Talk:Unite Against Fascism/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Whitewashing of the article

I see with disbelief that the article about this hate group is being protected by a team of certain users to remove all kinds of criticism, no matter how relevant or how well-sourced [2], [3]. These were examples from the history.
The material is about the groups cooperation with islamist hate preachers and its 'peculiar understanding' of fascism which means everything critical of Islam is labelled fascist while no islamist - no matter how reactionary - is ever criticized.
These are simple facts that even centre-left newspapers like The Independent point out. How can one possibly claim these things are not relevant? Edit summaries like ″that is a lot if synthesis″, ″Take it to talk″ make absolutely no sense. The 'edit warring' accusation is especially hypocritical because it takes two to tango and if you dislike 'edit warring' than just stop reverting reliably sourced material! There was no 'synthesis', because everything I added was already pointed out by the author, I merely summarized what he was saying.
I understand that for some comrades the truth can hurt at times which is why they want to silence the critics. On the other hand, if you are so supportive of the coalition of the far-left and the islamic zealots, then well, the Russian saying goes народ должен знать своих героев - 'the people has to know its heroes' - such as this Al-Qaida admirer Ali. There's no reason to be ashamed, now is there? Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 11:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out first how to handle your comment above, which seems like a WP:BLP violation on the face of it as it accuses Doreen Lawrence, Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon as being the honorary president of a hate group and a number of other prominent figures as being members or officers. Until you retract that, there's nothing to discuss, or rather further discussion will be at WP:ANI. Dougweller (talk) 15:49, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I am entitled to my opinion with regard to which organizations I consider hate groups and which not. The UAF supporters have both an ideology of hatred against their perceived opponents and they don't shy away from using violence [4]. As you see, even the left-liberal RationalWiki says that. You can start all kinds of threads at ANI or anywhere else, that's your right.
Now, to the real question: what I added in the article has nothing to do with my opinions/characterizations. I did not claim in the article that it is a hate group or anything. Nope. I simply entered reputable views about this organization. There hasn't been a single argument why reliable sources must be removed from the article if they dare to criticize some aspects of this organization. What you guys have been doing here for years is whitewashing this organization. Nothing more, nothing less. I referred to the article on RationalWiki with a reason. It is an example, how a more criticism picture emerges of the organization that is here presented as a totally legitimate and uncontroversial antifascist group.Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 16:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

You need to calm down, stop making wild allegations and start making specific proposals backed up by references for changes to the article ----Snowded ^TALK 17:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

My specific proposal is the text that can be seen in the diff. It's all nicely backed up, only there seem to be some people who don't like it at all.Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 17:48, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

It was mostly synthesis and selective quotation to make a political point. Try and take things one point at a time and argue the case ----Snowded ^TALK 17:53, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Baseless accusations. 'Synthesis' would mean making a point not there in the sources. The summary I gave was accurate and reflected the two sources. You haven't pointed out a single problem with my summary of the articles. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 18:05, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Copied the text disputed here:

Peter Tatchell has condemned UAF for its silence on Islamism. James Bloodworth also criticizes the UAF cooperation with islamists, whom he characterizes as far-right. According to Bloodworth, UAF’s definition of what constitutes fascism is a peculiar one. Those who want to resurrect the Islamic caliphate are not opposed but rather actively welcomed. One of UAF’s vice-chairs is Azad Ali, who works for an offshoot of the far-right Islamist group Jamaat-e-Islami. When asked about their position on islamic fascism, the UAF deny such a thing exists.

Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 18:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok, you want us to use something based on an organisation whose spokesperson is a Communist. And if we do, will we then again get attacked as lefties? Then there's the other problem. Your wording suggests that "When asked about their position on islamic fascism, the UAF deny such a thing exists" is a factual statement, when it's actually a 3rd hand, at least, report. 8 months old.

So I'd say no to the Bloodworth bit. Note that we make it extremely clear about Ali, the lead actually says "One of the UAF vice-chairs is the Islamic fundamentalist Azad Ali, who in 2009 was suspended as a civil servant in the Treasury after he wrote on his blog that as a Muslim he is religiously obliged to kill British soldiers in Iraq."

We could quote Tatchell: "“UAF commendably opposes the BNP and EDL but it is silent about Islamist fascists who promote anti-Semitism, homophobia, sexism and sectarian attacks on non-extremist Muslims. It is time the UAF campaigned against the Islamist far Right as well as against the EDL and BNP far Right.” He seems to be saying the same thing as Bloodworth. And since you presumably have read the Telegraph article you've linked to, you will have noted that it doesn't make the big deal about Michael Adebolajo that you did. I see no reason for him to be in the article at all. As a side-note, RationalWiki isn't a good example of how our article should portray the UAF. Dougweller (talk) 19:22, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd prefer Bloodworth because he's a non-partisan source, Tatchel is an activist; however, I have no objection to mentioning Tatchel, too. I'd like to see proposals for amending my suggestion (seen from the diff), unless anything is proposed to change, I'll re-instate the text again, as no substantiated objection has been made.Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 17:10, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Er, not the way to go. What you need is consensus for the change; that you claim there is "no substantiated objection" is not the same thing. Emeraude (talk) 17:45, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Disagree. If there is no valid objection - and as of now, there is none - then it goes. See WP:IDONTLIKEIT. WP:V and WP:NPOV always trump 'idontlikeit' claims.Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 17:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure where verifiability comes in, and I'm not convinced there is an NPOV issue. WP:CONSENSUS holds unless there is a serious NPOV issue. Dougweller (talk) 18:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree, and most of us have been around too long to fall for that "policy means I can do what I want regardless" ploy ----Snowded ^TALK 18:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Once more, there has been zero legitimate reasons to remove critical views from the article. ZERO! Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_censored.Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 18:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

You are entitled to that opinion, but if you want to make changes you need to convince other editors. The section heading was not a good start and asserting but not arguing for a position is making matters worse. ----Snowded ^TALK 19:13, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Stealing the wreath which had been laid at the war memorial was desecration, it is not necessary to cause any damage to the structure to desecrate it. Urinating on the wreaths or memorial, spitting on the wreaths or memorial and stealing artefacts from the memorial are all considered desecration.

Here are links to 3 UK newspaper stories which clearly describe these type of actions as desecration of a war memorial. There are many more but this should suffice to convince you.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1225880/Revealed-How-war-memorial-desecrated-Britain-week.html http://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/news/teenagers-blamed-for-desecrating-war-memorial-1-6028927 http://www.lynnnews.co.uk/news/local/latest-local-news/desecration-of-fincham-war-memorial-1-5219306

The fact that the reliable source did not mention that is irrelevant. Removing the desecration fact is an act of whitewashing this groups activities.Vanzil (talk) 22:20, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

It's obviously a matter of opinion whether this counts as "desecration" or not. The people who did it would probably argue that it was de-desecration. That the source doesn't say so might be irrelevant, but only because it would still be a matter of opinion. Readers can decide how they feel about it. There's no need to force an point-of-view on them. Formerip (talk) 22:30, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

We obviously disagree on this but the edit was “desecrated the War Memorial in Nelson by removing a wreath“ thereby leaving the reader to decide how severe on the scale of desecration they found it to be. “The reader can make up their own mind” There lies the problem with this whole UAF article, its whitewashed and sanitized and does not give an accurate description of this group and their activities.Vanzil (talk) 00:01, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

The source cited for the sentence that at one time said "descration" was Pendle Today, which did not say the that is was desecration. If you think it should say that the memorial was desecrated, then put the word in inverted commas with a source for it.--Toddy1 (talk) 00:10, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Adding the word desecration is clearly editorializing which is prohibited by WP:NOR. As Formerip wrote, the addition of the wreath could also be considered desecration. I disagree with Toddy as we shouldn't use scare quotes. And my personal opinion is that removing the BNP wreath did not show contempt for the war memorial. Dougweller (talk) 08:35, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

From the Oxford English Dictionary:

"desecration, n.

The action of desecrating, deprivation of sacred or hallowed character, profanation; also, desecrated condition."

"desecrate, v.

1 To take away its consecrated or sacred character from (anything); to treat as not sacred or hallowed; to profane.
2 To divert from a sacred to a profane purpose; to dedicate or devote to something evil.
3 To dismiss or degrade from holy orders."

None of those covers removing a wreath. Emeraude (talk) 12:01, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary, 3 of the 4 covers the removing of a wreath. "to treat as not sacred or hallowed" Clearly going onto the war memorial sorting through the tributes and removing tributes from anyone they disapprove off, in this case the BNP is clearly not treating it as a hollowed place. The same applies to the second line "to treat as not sacred or hallowed" and the 3rd line "To divert from a sacred to profane purpose". They did not quietly remove the wreath, they announced the theft of the wreath as a political victory over the BNP. That is clearly diverting to a profane purpose.

Formeerip did not write "the addition of the wreath could also be considered desecration" formerip wrote "The people who did it would probably argue that it was de-desecration" which is not the same thing at all, I would suggest that only the most extreme of UAF supporters would find the act of a former soldier laying a wreath at a war memorial to be desecration of the memorial.

The phrase "desecrated the War Memorial in Nelson by removing a wreath" is wholly accurate and describes the incident with the correct amount of seriousness, the maximum penalty for this is six months imprisonment, and Parliament are looking to increase this as it is not considered severe enough for the crime. Replacing that with "removed a wreath from the War Memorial in Nelson" is in fact editorialising and downplaying the seriousness of the incident. In other words a whitewash of this groups activities. Vanzil (talk) 13:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Let's put it another way. You have no WP:CONSENSUS to call this desecration. I've added some links for you to read on your talk page and a message about edit warring. Please stop trying to force this into the article. Dougweller (talk) 15:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I am not trying to force anything anywhere, I was attempting through rational discussion to improve the quality of the Wikipedia page through consensus.
On my talk page, you are referring to an edit war, which is non existent, and on this page you are trying to shut down the discussion rather than reach a consensus, that’s confusing. I have added some links on your talk page for you to refresh your knowledge on editing policies and some information on tendentious editing. Thank you Vanzil (talk) 17:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

The source cited does not describe the removal of the wreath as 'desecration' and accordingly, per WP policies, we should not engage in editorialising by describing it as such. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd be interested in knowing how many other editors think I am trying to shut down the discussion - feedback is always useful when it comes from experienced editors. And it's always interesting when someone with less than 35 edits thinks I need to refresh my knowledge on editing policies and TE. Dougweller (talk) 18:23, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Put this in context, I am not referring to your editing in general but your “apparent” strong opinions on this particular subject. Wikipedia specifically warns editors on taking care when they hold strong opinions on the subject matter.
I wasn’t aware that a certain number of edits were required before one could have an opinion, perhaps you would enlighten me as to what that magic number is? Vanzil (talk) 18:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

You need citations for whatever you want to describe it as. In Vanzil's 22:20, 21 June 2014 post he/she gave some links. But none of the links are related to this incident. It is hard to assume good faith when people post irrelevant links as "evidence" to support their case.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:31, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Firstly let me say that I do yield to the majority view, editors who take care to read what is actually said will have noted that I used the past tense in my earlier post. As in “was”, however I must answer some criticisms. There are two threads to this discussion, firstly is it correct to describe this as desecration? The links I posted were in support of the contention that this is indeed desecration, and therefore relevant, and in good faith. Emeraude posted a far better reference with his/her Oxford English dictionary, although wrongly, in my opinion, concluding this did not describe the UAF action. I posted a response arguing it actually did fully describe the UAF action. No editor has contested that conclusion.
The second part is, should it therefore be included in the article? The argument against this is that as the original article did not describe it as desecration, it can never be described as desecration on Wikipedia. I disagree with this interpretation of the policies. The referenced article is a newspaper article and is therefore, by definition, editorialised, it must follow then that if we simply copy and paste the article we have an editorialised page on Wikipedia. In order for the page to not be editorialised the editorialising needs to be removed. Not describing the act as desecration is editorialising and therefore it needs to be described as such in order to de-editorialise the article. As I said I accept that I have been unable to persuade fellow editors to this viewpoint. Vanzil (talk) 21:56, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Reference to the Arrests and Violence section, 2 June 2013 paragraph.
Please re instate my edit as to the reason for this BNP demonstration. The source 36, The London Evening Standard (Link here) describes the reason as -"one of around 60 planned across the country yesterday to mark the death of Drummer Lee Rigby, murdered in Woolwich last month."
I have looked through the new source, 37, The ITV blog (Link here) and can not find anywhere where it gives the reason for the BNP demonstration.
The Independent newspaper also gives the reason as - "one of around 60 planned across the country yesterday to mark the death of Drummer Lee Rigby, murdered in Woolwich last month", (Link here).
Surely we must use the trusted source or sources when giving the reason for the BNP demonstration. It should read "to mark the death of Drummer Lee Rigby, murdered in Woolwich in May" and not "against what the BNP describe as "Islamic hate preachers"." Vanzil (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

The source I added says "BNP to stage rally in London The British National Party (BNP) will stage a planned march today between Old Palace Yard and the Cenotaph in Whitehall, Westminster. In a statement issued on the party's website, it said party members are rallying to force the coalition government to act against Islamic hate preachers." The Telegraph article which was already there as a source says "BNP members had gathered outside the Houses of Parliament on Saturday for a planned march, holding Union Jack flags and calling for "hate preachers out" – a reference to radical Muslim clerics they say should be deported from Britain." You mention the Independent, which does indeed say it was one of 60 rallies planned about Rigby but although we can mention that we cannot simply drop the reason the BNP itself gave, and looking at the Independent we should include "Nick Griffin turned up around two hours later and, addressing reporters, said his supporters had come out to protest peacefully and to oppose any Islamic presence in Britain." That statement is about Islam, not Rigby, right? Dougweller (talk) 15:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

It's quite clear, from the BNP's own website and from Griffin's own mouth, that the main purpose of their action was to oppose Muslims. That they used Lee Rigby as a pretext is not in dispute, but that is exactly what it was, a pretext. Emeraude (talk) 15:45, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

The original source clearly states, as do other national newspapers "The far-right group's march was one of around 60 planned across the country yesterday to mark the death of Drummer Lee Rigby, murdered in Woolwich last month."
You have trawled the Internet to try to find something, anything, to use to denigrate the BNP and by association put the UAF in a better light. "Whitewashing their activities”. The source you have found has headlines which say "Soldiers death wont be isolated incident” quoting” Nick Griffith however you choose to ignore this and pick an older paragraph well down the page in an attempt to justify your POV. You don’t even use the heading which would be "BNP to stage rally in London” and your source actually contradicts your excerpt higher up the page.
This Wikipedia article is not about the BNP it is about the UAF and the section is specifically about UAF arrests and violence. That is what we should be focusing on here. If you want to knock the BNP do that on the BNP page.
The banners and slogans are just that, the UAF slogan is "fight fight fight smash the BNP” but we don’t say in this article that the UAF went there to fight the BNP, even though that is what some of the banners say, that is what they will have been chanting, that is what their website says, and that is why 58 were arrested. You are not applying the same logic to each side of this issue.
This demonstration, and the 59 others, were organised in response to the murder of Lee Rigby, that is clear (I agree they are exploiting it). However as I previously commented, this is not about the BNP its about the UAF. This is what I think the whole paragraph should look like.

On 2 June 2013, 58 anti-fascist demonstrators were arrested by police under Section 14 of the Public Order Act for failing to move up the street away from a BNP demonstration outside the Houses of Parliament. Of the 58 arrested, 5 were charged and their cases were dismissed at Westminster magistrates' court in April 2014 when a key prosecution witness failed to attend.
Any comments or observations? Vanzil (talk) 20:14, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you're still wrong. We should still mention the reason for the BNP demonstration. You haven't given a reason why we shouldn't. Emeraude? Dougweller (talk) 06:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

What's really interesting here is that 58 people were arrested under s14 POA - 53 were never charged (why?), 5 were acquitted, i.e. were not guilty. None was charged with violence. If the trial had gone ahead, the defence would have been that the s14 order itself was unlawful. (One might want to see this in the light of the trials of those arrested at the Balcombe anti-fracking demos last summer. Hundreds arrested, just a few actually charged and most of the charges dismissed in court. There were 12 charges under s14 - all found not guilty, including Caroline Flint MP. The District Judge in the last trial (31 March 2014) held that the s14 order was not valid.) What this all means is that we need an article somewhere about police misuse of legislation to stifle demonstration. To use reports of trumped-up charges that result in not guilty verdicts to suggest that UAF is engaged in violence is totally wrong. Besides, there is no evidence that any of those arrested were UAF members (though they may well have been). The fact remains that the reason for the BNP's demo was to oppose Muslims as Griffin and BNP website state. Lee Rigby was simply a convenient pretext. Emeraude (talk) 09:50, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

UAF and Islamofacism

I put in a cited quote from Bloodworth which shows that these claims cannot simply be dismissed as being by made only Gilligan, i.e. a single source making an uncorroborated claim. Removing this source as here merely encourages POV editing which aims to dismiss these cited claims entirely as here, rather than even present them as being only the views of a single journalist. Why should Bloodworth not be cited?--Flexdream (talk) 16:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Enlightened editor (talk) 12:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC)