Talk:Patriotic Alternative/Archive 1

Controversies and lead description

I have restored to a previous version which includes the controversy section and the self-description in the lead. I have also removed the statement about jewish conspiracy theories as I believe that this fails verifiability.

The controversies section contains well sourced and notable information, but the line sourced with a tweet has been removed. I think the description in the lead is acceptable if it is quoted and clearly a self-description as this will maintain a neutral point of view by giving the subject of the article the chance to present its own description.

@AlessandroTiandelli333 and Drmies: I am open to discussion on all of this, please can we discuss instead of going back and forth on revisions? Downfall Vision (talk) 10:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support We should be writing what verifiable media says about a subject. The Yorkshire Tea stuff got national media attention. High-level accusations about "extremism" and "radicalization" should have a consensus among editors aswell. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 11:15, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
• User:AlessandroTiandelli333, please explain why "extremism" should have a consensus among editors if reliable sources say it does. Downfall Vision, that you are open to a discussion is...well, magnanimous, but can you explain why you removed "anti-semitic" from the infobox when it is still in the article? Is this a sore spot, maybe? And no, how a group describes itself is not of importance. Why did you remove their promotion of anti-Jewish conspiracy theories, but you put back in this trivial BS about some tea? No, I am not going to let you water this down. Soman, Muboshgu, am I missing something here? Is some tweeting about some tea of more encyclopedic relevance than promoting a racist canard? Drmies (talk) 13:57, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
• CozyandDozy, I see you've been down this road before with this editor. Downfall vision, I find it odd that you would claim "oh no they're not anti-semitic" in that edit summary, and you just now removed it from the infobox--and yet, here is a quote from the source (footnote 1 in the current version): "It said Patriotic Alternative had 'antisemitism at its core' and played into conspiracy theories claiming Jews are orchestrating the 'replacement' of white Britons." And AllesandroTiandelli, what kind of consensus are we looking for here? Drmies (talk) 14:04, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
• I don't see the need for this tone, let's have a calm and mature discussion. Sorry that I tried to start this conversation offering a polite discussion by making it clear I wanted to reach a fair compromise, next time I'll take a superior tone similar to yours. Is Wikipedia best as an aggressive, confrontational website where people are discouraged from talking to other users, or can we just have a polite conversation? I don't think that antisemitic should be included in the ideology section of the infobox because I don't see that it is a part of their ideology and if you take a look at the edit history you will see that I was actually the editor who added the description of antisemitic to this article, so this accusation that it's some sort of sore spot is a guess at best. Why behave in this immature manner? Have you considered that I'm operating in good faith? You seem to be assuming the opposite. I have explained why I removed the line about promoting antisemitic conspiracy theories; that line was not verifiable with the source that was used. Have you looked at the source that was used for that line? Please let me know if you disagree with me on that. I also removed the line which was sourced by a tweet and this line is not part of this discussion as it obviously does not belong in the article. I think the controversy where the Deputy Leader of the group boycotted a brand over their support of Black Lives Matter and the description of the group as extremist are both important pieces of information. Please try to actually respond to what I've said instead of misdirecting to this tweet which I agree with you on. Please also actually look at the source for the antisemitic canard rather than just assuming it's true and please could you take a more mature tone? Downfall Vision (talk) 14:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
• The "it" in the quote "It said Patriotic Alternative had 'antisemitism at its core' and played into conspiracy theories claiming Jews are orchestrating the 'replacement' of white Britons" is referring to Hope not Hate, which is not a reliable source and should be used in this case with proper attribution only, hence MY my addition of antisemitic in the lead as "has been described as antisemitic". Perhaps we could add the canard accusation with proper attribution? E.g. "PA has been accused by Hope not Hate of promoting antisemitic conspiracy theories." or something similar. The publication in this source did not claim that the group promotes the canard, the publication stated that a bias activist group said that the group play into the canard, so clearly using that source to say that the group promote the canard is flawed.Downfall Vision (talk) 14:22, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
• Btw, I started this discussion specifically to avoid an edit war going back and forth and yet you feel the need to continue editing to make it the version you like more? Why? Very immature and not in the spirit of the project in my opinion. Downfall Vision (talk) 14:27, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@Downfall Vision: you are being patronising and passive-aggressive. Drmies is one of our most respected editors, with about 300,000 edits more than you have. He (and I) have been elected members of the [[WP:Arbitration Committee}} and hold software tools than only a handful of Admmins are allowed to use. Now you can continue to use talk pages without showing good faith to other editors, which doesn't build a collegial atmosphere, or you can strike through your personal comments and just stick to discussions about the article. I know which I'd do if I wanted to be taken seriously. BTW, this article has been on my Watchlist for a long time, which is how I noticed this discussion. Doug Weller talk 15:04, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

• I am sorry if I have come across as patronising, I have only asked for a polite conversation rather than being patronised by Drmies whose response to me on this very talk page clearly assumed bad faith (by implying that I am an antisemite) and did not even show a willingness to engage in conversation. It doesn't matter if somebody is an administrator or how many edits somebody has, they should be polite to other editors. Again, I am sorry if I have come accross as patronising, I merely expect to receive respect I offer to others. I started this discussion assuming good faith and I don't see how that isn't clear from my first statement on this talk page. Sorry if I am upset at unfounded accusations, wouldn't you be? Downfall Vision (talk) 15:27, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • User:Downfall Vision, I don't know where you get that I suggested you were an antisemite. I don't even know you. (And saying that you are open to a discussion--well, this is a collaborative project, where you should always be open to a discussion.) What I DO know is that you kept removing "antisemitic" even though that term is very well sourced. As for your accusations--well, those are yours and yours alone. Doug Weller, I appreciate you, and I hope that you have looked a bit at the content: the antisemitic note seems well-verified to me. (Though, BTW, I'm not convinced of all the terms that are listed in the infobox.) Drmies (talk) 19:39, 20 October 2020 (UTC)