Talk:Unite Against Fascism

Change to Introduction

Now that UKIP is being considered a "major party" source it would seem inaccurate to describe UAF as being supported by "all mainstream" parties. Further the second paragraph just appears as a list and does not seem to really help the reader, as all that information is the info box anyway. Further, rather than just stating that Azad Ali is a member it would be better to have a sentence summarising the criticism section, and move the one about Ali to the criticism section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enlightened editor (talk • contribs) 13:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

UKIP is being given some status in television debates but its number of seats (now reduced by one) is a very very small number. If that changes after the general election come back ----Snowded ^TALK 19:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Surely a different form of wording would be appropriate to avoid ambiguity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enlightened editor (talk • contribs) 01:41, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

It has 2 MPs. If it emerges as a major party after the next election, we can revisit the wording. TFD (talk)

Bullshit.Cptnono (talk) 02:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Two parliamentary seats, from by elections, does not make it "mainstream" (Sinn Fein has 5! The Communist Party has had 4!). But even if it was mainstream the proposed edit - "several mainstream parties" - is so highly loaded as to be unacceptable when "all mainstream parties except UKIP" would be more accurate. Emeraude (talk) 10:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

UKIP is also the winner of the most recent European election and is consistently third in UK parliamentary polls. Their number of MPs is only one measure. Plenty of sources are now referring to UKIP as a "mainstream party", indeed this video[2] gives an explanation for how UKIP became a "mainstream" party. Clearly there is no entirely objective way of defining a "mainstream" party, but there seems enough doubt to warrant a change in wording. Enlightened editor (talk) 12:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Negative. If there is "doubt" there is no justifrication. Emeraude (talk) 14:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand your argument here. The current introduction appears deliberately misleading. What is the harm in saying politicians from Labour Lib Dems and Cons support UAF rather than all mainstream parties. Enlightened editor (talk) 15:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Its an accurate summary. If UKIP become a major political party then we can look at it again.----Snowded ^TALK 16:34, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

It clearly isn't an accurate summary when UKIP is being referred to as a mainstream party in sources like the one above. Enlightened editor (talk) 18:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

"Mainstream" can have two meanings. In Wikipedia it normally means accepted in reliable sources, e.g., that climate change is occuring is the mainstream view. It can also mean popular as in climate change denial has gone mainstream. The views defended by UKIP are not mainstream in the first meaning. TFD (talk) 18:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you have quite followed through your point there. Your first definition of mainstream doesn't have much meaning in the arena of politics, when there is vociferous criticism of all political parties by reliable sources. Political views are clearly qualitatively different to scientific facts. Enlightened editor (talk) 13:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, TFD's views are quite clear and refer to Wikipedia's reliance on reliable sources. In dealing with politics we would look to academic journals or books for evidence in exactly the same way as we would with science topics. Regardless of your view, until such time as reliable sources describe UKIP as mainstream, we don't.Emeraude (talk)

Under TFD's first definition of mainstream is it the party itself or the policies of that party that do not make it mainstream? Enlightened editor (talk) 15:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

We've all explained policy on sourcing to you several times. ----Snowded ^TALK 17:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

TFD is raising a different point by talking about a different definition of "mainstream", however after giving this new definition of "mainstream" he has not given examples of how UKIP fails this definition. Snowded your only justification for UKIP not being a mainstream party was that it only had 2 MPs. I pointed out that this was a flawed measure as it did not represent their actual popularity and effect on political discourse, and that the media was referring to them as mainstream. Enlightened editor (talk) 18:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Several different points are being raised to try and explain to you why what you propose breeches Wikipedia rules on sourcing. ----Snowded ^TALK 18:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

No what has actually happened is you have continually brought up straw man arguments and have not engaged with my points. Enlightened editor (talk) 15:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Referring to support from "all" mainstream political parties is, at this point, a clearly controversial and unnecessary generalization. I removed the word. 81.156.185.45 (talk) 12:56, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

It might be "clearly controversial" to you, but who else? You alone are not a consensus. I replaced the word. Emeraude (talk) 14:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

The phrase 'all mainstream' is clear POV and unsupported by a credible source. Who defines 'mainstream' and how can it possibly exclude UKIP who won the Euro elections,participated in the election debates and are polling third across the UK? I consider DUP and Sinn Fein also mainstream as they have ministers in devolved government. Of course if you are a UAF supporter I can then understand why you'd support this POV phrasing.--Flexdream (talk) 21:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Participation in election debates and polling figures in one general election are not really enough. Suggest you wait until after the Election then we can look at it again ----Snowded ^TALK 01:01, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely right. Besides, UKIP did not "win" the Euro elections - they got more votes than any other UK party, which is not the same thing and they are part of a very minor grouping within the European Parliament. I do not think that UKIP's own rhetoric would class them as "mainstream" being based, as it is, in criticism of of all the other parties. Emeraude (talk) 17:19, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Can you please be explicit in your criteria for defining a "mainstream" party and what third party source supports this definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.109.236 (talk) 00:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

'All mainstream' is clearly contentious so needs to be supported by a reliable source, not just by editors giving their own definition of what they think constitutes 'mainstream'. Defining terms yourself is almost the definition of POV, in my opinion ;) --Flexdream (talk) 22:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Common use on mainstream is clear. also we have one named editor and two IPs (both with the same geographical position), so how many editors are we delating with here? ----Snowded ^TALK 03:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

We've had a false comparison to climate change denial and that's it, in terms of defining what mainstream is. Unless you explicitly state the criteria for being a "mainstream" political party you're just pushing a POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.218.142 (talk) 14:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Quote: "'All mainstream' is clearly contentious...". Well, no it's not actually. UKIP constantly differentiates itself from the mainstream parties and has made a great play of this - "they're all as bad as each other" etc. Not surprising; all new parties wanting to grow do this (see National Front, BNP, etc etc etc). Until a party has more than token support in elections (NOT opinion polls) and in Parliament (two seats picked up in unusual circumstances in by elections) it is simply nonsense to describe it as mainstream. It is nothing to do with policies, philosophies or programmes; it's to do with size. Another editor has commented that things may change after the election and indeed they may, but until such time UKIP is not mainstream. Emeraude (talk) 17:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Once again absolutely no third party support provided for this argument. The only justification for using mainstream in this way is if it is commonly used by third party sources. You are yet to provide any of these and are merely POV pushing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.218.142 (talk) 13:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Snowded writes "Common use on mainstream is clear. also we have one named editor and two IPs (both with the same geographical position), so how many editors are we delating with here?" That attempt to substantiate their POV is clearly wrong. I am not the only named editor who contends that UKIP is mainstream. Similarily unconvincing is Emeraude repeating their POV that Westminster representation is relevant but European representation is irrelevant, their POV that UKIP belongs in the same category as the National Front and BNP, and their laughable POV (not shared by OFCOM) that UKIP has 'token support'. Emeraude claims "it's to do with size", which even if accepted is a bizarre justification given that UKIP topped the Euro Elections. Pretending that UKIP is not mainstream is POV pushing.--Flexdream (talk) 23:50, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

You don't determine "mainstream' in one European election with one of the lowest turnouts in history - protest votes have happened in the past as well. Per other comments here, that position may change after the General Election, If that is the case then we can look at again. In the mean time edit warring, before there is consensus for change, is still wrong as is sock puppetry. If you are unhappy with the current consensus then call an RfA ----Snowded ^TALK 04:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

How dare you accuse me of edit warring or of sock puppetry. If those comments were for others then address those others, don't make the accusations in a response to my comments. Topping the Euro elections is not a 'protest vote', you don't get to decide what 'mainstream' means. OFCOM have decided UKIP are a national major party . You have said, and I quote "If UKIP become a major political party then we can look at it again", so let's look at it again. --Flexdream (talk) 07:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

There is clear evidence of sock puppetry in the IPs so don't assume all criticism is directed at you. Wait for the election to be over, changing things during an election period is always problematic. At the moment you don't have support from most other editors involved. Your reference relates to electoral regulations which are linked to the number of seats contesting. That is not co-terminus as a definition with 'main stream' ----Snowded ^TALK 08:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about sock puppetry (beyond my expertise to say) but there's clear evidence of misrepresentation, both of what I said and what Ofcom says. I wrote "all new parties wanting to grow do this (see National Front, BNP, etc etc etc)" which is true - all growing parties do that. But to claim that I even hinted that "UKIP belongs in the same category as the National Front and BNP" is a gross misrepresentation. As for Ofcom (and, in fact, not just Ofcom but the BBC as well since Ofcom does not oversee the latter) the only connection is that it said that in terms of votes UKIP is a major party. It did not say mainstream. Of course, one solution is to rewrite the lead to say that "all the mainstream parties except UKIP oppose fascism", which I suspect is not what we want. Emeraude (talk) 16:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

You are not engaging with basic logic. Your contentious language has no third party support. When language is contentious it makes sense to remove it unless a third party source can be used to support it. Enlightened editor (talk) 19:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

And you are not engaging with the way Wikipedia works, You don't get to determine what is or is not basic logic. If you changes are opposed and you can't gain consensus for a change (which you haven't) then you raise an RfC you don't edit war. I suggest you self revert or its a 3rr report and an SPI if I can find the time to check on you and the other named editor against those IP addresses. ----Snowded ^TALK 07:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

You are clearly being deliberately obstinate. Maintaining the standard of Wikipedia is more important than massaging editor's egos. WP:IAR Enlightened editor (talk) 10:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

First you edit, second you break policy on personal attacks. Read up on the five pillars please and follow policy ----Snowded ^TALK 15:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. You accuse me of edit warring and/or sock puppetry and follow up by clarifying that from that comment I should not "assume all criticism is directed at" me, and yet here you remind Enlightened about policy on personal attacks.--Flexdream (talk) 18:50, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Looks like this is another[[3]] protracted discussion over contentious and innaccurate wording involving some of the same editors which ends the same way. Was it necessary?--Flexdream (talk) 00:24, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

References

Criticism

An editor added criticism by the editor of Left Foot Forward with the edit summary, "significant criticism, a left-wing author in a broadsheet newspaper."[4] I do not see anything in policy that because someone is left-wing that anything they publish in a broadsheet has weight. Weight can only be established by showing that the comments have received attention in mainstream secondary sources.

The same editor has also added, without using sources, "group has been criticised for allegedly not being forthright in opposing antisemitism and Islamism, as well as for the views of its Vice Chair Azad Ali."[5] "Has been criticized" is weasel-wording. It implies that the consensus is that the criticism is the mainstream view, when for all we know it could be just a rogue opinion. "The U.S. government has been criticized for allegedly being part of the New World Order conspiracy." Absolutely true, but misleading.

TFD (talk) 17:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The lead was weighing too heavy in detail in one area of criticism, that of Azad Ali. I changed it to a brief summary of the entire criticism section, which was reverted.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/why-is-the-left-so-blinkered-to-islamic-extremism-8679265.html I also had a quote from this article removed. It is by a prominent left-wing author and written in a broadsheet newspaper, and was so chosen to illustrate the criticism of the group from other areas of the broadly-speaking "left". This balances the level of criticism from Andrew Gilligan, who is employed by a Conservative (albeit for cycling), and written in a newspaper which one can accurately call right-wing. '''tAD''' (talk) 17:56, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the edits to the lead were not sourced, because they summarised what was sourced elsewhere. That is acceptable '''tAD''' (talk) 17:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

It's better to have nothing on Ali in the lead, especially with the amount of detail put into it in a very short lead, and as that controversy has nothing to do with his actions in UAF. Being humans, all other members must have done "bad" things as well, in addition to mostly "good" things. '''tAD''' (talk) 18:09, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality does not require that we balance a hostile right-winger's comments with a hostile left-winger's comments. You are claiming that criticism is significant because the critic is. But that does not follow, even assuming he was significant. Do any secondary sources establish his criticism as important to the topic? TFD (talk) 18:10, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

That brings up the question of whether to have a criticism section at all. Naturally, they can end up with overrepresenting minor viewpoints and statements above the entire subject. I think I'm coming to the conclusion that criticism sections are only important for groups if they relate to actual real-life scandal rather than op-eds (I'm thinking corruption, etc.) which is not the case here. The conclusion may be to remove the criticism section altogether until such criteria can be met with criticism. '''tAD''' (talk) 18:21, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unite_Against_Fascism&diff=566069838&oldid=566069267 The section has dubious origins as well '''tAD''' (talk) 18:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

We can report relevant facts and we can use third party reliable sources as a summary, What we can't do is create our own summaries that make judgements. That there have been criticisms is relevant, if there is a third party summary then lets use it, Otherwise some of the specifically sourced material should stand as I understand it ----Snowded ^TALK 19:30, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

If we class an important criticism as one which is picked up by secondary sources, then the only valid one to include is from Tatchell, which was reported by Gilligan. Davids Tate and Toube are cited from their own op-eds, which is the same as why apparently we can not quote Bloodsworth. Does what I wrote here make sense? Sometimes I don't write succinctly enough on talk pages. '''tAD''' (talk) 20:04, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

See previous comments ----Snowded ^TALK 07:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Unite Against Fascism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6OF0eu4hv to http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=22373

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:04, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Should UAF contain to Antifa (United States)?

UAF is same as Antifa (United States) which isa massive and extreme far-left which dominate violently attacks when far-right groups organize protests and rallies such as English Defence League and Britain First.

Is it? do you have a source for this claim?Slatersteven (talk) 10:12, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

They held massive protests against right-wing groups, the same is still got violence and attacks.Paul Lincoln (talk) 10:22, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

If we are to label them part of a moment then we need RS making the link. Also the UAF are a UK based organisation, not a US one.Slatersteven (talk) 10:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)