Talk:Jack Renshaw (terrorist)
 | Jack Renshaw (terrorist) was nominated as a Social sciences and society good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (January 16, 2022). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg)
Photo
editIf a photo is needed he is 4th from the right here
.JPG)
--Kitchen Knife (talk) 21:19, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
They sneaked in unannounced and then got leathered that day, if I remember correctly. The funniest part was when one got knocked out by a white-hat, then arrested by the police. Is there perhaps scope for an article on pedophilia on the British far right? Both National Action and the EDL were full of nonces. Boynamedsue (talk) 18:48, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Reference to Hope not Hate
editWhat is the reason for the inclusion of his disproven allegations that his phone was hacked by Hope not Hate? I don't see why it warrants inclusion since it was roundly and comprehensively debunked and only adds food for consiprancy theorists to chew on. NBeddoe (talk) 11:50, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
I'd be inclined to include it as his excuse but just say it's a debased claim. As he was obviously lying. Irishpolitical (talk) 10:54, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page.--Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- For those who are interested, the discussion seems to be here: Talk:Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory#RfC_Usage_of_word_"today". I'm.sure why the notification didn't include the link. JezGrove (talk) 20:40, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- There are multiple RfCs at once (which is allowed as per WP:RfC, so I did not link to a specific one. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Jack Renshaw (terrorist)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Vaticidalprophet (talk · contribs) 21:58, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Picking up. Vaticidalprophet 21:58, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
I have serious concerns about this article. This is an extremely sensitive BLP not written with the required sensitivity. Points of particular concern include Youtube citing, an entire paragraph on the subject's "gay dog" with unreliable sourcing, proseline-type decontextualized statements of bad things the subject and organizations connected to him did, and WP:BLPPRIMARY-violating cites to court cases. By my and my source highlighters' count, of the 18 individual sources with works cited in this article, 8 (Vice, Tab, HuffPo, Youtube, Metro, PinkNews, HopeNotHate, and the court records) are at best questionable for an ultra-sensitive BLP. (Of the remainder, one is an explicitly political source and three serve a local area.) Most to all of these sources can be used reliably in many contexts, but basing the BLP of someone imprisoned for life for terrorism and sex offenses around them is absolutely not one such context.
More to the point, it's hard to even call this a biography, rather than an explication of the subject's crimes. Many of our articles on subjects like this are explications of their crimes, which is not in and of itself always bad. Quite often, it's an honest reflection of the sources. (You'd hope better sources than here, but nonetheless.) It is, however, a serious problem at GA level. Biographies should be biographies, discussing the subject's life inside and out and placing it in its proper context. They are not strung-together collections of facts, no matter how awful the facts are. This is simply a list of the things someone has done. It puts almost as many words to the subject's dog licking the penises of other dogs than it does to the subject's childhood. This is an article for a tabloid, not an encyclopedia.
All of this is intensified by the fact this is not the first time the nominator has nominated a clearly problematic BLP on an extremist political figure for GA. The article Alice Butler-Short, created by the nominator, was also nominated at GAN and quickfailed for similar concerns.
I'm quickfailing this article under quickfail criteria #1, due to how far it is from meeting GA criteria. The sourcing is unacceptable, as is the proseline-studded, decontextualized content. More to the point, the article is in clear violation of BLP policy and should probably be brought up at BLPN. Writing the biographies of people notable for horrible crimes is an incredibly sensitive process that has not at all been pulled off here. Vaticidalprophet 00:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)