Use clear, direct language". TFD (talk) 21:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
"Left Wing" is hardly an offensive term, nor does it lack precision. It merely means they are left of center. Please explain how you think the use of the sources provided introduce this perceived bias? Tentontunic (talk) 21:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Cause its the label the far right seek to apply to them despite the fact that they have cross party support. Its an attemptby the far right to mitigate the impact of opposition all major parties of both the right and left. --Snowded TALK 21:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
The sources presented can hardly be called "Right Wing" can they? It does not matter if they have cross party support, that does not mean they are not left wing does it? Many groups get cross party support and are left of center after all. Tentontunic (talk) 21:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Per the previous RfC and other discussions the conclusion was that the balance of sources did not allow UAF to be labeled "left wing" but it could be argued that they had been called left wing in some instances. The current wording of the article reflects that. That aside I can't see how a body which has the leader of the main British right-wing party as one of its supporters and whose declared aims are to oppose fascism can be called left wing, unless of course you are saying that to be anti-fascist is to be left wing? --Snowded TALK 22:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

(op) I hereby state that the "conclusion" of the RfC was not, in my opinion, borne out by any WP policies or guidelines at all, and that the "consensus" was therefore not a valid one (if, indeed, one asserts it existed, which is very unclear). No "consensus" can violate WP policies. With the new cite being explicit, the claim that the usage is pure "opinion" has now failed utterly. Collect (talk) 22:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The RfC was closed by an independent admin, if you are unhappy with that you should take it to ANI. --Snowded TALK 22:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
With respect you have not said what your views on on inclusion of this material are you for or against its inclusion?Slatersteven (talk) 22:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Check my recent edit history on the article, way way back I was happy to say that they had been called left wing and even made a compromise amendment to that effect which was promptly reverted. I more recently included the referenced concerns about SWP infiltration with a modified form of that. --Snowded TALK 22:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
OK thats a yes then. So whaqt we appear to have then is (more or less) consensus for the inclusion of this material.Slatersteven (talk) 22:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
It is an issue of notability - you need to demonstrate that this is a notable opinion. We could mention however that the far right call them left-wing and could probably find reliable sources for that, possibly including their tendentious use of isolated references in mainstream media. TFD (talk) 22:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
(ec)I think the wording I put in reflects the RfC conclusion and previous discussions about including the SWP material. However it is clear from the conversations, before Collect made it explicit a short while ago, that some editors are not willing to accept that. --Snowded TALK 22:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

(op) "Some" = "actual majority expressing an opinion on this topic support the reliable sources". Assertion that an RfC had a conclusion contrary to WP policies is meaningless at bess, and disruptive in any case. Meanwhile, neither you nor TFD has acknowledged that the SWP claim in an SWP site is clear that the SWP was involved in setting up the UAF. IOW, the cite exists, has existed, and continues to exist. Collect (talk) 22:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I do accept that the SWP was involved although I prefer using a reliable source. However you are still using original research. The Soviet Union was involved in setting up the UN, and the far right consider the UN therefore to be communist, but we do not use that reasoning and must use informed opinions on the ideology of the UN. TFD (talk) 23:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Saying what is written in plain English on a cite is not "OR", never has been "OR" and will never be "OR." The misuse of the term makes the commentary impossible for anyone to follow. The SWP says it was prominent in setting up the UAF - simple statement of fact, and calling simple statements of fact "original research" helps no one at all. Collect (talk)
Collect, it is not clear exactly what you are protesting about. The connection between UAF and the SWP is already mentioned in the article. The consensus that was arrived at previously was quite specific: that the sourcing is too weak for UAF to be characterised as left-wing in the opening of the article. If you think the RfC was closed against policy, you should indeed bring it up at ANI.--FormerIP (talk) 23:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I was responding to the anteceding comments by TFD - as he brought this up, you really ought to ask him the motivation in doing so. This section was aimed at determining that the AP and multiple other reliable sources per WP policy can be used to call the UAF "left wing." No consensus can violate WP policy, however. I trust you concur. Collect (talk) 00:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Collect, that's either a hypothetical, in which case let's please instead discuss content, or you believe, as you appear to indicate above, that the RfC was improperly closed, in which case please complain in the appropriate place. --FormerIP (talk) 01:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
My post is clear. I do not grasp the point of your post, however. Are you saying that a "consensus" can overrule clear WP policy about material in an article? Collect (talk) 03:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
No, I'm saying it's a waste of everyone's time to launch a discussion about a source without being clear about why you are presenting the source. Do you have a proposal related to the content of the article? --FormerIP (talk) 03:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
All this talk about policy all of a sudden. No policy, guideline, or the manual of style are circumvented by labeling them or describing them as left. So what is the problem? Of course, the same policies and guidelines are used to label (but not describe) the EDL as right. The UAF has been called left. This is clear enough so why is it not presented clearly in the lead and body? No amount of filibustering will change the fact that multiple RS say it while zero dispute it.Cptnono (talk) 06:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
You could try finding some academic sources that describe the UAF as left Cptnono, there are several for EDL. You could also read up on WP:WEIGHT but you already know that. I think you and Collect simply hope that you if constantly repeat the same point sooner or later everyone else will give up. If either of you think the RfC is against policy then you should take it to ANI or ArbCom, of course then your own editing on this would be open to examination. --Snowded TALK 06:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
The EDL is described as far right because there are academic books and peer-reviewed articles in academic journals that say that there is academic consensus that the EDL is far right, explain what the term far right means and explain why the EDL is far right. If you pick up a current book about the far right in Britain, it will include the EDL. If you read an academic article about the EDL, it will call them far right. Also, the term far right is the lowest level of categorization possible for for some groups, whereas the term Left is never the lowest level of possible categorization. TFD (talk) 06:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Misrepresentation, cherry picking, and ignoring the overall neutrality issue of the topic area. A)Peer reviewed? Besides newspapers and the like nothing such as an academic journal has been presented. If it has, one college student getting something published should not circumvent our neutrality standards. B)"If you pick up a book" Go ahead. So far a book has not been presented. And see the later sentence of point A. C)The RfC was problematic but closed as not allowing a label. The discussion now is how to use ther term to describe them which editors are still against. Furthermore, why can we use a label at EDL and not here when the labels over there are actually contentious? D) Find a source that disputes the description of left or stop arguing.Cptnono (talk) 06:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Ah, the "please prove a negative" argument, coupled with the obfuscating denial tactic. Been there with you several times over the last months and its been a fascinating educational experience of a phenomena I had only read about before.. Please see previous responses and citations/discussions on pages concerned. --Snowded TALK 07:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Ive missed so much!

To be honest i see no issue with the way in which the article refers to the left-wing link now as it reports the facts as they are reported by the relevant news organisations. It does appear to me though that the wording of the paragraph on left-wing/SWP appears almost as a UAF POV distancing sentence and try's to affirm that although the link exists it is not relevant because of X Y and Z. Still needs cleaning up but at least both parties are getting somewhere now. Also the below link has gone so far off track (with regards to addressing the issue raised) i dont really see how it can be of any use at the moment Johnsy88 (talk) 08:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Wording reflects the citation, if you can find another happy to include relevant material --Snowded TALK 10:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
The wording (baring niggles over the need to say its about commentry of demonstrations, hardely a major issue as its technicly correct) reflects what the sources say and the degree to which its said. If (and when) better sourceing is brought up we can re-address this issue I would not ask that its closed for now.Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I've issued this challenge before to those who want to describe the UAF as left wing, but no one has taken it up. Left or right is a handy way of categorising organistions based on their policies, programme and agenda. We can do that quite simply for Labour, Conservative, BNP, Wes]lsh Nats, EDL etc. It's easy: we look at their manifestoes etc, not their people. So, let's have one, just one, policy of the UAF that can described as left wing. Emeraude (talk) 10:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for my late reply. I have no real issue (barring one point) with the way the new addition to the article has been worded however putting the term "However it enjoys support" is a distancing statement and should be considered potential POV due to the fact this does not represent what is said in the BBC source and is original research from the opinion of the editor who created the sentance so i would like to see it reworded/removed . Apart from that i think things are pretty much tied up on the left wing front now and their should be no need to edit the article anymore with regards to applying a potential label unless of course a reliable source etc becomes available.your thoughts? Johnsy88 (talk) 18:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ [22] TimesOnline 10 Aug 2009 "Left-wing groups including Unite Against Fascism "
  2. ^ http://www.sbpost.ie/post/pages/p/story.aspx-qqqt=WORLD-qqqs=news-qqqid=42484-qqqx=1.asp
  3. ^ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1304139/Police-halt-English-Defence-League-march-riot-fears.html
  4. ^ [23] IBTimes 19 Nov 2010 "the left-wing group Unite Against Fascism (of which Prime Minister David Cameron is a supporter)".
  5. ^ http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/index.php?link=template&story=139
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Unite_Against_Fascism/Archive_2&oldid=1136226263"