Talk:Unite Against Fascism: Difference between revisions

Politics of the United Kingdom Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Gaming_the_system Please be aware of this. It has come to my attention that certain militant editors are ignoring this rule when "correcting" adjustments. Despite the overwhelming implied evidence that the UAF is clearly a Left wing pressure group, one admin in particular is disallowing the calling of this group "Left-Wing". Please wake up and smell the coffee admin.

All of it's organisers and leading activists are on the left hand side of the political spectrum. The fact that members of the group have called "UKIP" "Nazi's" demonstrates their comeplete disillusionment with politics, this sort of language only comes out of the mouths of hard core socialists. Despite my own, but astoundingly obvious speculation, I don't want you to think I want that you change anything based on speculation. But based on the rule I've just quoted, it seems equally as justifible to call the UAF left wing, not even a slate, but an accurate assertion, if the "ideology" of the "BNP" is actually written as "fascism". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandre8 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to name this admin you are accusing? Personal attacks tend not to go down well on Wikipedia, and if there is a problem, you should be prepared to name names, and this doesn't belong here, it belongs on the Admin noticeboard. Whether it is justifiable to call UAF "left wing" relies solely on the reliable sources and not on personal opinions. And Gaming is a behavioural guideline, not a policy guideline. Furthermore, being "anti-fascist" does not necessarily predicate being "left wing". They are not opposites. Rodhullandemu 21:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note "Editors" in the plural and with " Wake up and smell the coffee", I don't see that as a personal attack. Again, very hard to find sources on the blindingly obvious, people don't tend to state such things. (By the way, I don't think you look like Q.T, but you do look like one of the characters from The bond movie where James has a figure skater fall in love with him, can't remember the name). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandre8 (talk) 23:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, you went beyond that and specified "one admin in particular", which you later repeated as being in the singular. Please clarify or withdraw that comment. Rodhullandemu 23:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just withdrew the comments. If you have removed my accusation, then please remove your reprimanding to it. I.E ":Would you care to name this admin you are accusing? Personal attacks tend not to go down well on Wikipedia, and if there is a problem, you should be prepared to name names, and this doesn't belong here, it belongs on the Admin noticeboardy"... People ought to see the whole issue or no issue at all. This which I had resolved by deleting the topic. Alexandre8 (talk) 00:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:TP. You cannot withdraw comments by deleting them, since once you've replied, the conversation needs to remain for visibility purposes, and closed threads can be archived. That isn't the same as just deleting threads to avoid embarrassment, which is deprecated. A withdrawal of accusations, for completeness, is not achieved by cowardly deletion to avoid embarrassment. Rodhullandemu 00:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, but you have edited my post out of proportion, so it looks like you're having a rant at nothing. I suggest you leave the whole post or nothing at all? What are the rules on that for admins?Alexandre8 (talk) 11:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The International Business Times is a very reliable source, it provides sound financial and general news to a multi national audience and has around 250k viewings per month ^[1] . any news site that provides business and stock information must be reliable or it wouldn't be a very useful to any potential viewers who trade stocks or follow world affairs.

IBTimes, offers news, analysis and opinion on geo-politics, the global economy, markets, large and small cap companies, science and technology , and business life and culture.^[2] IBTimes also publishes 13 editions across 12 countries.

Therefore i must insist the label remain Johnsy88 (talk) 23:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IBTimes seems to be some kind of online newspaper, so it looks like it exercises editorial control, and so just about meets the criteria for being a reliable source. But it's a marginal website at best, so it's not nearly as good a source as a mainstream newspaper, or an academic paper, would be. If this were a topic that hadn't received significant coverage elsewhere, it would probably be OK to use IBTimes as a source. But given that this topic has been covered by better sources, that don't back up the IBTimes article, I'm not sure it's appropriate for us to use this source.VoluntarySlave (talk) 23:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a fan of the paper, but one has to accept that every source is biased thus am backing Johnsy on this one. Emeraude, I'm afraid to say, but looking on your page, and seeing your clear stance on anti fascism, I don't think you're the perfect person to be critiquing the sources. I understand Wikipedia is open to editing from anyone, but in your better judgement you might have to back down on this one. Alexandre8 (talk) 23:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that because I listed among my interests "Politics - particularly anti-fascism, elections" that I'm not fit to edit articles about anti-fascism? What about elections? I've also said I'm interested in French history, education and airfields. Am I fit to edit them? You are making what amounts to a personal attack on the integrity of a Wikpedia editor and should think more carefully before making such statements. You also disclose a degree of ignorance - the fact that I am interested in anti-fascism can in no way be construed as even implying that I am a supporter in any sense of UAF or even that I am, personally, anti-fascist! As it happens, I am opposed to fascism - aren't you?

To get to the more serious point. Any user of Google can get it to come up with whatever they want. Search for "pretty" and "Wayne Rooney" and you're sure to find somewhere a page that says "pretty Wayne Rooney". That doesn't mean he's not, as Private Eye frequently refers to him, "spud-faced". Now I fear that the IBTimes article you have found was discovered in exactly this way. But there are a number of problems with the IBTimes article that mean it cannot be regarded, in encyclopaedic terms, as a reliable source. Let me itemise just a few. 1 It is not written by an acknowledged academic expert in the field, in fact 2 it is anonymous. 3 The article is not about the UAF but about two other unrelated organisations. 4 The article is a rehash of statements made by people on Radio 5 Live (i.e. not even original journalism) and 6 they were not talking about UAF. 7 The reporter's tagging of the adjective "left wing" to the UAF is neither explained nor justified and, perversely, 8 the reporter mentions that UAF is supported by David Cameron who cannot by any means be described as left wing (though the reporter does not say this).

But there's a deeper issue here. In what meaningful way can an organisation be described as left (or right) wing? It would generally be agreed that all political parties are somewhere on a left-right spectrum and their position on this spectrum depends on the policies they advocate or implement. There may be disagreement about exactly where any particular party should be - it's not an accurate science - but it provides a rough and ready description. Now, with an organistion that is not a political party and is not interested in gaining power there is a problem. Is my local bridge club left wing? What about the garage that services my car? What about the charity that supports a local hospice? UAF is engaged in politics, unlike these examples, and has a programme of opposing fascism. But what is it for? It has no policies, it is not a party, it is not seeking power. So describing it as left wing is actually pointless. UAF garners support from across the political spectrum, left and right (David Cameron even). Its leaders and, I suspect, the bulk of its activists are left wingers but that does not mean that the organisation itself can be described as left wing. As it happens, my local bridge club's secretary is a life long communist, the treasurer is a Labour councillor and the captain is a trade unionist, but no one in their right mind would say it is left wing (especially not the Conservative party chairman!).

Incidentally, Alexandre8's edit to describe the UAF as a "protest group" rather than "organisation" is quite an improvement and certainly more descriptive. However, the link (to protest) is not particularly helpful. The infobox describes UAF as an interest group, which is wrong: pressure group is more accurate. Unfortunately, Wikiedia does not differentiate "interest group" and "pressure group".

I am editing to remove "left wing" and to include "pressure group". Emeraude (talk) 10:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a source that says it is left wing. I also believe we should not be labeling groups in the first line of articles but it is common (see EDL). It might be better to simply describe why it is called left wing and by who. Not sure. However, consensus appears to be against you regardless of your lengthy reasoning.Cptnono (talk) 12:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The source is flawed and unreliable - and as there is only one source, what can you possibly mean when you say "it is called left wing"? By whom? One flawed source. Incidentally, I see no consensus on the lines you describe.

A further point. Anyone who wants to claim the UAF as left wing needs to explain the following MP/MEPs who were founding signatories: Peter Bottomley, David Cameron, Edward Garnier, Chris Heaton-Harris, Anthony Steen, Teddy Taylor (Conservative): Mike Hancock, Paul Tyler (Lib Dem); Martin Smyth Ulster Unionist;

Adam Price (Plain Cymru). Emeraude (talk) 12:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Emeraude, I was particularly careful not to make it a personal attack, merely a suggestion to which you may wish or not wish to agree. I don't take the decision to insult someone lightly, so please don't take it personally. I would imagine most people are opposed to fascism, myself included, but most people don't proclaim in public profiles. I imagine this is because most people feel it normal and just to be an anti-fascist. I was suggesting that in your case, since you have taken an express interest in anti fascism, you might not be the best person to state which is a reliable source and not. I actually agree with your point about not labelling organisations, and so by that, I would also like to see the tags from the EDL removed from "far right". However, seeing that this isn't ever going to happen, I'm going to back the people who believe in citing that the UAF are left wing. There are times when the original meaning of a word get distorted and so people in some situations expect to see a political label to a non political group. But, seeing that, as stated on the UAF website "We are opposed to Fascism, especially that of the BNP", in their ideologies, I would argue that they are taking a direct stance in politics, and thus should be given a political labelling. So either we label all organisations that "se melent" in poltics, or we label none. I myself am a fluent french speaker, and share a similar interest in French culture, just for the books. However, writing a historical article is slightly different from writing an article on a highly controversial political/politically related group.

Final point, I internally linked "protest group" for no other reason than creating an internal link. It's standard practise to link articles. Debate seems to have more to say, can we have some more views please. Alexandre8 (talk) 13:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed addition per WP:UNDUE. The opinion of a single source most certainly shouldn't be presented as fact. I note the source doesn't even say what makes UAF left-wing. Considering UAF's only policy is anti-fascism, if as expected the source subscribes to the popular misconception that anti-fascism is left-wing, it's a tautology to describe a group as both anti-fascist and left-wing. If they don't describe to that misconception, then better evidence that a bold claim of left-wing without any supporting reasoning is needed as to why an organisation with only one policy is left-wing. Finally, "There's a source" is not a valid counter-argument to WP:UNDUE before anyone attempts it. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As already stated the source is reliable and all articles regardless of news organisation have a political agenda unless state as neutral IE BBC. You cannot just ignore a sourced article because you do not agree with the opinion of the articles author. Just because this is a world wide news website does not mean that its sources is not reliable. it is ranked 2,223 in terms of traffic for a website in the us alone^[3] and has almost an equal amount of daily reach statistics in comparison to another reputable website of the Guardian newspaper.^[4].

I feel that the people who want to undo the label do have a non neutral point of view and this need to be looked at before any more changes are made to this article to make sure it shows a fair and balanced point of view to the readers of WP worldwide

Johnsy88 (talk) 15:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not willing to make any further edits in favour or against the use of the wording "Left-Wing". I think that there is no final consensus, and I myself am unsure of what the correct phraseology should be within the outlines of wikipedia manuals. Any additional edits I make will ignore this terminology until there is a clear solution. Alexandre8 (talk) 15:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We would need a source for left-wing. Being against the far right does not make a group "left wing". TFD (talk) 20:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

please read the source that is provided before just removing/undo as this has been discussed and the source is provided. See the previous discussion and evidence also. Thanks Johnsy88 (talk) 20:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandre8 - thanks. I accept you did not intend a personal attack. However, your logic does not hold up on my suitability to edit this article. If I had said that I was a member or supporter of UAF you might have a point, though even then it could still be possible to write factually and without bias. Indeed, academics do it all the time and the process of peer-review assures that personal bias does not interefer with academic rigour. On an amateur level, that is what happens in Wikipedia. But consider what my personal page means when it says that among my interests are "Politics - particularly anti-fascism, elections". (In point of fact, my inteest is fascism, but I wasn't going to leave at that and be sure to be misconstrued.) What it means is that I have studied and researched fascism (and anti-fascism) at higher education level, including writing a post graduate level dissertation on the subject. I have a firswt degree in political science. I think that gives me every right to edit this and other articles from an expert viewpoint, and, as an educator and political scientist I am well aware of the issue of neutrality and bias.

You also make a very valid point that sometimes the original meaning of a phrase or word becomes distorted. Absolutely correct, which is why, of course, we must be sticklers for accuracy in Wikipedia and ensure that "left wing", "fascist", etc etc are used consistently in their proper meanings. In this case, as another editor has said above, it is wrong to call the UAF left wing simply because it is anti-fascist. You have said that you are opposed to fascism; does this make you left wing? Were the Allies in WW2 left-wing simply because they opposed fascism? There has been no other suggestion as to why the UAF is "left wing", apart from me accepting that most of its leaders and possibly a large proportion of its members are left wing, just like my bridge club! I suspect that attempts to describe UAF as left wing are more to do with using it as a term of abuse than with any scholarly judgement.

I want to revert protest group to pressure group. You are right about the desirability of internal links, but protest group actually links to protest, which is not very helpful. As I explained above, UAF is apressure group - the link actually goes to Advocacy groups, a term more common in the US I believe, but it does cover both pressure and interest groups as well. Similarly, "interest group" does not cover the UAF. The distinction is crucial; pressure groups exists to pursue a goal (as UAF does) while interst groups exist to unite and forward the common interests of a "community". (Interest groups would be, for example, a trade union, an association of peanut growers, the a Bridge players' action group etc.) Anyone any problems with this? Emeraude (talk) 10:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one needs to explain anything. No one needs to debate it. What do the sources say? If the sources say that they are left wing or a protest group then it belongs there. Is pressure group sourced? If not it does not belong. The only stipulation I see to this is if it appears derogatory or is debated by the group. However, EDL did not receive that treatment so I personally would find the humor in not extending the courtesy to this article. If sources call it one thing enough it either needs to be used as a definition or used as a describing line in the lead. "Left" is common and it deserves prominence in the lead even if it is not a definition. I say apply it as a label since EDL is labeled right but first things first.Cptnono (talk) 11:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only problem is, EDL has more of the attributes of a political party with programmes and policies, so that left-right actually makes some sense. UAF does not, and if it is to be described as left there remains the anomaly that a number of its original sponsors are politically to the right!!! And the only source suggested for UAF being left remains a single Internet article, not about the UAF, that applied it as an adjective with no reason, qualification, nothing. Emeraude (talk) 11:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of interest, I've just googled "left wing UAF". Google came up with nothing of any use - all entries were from right wing and extremist blogs, or EDL supporters writing to newspapers. A very large proportion of results were, frankly, hate sites. Google eventually said "In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 58 already displayed." That's 58, and not one reputable, reliable source. Emeraude (talk) 12:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then you did it wrong: [1][2] I can provide numerous sources. Same thing as the EDL. It is a label that is disputed so why not simply clarify it. Just because the UAF don;t have as many hate mongers? Not good enough of a reason.Cptnono (talk) 12:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except those searches just give articles where "UAF" and "left wing" appear in proximity in the text, such as "left-wing groups were supposed to unite against fascism", and this isn't even about the UAF!!! Incidentally, "pretty Wayne Rooney" returns 7 hits, but he still ain't pretty! Emeraude (talk) 12:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for a swift reply Emeraude. I appreciate your efforts to make Wikipedia a better place, and accept that you're as qualified as anyone to edit this article. I've made "protest group" link internally to the wikipedia main article of "Advocacy groups" for the time being, if you wish to revert it to Pressure group because you think that's more accurate please do so, I don't midn. Additionally it might be wise for someone to make a more precise article, or stub for "Advocacy Groups" to try and make it more specific to the aims of the group. Groups like the EDL, UAF, Islam for UK, West Marboro church ect the list is endless. All take a very active role in voicing their views and I don't think Advocacy Group is fit for purpose to describe that, the requirements as to what should be included in the new group can be debated at a later date.

As for Left wing labelling, It's still hard to know where to go with this. I think Emeraude's right in saying that it does seem to be applied to the UAF with the goal of it being more of a burden to the labelling of the group and not out of academic accuracy, but at the same time, it does seem startlingly obvious to me that they are very much a left based organisation (Oh it's just started to snow here in Moscow outside, thought I'd let you know aha), seeing that many of the same members of UAF were involved in the vandalising of the Tori HQ (I can get a source if need be) I can't help but think that if the BNP and EDL were to disappear, they'd just rename to "United Socialism" and use the large support already united under one banner to protest against the Conservatives or UKIP in the name of socialism and not tbhat of fascism. Obviously this does not affect the current labelling of the article and I'm not suggesting anything should be included about my conclusions, but just tp bear in mind that many people share my opinion about the UAF being politically socialist or at least left wing, and so having mentioned how terminologies become distorted, they would expect to see this labelling in the article. In principle I totally agree with you Emeraude that just because someone opposes fascism they are not therefore by default left wing. It's only come to be perceived in this way in England, Scotland and Wales (N. Ireland is in a different boat) because there IS no real threat of fascism in Britain. The BNP are not necessarily a fascist party, they have some arguably fascist policies, but the chance of them ever getting to install them in English Common Law, or from the point of Governmental majority are so slim that only left wing people actually bother to fight against them. For most people the EDL are just a bunch of people who are fed up with immigrants, not fascists, and so again, they won't join a group that calls themselves "Anti fascists" to oppose the EDL. If however another Hitler was to arise in Europe, just about every Brit I know would do the decent thing and fight him, that I do not doubt.

Cptnono, sources should be questioned for reliability, and if irregularities occur in the articles they may be considered for dismissal. I think myself and other would be much obliged if you could go out and find those extra sources. Many thanks Impartiality shall reign (talk) 13:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll change it to pressure groups then, and I agree with you about the poor state of the Advocacy groups article, but one job at a time. Snowing outdoors in Moscow? Good job it's not indoors! Emeraude (talk) 13:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since there has been no attempt to address the WP:UNDUE argument, other than an admission by the editor edit warring to retain it that it isn't even a majority view in the first place, I've removed it. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More sources added. I still think mentioning it int he second line with clarification would be better but without that happening at EDL I see no reason to treat this one better.Cptnono (talk) 19:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Duly noted. See no reason, in light of my last post, why it shouldn't stay since there has been no further discussion on the matter. Alexandre8 (talk) 00:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow that is tons of reverts. So does anyone object to all of those source? If so, say so and start discussing. If the problem is in the spirti of WP:WORDS, please draft a line to be place in the second line or third line of the lead that details why and who calls them left wing. I also recommend you do the same thing at EDL. Of course, both articles can rely on the sources to apply the label but I think that is not the best solution.Cptnono (talk) 05:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see the position is as follows For the change (insertion of left wing): Alexandre8, Johnsys88, Cptnono, Chzz, Wayne Slam,82.22.6.46 Against the change: ~Voluntary Slave, Emeraude, 2 lines of K, Snowded, 94.170.240.237, one night in Hackney, The Four Duces

So that makes 7 for the change, 7 against so there is no consensus for the new wording. per WP:BRD the stable position should be restored and the issue discussed bringing in other editors via the RfC process if necessary. Wikipedia is very clear on this.

In respect of the sources and arguments:

• An on line journal (IBT) which focuses on business issues is not a reliable source and it contradicts itself when it says ".. left-wing group Unite Against Fascism (of which Prime Minister David Cameron is a supporter".
• reference 2 does not load and therefore cannot be checked
• reference 3 is a causal reference in a provincial newspaper to a forthcoming meeting, hardly authoritative
• reference 4 is a single mention in the Mail (not a broadsheet) reporting an incident, it is not a researched article on UAF

None of these are sufficient to overcome the verifiable fact that the UAF ha all party support, something with all party support cannot be left wing The EDL arguments probably go to the heart of this, people don't like the label "right wing" there so they are indulging in tit for tat. Each article is separate. UAF is an "establishment body" founded for some time with a body of referenced material showing its support from across the political spectrum. In the case of EDL we have a recently formed and secretive body for which we only have press material, however that material is broadsheet.

As I had said, the stable position should be restored per WP policy, if we cannot reach agreement here then we raise an RfC. At the moment I'm sorely tempted to raise it an ANI, but lets try discussion first. --Snowded ^TALK 09:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given no response I have restored the previous stable position. At the moment there is no consensus for change. --Snowded ^TALK 15:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snowded, Please dont thake this the wrong way as i mean no offense.

I feel that considering that you are a self proclaimed Democratic socialist you are not credible position to make edits on this subject matter (the label of left wing) considering you are a self professed believer in left wing politics. Also your opinions about the credibility of the Sources provided are exactly that (opinions) and we must deal in facts that are sourced, from reputable sources (which has been discussed previously in the above chat about the sources provided). Therefore i have reverted your undo as these sources are valid and your are not editing from a NPOV. Please bring this to discussion before starting an UNDO WAR.This topic has been discussed previously and resolved and we should not have to tread over old ground. Thanks Johnsy88 (talk) 16:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was not previously resolved, editors were split 50-50 on the change. I and others have challenged the sources and you have not even replied to that. WP:BRD is very clear on policy here. If a consensus cannot be reached for a change then an RFC should be raised, and the previous stable version should stand pending agreement. Please address the issues raised with the references and the other arguments and do not revert to a controversial position. Please do not make personal accusations as to another editors suitability or not to edit this article. --Snowded ^TALK 17:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snowded, An accusation is a formal charge of wrong doing brought against a person; the act of imputing blame or guilt. I have made no such accusation but simply stated a fact about your self professed political belief which states that you believe in left wing politics so could you please refrain from claiming i made an accusation with malice in mind. If you wish to raise an RFC then i feel you should to try and resolve the matter but until that time the article should remain with the label of Left Wing due to the fact that their are now several sources to prove such a label (3 of these from a very reputable source and 1 from one of Wall Streets top financial news sites which is about as popular as the Guardian Online.

Also by starting an undo war you are potentially getting one of us banned from editing whilst the issue is resolved,please leave article until officially resolved.

Thanks for bringing this to chat

Johnsy88 (talk) 17:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I brought it to chat some time ago and got no response. So I have restored the long standing version per WP:BRD --Snowded ^TALK 17:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

my apologies for late reply but i have been working long hours and try to keep up to date with goings on on WP. As i stated before please leave article with LW label as this is a sourced label and not cause an undo war which will get one of us banned when this can be sorted properly , I agree that if you wish to raise an RFC you should .Johnsy88 (talk) 17:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources have been challenged by several editors and a consensus has not been reached for a change, so the long standing stable version should be restored. Please revert per Wikipedia policy --Snowded ^TALK 17:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Im afraid im unwilling to undo LW label as i an several others do not agree also which leaves this unresolved, Please raise an RFC. Johnsy88 (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)Thanks[reply]

I know you want the label, however you have not got consensus for the change and you have not engaged with the summary of objections I made above. Please follow process and restore the stable position and engage with the discussion. You might want to withdraw the suggestion that I am not in a credible position to make edits as well by the way. If you don't then its another failure to follow due process. --Snowded ^TALK 17:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You also have no consensus, hence why it has not been resolved in the past and i would also like to remind you not to make threats on WP and actually extend to me the common courtesy i am extending to you. I feel no reason to withdraw such a suggestion because the suggestion was made based on facts from your own admission. Johnsy88 (talk) 17:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What threat did I make? Also please read WP:BRD (you have been blocked for this before); you agree there is no consensus so the stable position should be restored. I have challenged the sources you used, and you have not had the decency to respond to those arguments so there are no facts. Please also formally withdraw the "credible" statement --Snowded ^TALK 17:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your guised statement in which you said "You might want to withdraw the suggestion that I am not in a credible position to make edits as well by the way" AND im afraid you are in the wrong on this matter as i stated previously. The label should remain as a consensus was made which ended in the label being left and which you are now ignoring by raising the issue again whilst bringing no new evidence that it should be reverted. Johnsy88 (talk) 17:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also a WP:BRD was established and the outcome was that a reasonable compromise was found Johnsy88 (talk) 17:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus was reached for the change, there was an edit war and the discussion on the talk page shows no agreement reached. I can't see anything that would support your statement that "the outcome was that a reasonable compromise was found". Perhaps you could provide a diff?

When I reviewed the history on the talk page I a summary comment on there, with detailed comments on each of the references used. I left it a couple of days for response, and none was forthcoming so I restored the long standing stable position. You have not responded to the questions on the references. You have admitted that it was 50-50 on the change so you are not entitled to claim consensus. Neither have you taken the opportunity to withdraw the "credible" comment, please do so. (I also formatted your comments by the way, if you want your signature on a separate line then please put enough colons in front if it so its aligned.--Snowded ^TALK 17:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The general consensus was that because there was no concrete resolution to the label it should remain. Are you are also claiming that the Times,the IBT,the Mail, and the echo(echo---which is abit dubious i must admit and was not added by myself) are not reliable sources. you cant just pick and choose what sources are reliable and which are not because you don't agree with the author because that is simply your opinion and not a fact. the sources are from the editors of some of the UK and in some cases the worlds most reputable news organisations which have been trusted for many years. i would suggest if you have an issue with the sources you contact the Authors of the articles and get clarification of the POV on the matter. AND as stated before i have been working and therefore not able to see your updates until today hence my reply today. And i will not withdraw the "credible" comment because it was neither an insult nor an accusation but simply a fact about your self proclaimed political beliefs which put you in a position which could potential mean you are not editing from a NPOV Johnsy88 (talk) 17:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide the diff for your claim of consensus, I can't see anything which supports it. --Snowded ^TALK 18:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With internet search engines it is possible to find sources, even reliable ones, saying anything one wishes. We need a source that explains why they are left-wing. TFD (talk) 18:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but for the moment I am trying to sort out process Johnsy88 is claiming he had a consensus for the change, I am asking him for the diff to establish that this was the case. --Snowded ^TALK 18:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yes by using a search engine you can find that and if we went by that way of thinking 95% of WP sources would be removed. We use these sources which i will state again are reputable because they are from long time reliable news organisations. Johnsy88 (talk) 18:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And the diff to support your position on consensus please --Snowded ^TALK 18:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As already stated the Diff was that this was discussed and due to the issue not being resolved it was agreed to leave the label in place. If you wish to find it scroll through the discussion page and find it instead of wasting my time. If you can provide a source that says that unite against fascism is not a left wing group then i will be happy to revert the edit or at least add the dispute to the article. Johnsy88 (talk) 18:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]} is a far better way of partially resolving this issue [User:Johnsy88|Johnsy88]] (talk) 18:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Please learn to format your comments). I have read through the discussion page and I can't see anything that supports your statement. I can see agreement to pressure group but not to left wing. If you wish to maintain your position please supply the diff. --Snowded ^TALK 18:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find the method in which you reply to me as very unreasonable and somewhat insulting and would ask you yet again to extend to me the same courtesy i extend to you in conversation and as a teacher of secondary school students i hope you do not teach in the same way that you intend me to learn my lesson by saying (Please learn to format your comments), this may seem petty on my part but to any other new WP editor it can be very off putting and could be taken in the wrong manner even if good intentions are actually meant by your comment . As already stated the label remained as left wing because there are reputable sources provided, i fully understand that ^{[citation needed]} should be added as news sources cannot always be taken as exact fact unless there is in depth analysis, however the label should remain with ^{[citation needed]} label until this is researched as reputable news organisations have released articles to the general public which state that the UAF is left wing. this has clearly been cleared by an editor who would not allow such an article unless first checked. If such news organisations retract there views that the UAF is infact not left wing then the label should be promptly removed. Johnsy88 (talk) 18:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I haven't told you that you are in no position to edit the article and you are not formatting your comments correctly, I've tried to help out by doing it for you, and have just done so again. That aside you are avoiding the question. Please provide the diff which shows that your statement about a consensus is correct. --Snowded ^TALK 18:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all fine sources. Loading problem is on your end. Those sources meet our standards with a professional structure in place to engage in fact checking and the like. Feel free to go to the RS noticeboard. Cptnono (talk) 02:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok we now have two citations for "left wing", one of the four was removed by the propose of the change and I have removed one which was a diff link. That gives us a single mention in a non-broadsheet newspaper and the IBT which is an online business journal. Neither of these provide any weight. The IBT one shows its ignorance when it says that David Cameron is a support (and he is right wing the last time I looked). Given this, the most that could be said (and not in the lede or the information box, is that UAF has been described as left wing. That would be an acceptable compromise. --Snowded ^TALK 18:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me and seems like a fair compromise because it represents the facts as they are presented. Thanks for bringing this to discussion and resolving the issue once and for all. Johnsy88 (talk) 18:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK if no one else chimes in I will remove it from the lede and the information box and insert a sentence in the main body to the effect that it has been described as left wing, using the Mail reference above - if you have the Times one that would be better --Snowded ^TALK 18:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not satisfactory because, per WP:WEIGHT, "the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all". We would have to show that there is notable opinion that UAF is left-wing. TFD (talk) 21:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering if human common sense when something is glaringly obvious ever plays a role in the evaluating of worthiness of minor sources? Alexandre8 (talk) 21:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it is satisfactory as it now has a majority agreement that backs the left wing label (be it a majority by 1). i would also say that there is notable opinion in the form of the reliable sources but i would not argue with ^{[citation needed]} being inserted if a consensus cannot be reached on this matter whilst leaving the left wing label in place with the provided sources remaining in place Johnsy88 (talk) 21:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sources originally provided do not show it to be a minority view. Those are some decent RS. Like I said, treat this an EDL with some respect for LABEL and there is an easy fix. Until then: stop edit warring. And who removed some of the sources anyways. One of them is not in the citation given now but it was fine a couple days ago.Cptnono (talk) 01:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The new source inserted has the phrase "but with the left-wing group Unite Against Fascism (of which Prime Minister David Cameron is a supporter" which is more or less identical with the other business source. There is not a single source from a British Broadsheet there, which tells you something. In the case of the EDL there are broadsheet citations that it is far right. Two of three have the phrase above which is contradictory in nature and probably picked up from the same source. A majority does not back the left wing label either (and wikipedia is not a democracy). I am prepared to agree a sentence in the article which says that "it has been called left wing, even though the Leader of the Conservative Party is a supporter" which would be backed up by the reference. But the label in the lede and the information box have to go unless another source can be found. --Snowded ^TALK 01:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replied above. I am not repeating my arguments here but feel free to take it to the RS noticeboard. Or you can take the suggestion and make the topic area even better.Cptnono (talk) 02:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't replied as far as I can see. Why if this is true can you now find a British Broadsheet newspaper which uses the term? Also as far as I can see Johnsy88 has agreed to my proposal. --Snowded ^TALK 02:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I sentence closely modelled on the following I think should be the best course of action. "The UAF, an antifascist pressure group, is predominantly made up of left wing sympathisers and activists, but people in the likes of David Cameron, the leader of the conservative have alleged their support. The group officially adopts no political stance". Put that somewhere in the opening paragraph, and remove the left wing tags from the info box and I think we shall have arrived at a gentleman's agreement ;). Alexandre8 (talk) 18:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source that they are "predominantly made up of left wing sympathisers and activists"? Have any studies been conducted on the people who donate £10 on-line and become "members"? What does left-wing mean anyway? Trotskyist, Labour, LibDem, or broadly anyone who opposes the groups the UAF opposes? TFD (talk) 19:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not supported by the references Alexandre, or by the list of sponsors of UAF. My suggested compromise to use those references to support a statement along the lines of "Despite the support of people such as David Cameron, Leader of the British Conservative Party, the UAF has occasionally been described as left wing". If you can find a reputable text book or a broadsheet quote I am happy to revise that position but the moment the current (non-consensus) wording fails verification. --Snowded ^TALK 19:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You only have to look at the placards of the street activists to demonstrate their political leanings. It's beyond recognisable doubt that the majority of the street activists, those who go out there and actually put their antifascism beliefs into practise are leftwing. And yes the word left-wing is very broad, but so is right-wing and that is applied to many many articles here on wikipedia without further discussion. I'd imagine from your profile that you know a fair bit about this group and may have taken part in some of the rallies? If so, then perhaps you know what I'm talking about and in the genuine goodwill of wishing for Wikipedia to be a non biased and accurate information centre, go out and find those sources which you are requesting. Socialist Worker newspaper has very strong ties with the UAF, often commentating on its website how their proud members led marches and how they distributed stickers and what not. The bulk work is there, everyone knows its leftwing if not socialist. Weyman Bennett for pommigranite's (lol, just spur of the moment) sake. 3/4 their founding members are self proclaimed socialists. But as you rightly say, some citations are needed. Alexandre8 (talk) 20:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to understand the political leanings of the UAF its easy for anyone with the time to research the history and members who created the organisation. Created in collaboration with the TUC (Left-Wing Union), the T&G/Unite (Left-Wing Union), The Socialist Workers Party (Far-Left), Chaired by "Red Ken" Livingston (Left-Wing), Supported by Weynan Bennett (Far-Left Socialist Workers Party executive member),Supported by Billy Hayes (Left-Wing trade unionist), Lee Jasper (A supporter and colleague/Close friend of Ken Livingston), and Peter Hain (Left-Wing Labour Politician).

Although UAF do not directly claim to be officially left wing their inner infrastructure is made of up people with politically left-wing leanings and political thinkings and this will no doubt have an influence over the policy's and workings of UAF.

However until the press or investigative journalist analyse the political leanings of UAF the Left-Wing label must remain with the ^{[failed verification]} or ^{[citation needed]}. The sources provided do label the UAF as Left-Wing and this is clear for anyone who reads the reputable sources but it will take time to finally clear up exactly where they stand politically and this will come through independent and factual investigation Johnsy88 (talk) 22:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those tags are not being used correctly. Fact is for when a source is needed and Failed verification is when it isn't in the source(well the sources were originally there but removed). Dubious might be the correct tag but I prefer to rely on sources. And as I have said, Snowwed has an easy fix available if they choose.Cptnono (talk) 22:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still waiting for one of you guys to (i) provide a diff of where a consensus was reached to change the article and (ii) to deal with the question of WP:WEIGHT and the absence of any broadsheet references (as we have for the EDL article). Speculating on motivations and activities of other editors may entertain you but it has nothing to do with this article. --Snowded ^TALK 23:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty obvious that UAF has a good deal of support from the political left. Its website has a list of people who, it looks like, can be considered its founders [3], and the majority of these are either people representing trade unions or people who it is not unfair to categorise as holding left-wing views. However, some of them are very clearly not left wing. Martin Smyth and Teddy Taylor were both leading figures in the Monday Club, for example. And David Cameron is even listed there. So to describe it as a "left-wing" organisation without qualification seems to be some form of POV nonsense, I think.

What characteristics of the UAF do people see that might make it "left-wing"? That's not a facetious question - I think it is probably the key to working out what the more appropriate encyclopaedic content might be. --FormerIP (talk) 00:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snowed please don't be so flippant. You're not actually arguing against any of the "speculations" I prefer to call them "glaringly obvious unsubstantiated facts" You know deep down which components make up this group and you're not willing to act upon those. This is indeed a shame. It's all too easy to quote generalised wiki rules and apply them willy nilly, but I'm yet to see you argue against them being left wing, apart from citing David Cameron who to this date hasn't even participated in any of their rallies. He's on the list for popular appeal. If I bought an encyclopaedia from a shop and it had this group listed as anything but LEFT wing I'd go and get my money back.It's like King jong il was trying to deny having W.O.M.D because no one had documented. Farfelu je dis. I know you won't like this analysis, but at least bear it in mind for other activities in life. http://www.urban75.org/photos/protest/love-music-hate-racism-london.html take a look at who makes the placards. Yes you're right. the Socialist Worker. Alexandre8 (talk) 13:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not being remotely flippant. I am asking two questions that you and others seem to be avoiding answering. I am not interested in original research on photographs or on my or your personal opinion. I am concerned about edit warring to assert a non-concensus based change and a failure to deal with evidence. Comments by you and another editor on my views and suitability are also unwelcome, focus on content please and answer the questions. --Snowded ^TALK 13:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat the question - will someone please point to the diff where consensus was reached to change the long standing stable version of the lede. When I went through the material it was 7-7 on a vote and the sources proposed by those wanting a change have been challenged. If there is no consensus to change then the prior version should be restored until a consensus is achieved. Edit Warring to achieve a change is disruptive behaviour. --Snowded ^TALK 08:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Times cite given says specifically "Left-wing groups including Unite Against Fascism " which appears sufficient to say "left wing." Collect (talk) 12:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A broadsheet quote is useful and I think justifies saying that it has been described as left wing. The (verifiable) fact remains that it has all party support and one casual reference is not really enough to overcome that. I've amended accordingly and just left the Times reference as its the only one with any real value. Given the previous split and lack of consensus for change this represents a reasonable compromise position--Snowded ^TALK 12:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The assetion that the Times is not RS for the claim shoulf be brought to the RSN board. And emoving RS sources one does not like is not valid on WP. Collect (talk) 13:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one is asserting that the Times is not a reliable source, its a question of weight. You can't simply insert something simply on one reference, if other referenced material contradicts it. In this case the Cameron sign up to the group. WP:WEIGHT is clear here. It is also the case that consensus has not been reached for a change so the prior stable position should stand. If you are not happy with the compromise then I will retag and raise elsewhere (but not the RSM Board as that is not the issue). --Snowded ^TALK 14:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are the only person reverting the claim. At that point, it appears that you are a "consensus of one" at the best. See WP:RS/N. Thanks. Collect (talk) 16:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If RS say its left wing so do we, are there any RS that deny they are left wing?Slatersteven (talk) 16:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WEIGHT Slater and see the various arguments above. --Snowded ^TALK 16:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I actually agree with Snowed's action on this. I understand his point and he has done the right thing to leave it up there. If one more tabloid/broadsheet paper can be found I think there will be no question about it. For instance Guardian and Telegraph differ greatly in their interpretations of events and groups yet both are reviewed as reliable sources. Snowed, I think the diverse membership on paper is listed in the article already so I think even if the citation "left wing" remains readers will still be informed about the various political views of the groups subscribers. Alexandre8 (talk) 16:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its a matter of proper balance really. The diverse membership is clear, its also clear that they are called left wing and that (although this is a personal observation only) the majority presence on the active demonstrations is left wing. However that has often been the case with pressure groups, CND for example has similar issues. Hence my proposed compromise, happy to look at alternative wordings on that but I don't think the label is correct in the information box or the lede sentence. If we had the same universal broadsheet labeling as we have on the EDL then I would not be disputing it, but we don't. --Snowded ^TALK 16:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some more sources they are left wing

http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/4426947.Left_wing_group_to_meet/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1304139/Police-halt-English-Defence-League-march-riot-fears.html

http://www.sbpost.ie/post/pages/p/story.aspx-qqqt=WORLD-qqqs=news-qqqid=42484-qqqx=1.asp

We say what the majority of sources say.Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You need to go and explain that to David Cameron. Slater if you had given a whole set of broadsheet references fine, but you haven't. --Snowded ^TALK 16:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is "Left wing" such a dirty word? I'm sure they'd love to be considered a middle-of-the-road movement, but based on multiple links shown above it seems that they are described as "Left wing". In each of the articles, that adjective is used when the group is mentioned. --Habap (talk) 17:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a dirty word at all, but they were set up with all (including right wing) party support. I think the reason there is only one broadsheet reference to left wing (and that casual) is that those newspapers are more aware of the nature. Its also interesting if you do a search on UAF and left wing most of the hits are right wing blogs and web sites using the word as an epithet. Its been a common tactic for far right groups (and here the context is the EDL) to portray their opponents as left wing or far left rather than admit that the level of opposition to them crosses the political spectrum. Hence the long term edit ware here and the fact that it is an issue. --Snowded ^TALK 17:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know UK papers at all, so can't evaluate the sources. Here in the US, we have far fewer newspapers per capita and they are less ideological. Well, some would say they're almost all equally liberal, because I don't think there is any right-leaning paper that has significant circulation.

So, are Daily Mail and Sunday Business Post right-leaning? The article on The Northern Echo says that it was started "as a liberal alternative". Is that no longer these case? --Habap (talk) 18:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Broadsheet newspapers are Times, Guardian, Telegraph, Independent, those are generally considered authoritative. Tabloids like the Daily Mail and the regional newspapers (such as the Northern Echo) are less so, more prone to sensational stories and ones with a strong political bias. The Sunday Business Post is Irish and says "The Unite Against Fascism group, a loose collection of left-wing and anti-racism organisations in Britain" which doesn't support the left-wing lable - not all anti-racist groups are left wing. UAF was started by an ALL PARTY group and that support (including that of the leader of the main right wing party) has not been withdrawn. Demonstrations attract left wing support (hence the reports) but that has been true of many a protest group in the past. Hence the issue. --Snowded ^TALK 18:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, even though the Times does refer to the group as left-wing, and at least two of these 'less reliable' papers also refer to the group as left-wing, it's still WP:UNDUE? Should that go before WP:NPOVN? --Habap (talk) 18:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest you would expect a far more substantial body of references. One minor one in the Times, a passing reference in the Mail and a single paragraph report in the Northern Echo. We've also had an on-line US and Australian new service. No serious political commentary. Its in marked contrast the the body of broadsheet references to the EDL as far right (and if you check back that was the original motivation for this change). I think we have both content issues and behaviour issues (the refusal the abide by WP:BRD and the claims for consensus for change when none existed. It might even be ANI. For the moment I made a change to day which removed the main label but made it clear that it was described on occasion as left wing. This seemed (and seems) to be a more than reasonable compromise. Well that or some variation on the wording. I'm happy to leave it to see if other editors agree - its looks like there is some support above. If there is no progress then it will need to go another forum or a RfC. --Snowded ^TALK 18:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've come over from the RS noticeboard. In the lede for describing political organisations, we typically go with self-description unless there is a compelling reason for doing otherwise. Compelling reasons would mean several analytical sources (academics and serious political commentators) placing a group on a certain part of the spectrum. This usually only applies to more extreme groups, such as far-right and far-left groups (As such, the English Defence League is identified in several journals as well as serious journalistic commentary as "far right", and may be described so on Wikipedia). I don't see such compelling reasons for the UAF to be described in the lede as "left-wing". Yes, the Times is RS, but it's only a passing comment. Some editors here have forgotten that RS status is only a threshold, a minimum requirement for sourcing, not a sufficient one. This RS is too flimsy for the lede. If there is a debate about the UAF's alignment, then it might be worthwhile including in a section, if there are sources to support that. (And the Daily Mail should not be taken as a reliable source on these matters at all. Please can we remember that our role here is to reflect good RS, not to scrape the barrel looking for potential backing for our viewpoints.)VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty. Do we need to add more? Long story short: Not in the lead is laughable. Not in the very first sentence makes perfect sense.Cptnono (talk) 05:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Mail is not RS for this full stop. Not because it's editorially right wing, but because it's just not a very good newspaper when it comes to objective assessment on a whole range of subjects, not only politics. Sunday Business Post describes UAF as a collection of left wing and anti-racist groups. So not "left-wing" itself, which actually counts against the descriptor being used. The list of people clearly not left-wing who are signatories is extensive enough for us not to go with this in the lede without some heavyweight analysis, which is not there. Of course, it may be the case that the UAF is dominated by left-wingers, but that's not grounds enough for us to describe the organisation as left-wing. It does not campaign on left-wing issues. (anti-fascism is not a left-wing issue in itself). Including "left-wing" goes against standard practice of using self-descriptors except where sizeable high quality RS puts it in a category. Ignoring this would be to introduce POV.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cptnono - does your statement above mean you are supporting my compromise? --Snowded ^TALK 06:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: All the major sources have been found to be RS in the past (including the Daily Mail). No RS source has been furnished to claim that the statement is fringe at all. We are not calling UAF "radical" here - only stating that it is "left wing" as stated in RS sources (which is how WP works). Collect (talk) 11:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly there is no evidance that this label has been contested by them (or any one else, except here on wiki). Sources outside the UK have also called them this (odd that the Irish sources seems to have been ignored). Nor do I recall in policy anything about accademic or broad sheets being neeed to establish that something is not fringe when no one has contested something. As to undue, as far as I* am aware that only come into it when something recives more coverage here then it does in the sources. As no source has contested this label we are not gving it more coverage then it deserves. As to the support they recive, that wouold be synthsis we say what RS say not the inferance we draw.Slatersteven (talk) 11:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The absence of material is relevant to an assessment of WP:WEIGHT. As our one independent commentator so far says having some sources is not necessarily a sufficient reason for inclusion. --Snowded ^TALK 12:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another source (not a broad sheet, local newspaper)

http://www.sthelensreporter.co.uk/news/business/the_hardest_job_in_the_world_i_love_it_1_735173 (calls them far left)

International source

http://www.pakistan.tv/videos-far-left-uaf-and-muslims-riot-%5BAumLIxb0ye0%5D.cfm

There are also many sources that describe left wing reaction to (say) the BNP but to not explicitly say the UAF is left wing, but include them as an opposition group (such as groups on the left oppose the BNP. The UAF has demonstrated a number of times…)[[4]][[5]]. Or they say that left wing demonstrators clashed with right wing rivals and go on to talk about the UAF [[6]].

So it’s clear they are either directly called or linked by inference to the far left in multiple sources. This does not appear to be a fringe few at all, just not one widely publicised.Slatersteven (talk) 12:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regional newspapers and do not have the same standards as the broadsheets. They provide evidence that it is called Left wing by some sources, but not that it is left wing. That would require weight in references from the broadsheets and/or literature. Google searches on left wing and UAF produce more right wing blogs and web sites than they do serious commentary. --Snowded ^TALK 12:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And non of those blogs or commentries have be used so I fail to understand why you raise the point. Moreover your citeria for 'evidance' is not backed up by policy. There is no requirment that we only use broad sheets or accademic sources to establish wieght. If I am wrong then pleae direct me to policy. Another source (national newspaper (though not a broadsheet)).

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/view/150522/EDL-and-UAF-Bradford-marches-banned-/

How many do we need?Slatersteven (talk) 12:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are using the Star then you really are "scraping the barrel". --Snowded ^TALK 13:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NO just demonstrating that this is not resstricted to one national newpaper (or even one country). So I shall ask again do you have any sources that deny the UAF are right wing? even one as por as the daily starSlatersteven (talk) 13:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Slater, how about three articles in broadsheet (let's say Times, Independent or Guardian) that deal pretty much exclusively with the UAF, or academic imprints? There seems to be some serious misconceptions about RS here:

• RS is not a binary yes/no status. There is better and worse sourcing, even after it passes any basic criteria for RS. One can't say "It's RS, so it gets to go in without qualification". RS is a minimum, not a free license. A one line mention in an article is not the same as an article dealing with the topic in depth. An article written by a comic in an RS newspaper is not the same as one written by a university professor in the same publication.
• RS status is not context free and good for all times in all subjects. It doesn't matter if the Daily Mail has been considered RS for something else. We're talking about accurate descriptions of political groups. This is a newspaper that in its factual reporting has headlines like "How Blair cuddled up to Red Ken" and "East European Immigrants carry out one tenth of crime" (not actually borne out by what it was reporting on for those of you concerned). It is also not a newspaper with a glorious history when it comes to race relations. And the Daily Star, Slater? Come off it. And your source in the St. Helen's Reporter is a stand-up comic, for Heaven's sake. I'm sure you mean well, but citing them is symptomatic of someone scrabbling around for something to push a point of view, rather than trying to reflect the best sources. Please don't put a strain on other people's AGF.
• RS status is not like pixie dust. It does not make anything in the RS perfectly verified and duly weighted for all use. In this case, we don't appear to have any serious analysis of the UAF. It's fine to mention that it has been referred to as left wing with appropriate sourcing, but not as the first line descriptor. There should be very great care taken with the first sentence of any Wikipedia article, as it has to be a simple declarative sentence. Collect mentions the John Birch Society. It is referred to as radical right because it is classified as that by many serious political scientists (others see it as far right). It is literally defining of the category. We just don't have that kind of sourcing for the UAF, at least not for the first line description.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(out_ What we are left with is a clear case of IDONTLIKEIT when faced with the simple fact that every single outside source dealing with the UAF on the political spectrum used the term "left wing." It is really a teeny bit difficult to disagree with unanimity. Try the socialists: When Chris Bambery of the SWP spoke on behalf of Right to Work at the Coalition of Resistance conference on Saturday 27 November he declared that: "we do not want different anti-cuts campaigns in the same town or city". We agree, but just a day later the SWP's party notes again re-emphasise the importance of building separate Right to Work groups in every local area! He also stated that: "we do not want demonstrations taking place at the same time". 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 - our 1,000 strong weekend of discussion and debate. As a result the UAF demonstration was far more poorly attended than it could have been. IOW, the Socialist Workers Party is connected with UAF directly. I would submit that at least 51% of the populace would consider the SWP to be "left-wing" [7]. [8] The Express. [9] Wikileaks. [10] Socialist Worker. Of course, some might claim that the SWP is not left wing. Some. Collect (talk) 14:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Collect, you're just being silly. Saying that "every single outside source dealing with the UAF on the political spectrum used the term "left wing." " only means that a few sources, in passing, out of the many that have referred to it, have called it left wing. It is not even the overwhelming balance of sources on the UAF. And none of it comes from decent analytical work on the UAF. Saying it's a matter of IDONTLIKEIT, given the analysis of sources offered to counter your view is rather more a case of your WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. The Daily Express? Really?. You'll be citing Jim Davidson or Bernard Manning at this rate. What IDONTLIKE is wikipedia being used to pursue people's political viewpoints. I am starting to suspect that that is happening here, given that we've had the Daily Star, a stand-up comic, a non-RS webpage carrying BNP supporting material from Slater, and now the Daily Express cited. You have a collection of distinctly right-wing sources with poor reputations for objectivity in such matters, BNP praisers and a stand-up. And one sentence in an article from the Times. Yes, SWP is involved with UAF. It allowed the Anti Nazi League, which it dominated, to be subsumed in a broader organisation called the UAF, which has support from all mainstream parties. On the same grounds as your argument, no one would call signatories Teddy Taylor, Martyn Smith, Peter Bottomley, Edward Garnier, Anthony Steen, or David Cameron left wing. Whether or not you or I think it is a "left wing" organisation is neither here nor there. The RS to support such a bald statement in the lede is too insubstantial, especially given what we know about who signed up to its founding statement. Having predominantly left wing members does not make the whole organisation itself leftwing,at least not for wikipedia's purposes.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no axe to grind whatsoever about the UAF. I do find it interesting that a slew of RS sources call it leftwing, that it is specifically tied to the Socialist Workers Party which is pretty definitely leftwing, and that zero sources calling it anything else seems probative. WP has no "purposes" other than to use claims made by reliable sources in articles. The claims here are clear, the sources are RS, and thus the claims can reasonably be made in the article. Collect (talk) 15:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Collect, I've been quite clear that it's not about including reference to the Times having called the UAF left wing that I object to - it's describing the UAF as left wing in the first sentence of the lede that is wrong. There is not a slew of RS, no matter how many times you or Slater claim this. Tabloids like the Star or Express really don't count, nor do stand-ups, nor do websites carrying BNP material. And we do have an RS that describes the UAF as made up of left wing and anti-racist organisations, which counters your suggestion that it's described unequivcally as left wing in all RS. WP may have no purposes of POV, but it's difficult to believe some editors here don't, given the sources being brought to bear here. If you want socialist websites, how about the World Socialist Web Site piece here, criticising the UAF for being cross-party and corrupting the SWP into being a defender of the bourgeoisie? (See, you're not the only ones who can use google).VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if the World Socialist Website is RS. Would it even be considered a primary? And being anti-racist also does also has no bearing on if it is left or not. I do find it interesting that oppose reasoning is worded as to make this a different scenario than EDL. It really is the exact same situation. I would have an easier time assuming good faith if the solution to fixing what some people see as a problem here was being considered for EDL. UAF second line "It is sometime called left-wing (with an additional couple words if it is disputed by the group itself in a primary source)" with EDL being "It is often called far-right in the British press but the group disputes this". The problem is applying disputed labels even though there are plenty of sources, right? So remove them as being labels and there is no need for concern.Cptnono (talk) 16:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think that is the problem. It looks to me to be about cherry-picking sources rather than giving consideration to what information to present in order to give an accurate picture to the reader. Plus we should be wary about straying into an area where what we do in this article depends on what we do in another article, because the two cases are not mirror-images of one another.

Clearly, the UAF gets the majority of its support from the left, and it is appropriate for the article to say so (using appropriate sourcing). However, it is also clear that it gets support from a broad section of the political spectrum, including significant and noteworthy support from the mainstream right. So it is not appropriate to use weak sourcing in order to give the impression that the organisation is straight-forwardly left-wing. --FormerIP (talk) 16:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a single source which says other than "left wing" for the general tenor of the UAF? I am sure a few "liberals" have been members of "right wing" organizations - that does not affect the general tenor of the organization. And The Times is not exactly a raving right-wing source. Collect (talk) 16:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

Cptnono, I'm not suggesting wsws as RS, more pointing out the problems in Collect's use of sources. The EDL is not an equivalent case to the UAF, and I'm thoroughly surprised you think they could be. The EDL is described as far right in scholarly sources here, called extremist in a detailed Independent article here, called right wing in BBC articles here and here, by Channel 4 news here, in a Belfast Telegraph article here, by the Herald here, by the Times ("right wing fringe") here, by a government minister reported in Reuters here and as right-wing extremists by the Telegraph here. And that's only the first two pages of a google news search, excluding the trashy results. Nothing like that exists for the UAF. Equating the UAF and EDL situations is simply wrong, and I find it very odd that you think they might be equivalent. I'd love to see the EDL list of signatories and affiliates. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 17:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Collect: what about a "group supported by trade unions and MPs from all parties" or "group which was founded with the aim of uniting 'the broadest possible spectrum of society' against far right politics"? The first sentence should include objective, easily-cited information, not cherry-picked POV. --FormerIP (talk) 17:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I would still stipulate that The Times is not a front for the BNP. Indeed, I would stipulate that anyone who ascribes The Times to "far right" is quite likely to be on the left. YMMV. Collect (talk) 19:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please show the diff of where someone has asserted that The Times is a front for the BNP. --Snowded ^TALK 19:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inasmuch as I did not make the claim, it is inane to expect me to provide proof of a claim which I did not make. I would note, moreover, that the Daily Mail and other RS sources seem to be derided as "right wing" which rather makes the case that the UAF is "left wing" to be sure. Thanks for nitting. Collect (talk) 22:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inasmuch as noone is disputing that the Times is RS, I found your remark puzzling as well, as it appeared to be creating a strawman. You don't appear to even be attempting to meet any objections - chief of which is that what RS you have is too thin (basically, one mention in one Times article) to determine a lede description of the topic. Given your disbelief that people could object to the use of the Daily Star etc. I get the impression you're really not very familiar with the British press. It's a bit of a minefield. As a rough guide, I posted lots of links to coverage about the EDL from various UK sources. All of those would pass the basic news media test for RS. None of them are tabloids (Red tops, yellow press etc.). Some of them are editorially right wing. That's quite a few to be going on with, and there are others as well. I cannot stress this enough - we are here to reflect the best RS, not to assemble evidence from wherever we can to prove a personal point of view. Nothing substantial enough has been presented for the encyclopedia to state that the UAF is left wing in the lede description rather than further down the article and attributed, and certainly nothing to make us ignore the principle that we go with self-description. "left-wing" and "right-wing" are always treated with great care on Wikipedia, especially in ledes. There's no need to go against that here. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 00:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Collect. To someone who didn't know you better, it might look as if you are just trying to drag the discussion off-course for some reason. The bottom line is: why do you prefer what is in the inferior sources to what seems just plain common sense?

Randomly, I noticed this picture whilst Googling: [11]. The woman situated, appropriately, on the right of the picture, is the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, Annabel Goldie. I'm not claiming this is a killer source, but thought it might help people to get a clearer picture of what the UAF is actually like. (In term of the issue of whether we need to treat the EDL and UAF in the same way in order to be fair, please compare and contrast this picture: [12]. --FormerIP (talk) 01:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep -- The Times is decidedly an "inferior source." Not. Collect (talk) 01:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, a single reference in the times which goes contrary to other sourcing as well as ordinary common sense is not enough to dominate the first sentence of the article. --FormerIP (talk) 01:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Collect, I'll put this bluntly - you appear to be POV pushing. Please stop.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 01:59, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And you appear to be wrong. Why are you discounting something that would almost always be considered RS? And POV pushing could go both ways. I know one editor here is but we are supposed to comment on content and blah blah blah.Cptnono (talk) 06:35, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You made the statement that The Times is not a front for the BNP. Given that by your own admission above no one has made the claim it does rather look like an attempt to drag the discussion of course. If you think another editor is POV pushing then show evidence from their edits to demonstrate that. Overall it does look this matter is now resolved and the article can be returned to its former state. I remain open to the compromise I suggested above. --Snowded ^TALK 06:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I remain open to the compromise I suggested above. And we are not supposed to comment on contributors but you did it again. So I will admit right now that I highly doubt there is anything you could say to sway my position. It looks like I am not the only one. So again, go take it to the RS noticeboard since this conversation could have been completed already. If we have multiple sources calling them left then you are just out of luck. That was your mentality at the EDL page and that is my mentality here. Any reverts will be considered edit warring so pleas (I asked days ago right?) see the RS noticeboard or get over it already.Cptnono (talk) 06:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has been made very clear to you by several editors that no one is saying The Times is not a reliable source. The arguments relate to WP:WEIGHT and you have failed to address them. In the EDL case (as has also been pointed out by several editors) multiple broadsheet newspapers reference it as far right, you only have on passing reference here. It does I suppose confirm the motivation for the change you have supported here. You raised the issue at the RS notice board and the net result has been the engagement of some new editors here. Proper process has been followed. There comes a point where the behaviour of an individual editor prevents progress and three editors have now made comment on you to that effect; I suggest you reflect on that. --Snowded ^TALK 07:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing has been made clear except for you not having consensus and still editing against our standards. It does nto matter how much you assert that. Better luck next time, go see the noticeboard since you are only prolonging the conversation which is something you said you were against. Cptnono (talk) 07:14, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doubtless if I persist I will be subject to this sort of comment. You didn't have consensus for the change in the first place as you well know, and more editors have now weighed in against the change. --Snowded ^TALK 07:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't change the subject. And yes, if you call other editors dolts I will tell you off. I assume you will not do that. So, consensus is still against you. Go cry about it or seek a change without red herrings. Thanks.Cptnono (talk) 07:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The previous position, when you and others edit warred to make the change, had participating editors split 7-7 which does not represent a consensus to change. Since the RS case two other editors have now joined in and argued against the change you made. Please explain how this constitutes a consensus for your position? --Snowded ^TALK 07:38, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not try to wiggle out of this. You are asking for something when consensus is against you. Option 1: Reword the lead in a way that can meet consensus or Option 2: See the RS noticeboard. Stop trying to argue your way out of this.Cptnono (talk) 07:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just presented some facts Cptnono, how can consensus support your position given those numbers? --Snowded ^TALK 07:44, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is based on argument and not votes. I feel your argument is poor and I also have not double checked your numbers since I assume you are incorrect during this recent conversation.Cptnono (talk) 07:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

cptnono, where has anyone said the Times is not a reliable source? Please don't follow Collect's lead. What do you think of the difference in sourcing for the EDL being right-wing and the one source you have here? Is it really an even thing? This is not about reliable sources so much as standards of verifiability. You have one RS that makes a passing mention, whereas what you need for a lede descriptor is several sources, preferably showing evidence of analysis. Like Collect, I imagine you're not overly familiar with the British press. Red tops like the Daily Mail make stuff up, and their reporting is infused with bias and misrepresentation. One of their targets is immigration. So they've literally just made stuff up, like claiming a "Chinese woman" stamped on her baby in the street, or that there were hordes of angry Muslims outraged by police posters with a dog in, or that the UK is being swamped by hordes of Romanian and Bulgarian circus performers coming to scrounge off the state. By inventing such stories, they forfeit, on Wikipedia, the status of reliable source. The Express is just as bad, and the Daily Star has more nipples on show than facts. One source is not enough for the lede.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 08:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am actually very familiar with the British press for various reasons. Oddly enough, someone tried saying the same thing at the EDL article and I was one of the first few hundred to subscribe to their stuff (not because I am a fan but out of curiosity). So while EDL was nothing in the press out there I was hearing it from both the back page and the horse's mouth. But we are getting way off topic here. I assume the Times is acceptable and it looked like that was a question. I don't care what side of the argument you are on with this, it i a valid source more often then not. Regardless, multiple sources call it left wing. End of story right? Are those sources all disputed? That is a losing battle that isn;lt even worthy of a response. But if the question is that the primary sources dispute it, then I would love to see it moved into the second line of the lead with a quantifier. One source said that EDL was not known to be right or not yet and that was strongly rejected over there. It is going to take a lot for me to see any reason to disregard precedent. Luckily, Snowded has some good options.Cptnono (talk) 08:14, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do I sense some movement in your position here? Are you suggesting that you would accept removal from the first sentence of the lede and the information box if the second sentence said contained the wording I originally inserted as a compromise at the end of the lede? --Snowded ^TALK 08:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Captnono, you failed to answer any of my questions. Your insistence that there are "multiple sources" is not true, assuming you meant reliable sources. I've actually no idea which sources you are referring to except the Times, as you have not shown any desire to deal with the critiques of these sources. You ignored my points about the Daily Mail, so I'll assume you're not counting that (I credit you with enough sense to know that a paper that makes stuff up on a subject is not RS). Are you then claiming that the Daily Tits is a reliable source for good political journalism, or this lovely website which recommends anti-muslim material from "www.bnp.org.uk: Video made by very brave members of BNPtv", or Slater's other stunner, a stand-up comic writing a funny in a local paper?

In addition to the paucity of actual RS, there is counter RS, as FormerIP has pointed out above. The BBC here calls the UAF "a group supported by trade unions and MPs from all parties", the Guardian "here calls it a "group which was founded with the aim of uniting 'the broadest possible spectrum of society' against far right politics", and I'll add to that the Telegraph here which notes that "mainstream politicians" support the UAF. So actually, the number of reliable sources produced contradicting the "left-wing" claim are starting to outnumber the ones positing it, both in quantity and quality.

Your continued equal but opposite comparison of UAF (supporters - mainstream trade unions and the current Conservative Prime　Minister) with the EDL is frankly mind-boggling, and I'm not suprised you avoided answering my question about the scale of good sourcing available describing it as far or extreme right. Given your activities in the Israel/Palestine disputes, it might interest you to know that EDL is suspected by police in the UK of connections to the Hitler-worshipping Combat 18 and other neo-Nazi groups. They don't have any Labour Prime Ministers supporting them. They don't have any Conservative ones either. I doubt they have any supporters amongst conservative MPs at all. Opposition to fascism/racism (including anti-semitism) is not exclusively left-wing, just as opposition to communism is not exclusively right-wing.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One of the sources that dispute the claim does not in fact say its not left wing, it does say it was set up to represent a broad front, but that it is begin hijacked by the socialist workers party (this was written in 2006 so cannot represent the current situation). One of the other sources actualy its a gang of left wing criminals.Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With the exception of Captnono and possibly Collect its pretty clear now that we have a consensus to restore the long standing version of the article. As stated I am happy to agree to the additional sentence I inserted towards to end of the lede a few days ago which said that it has been called left wing. This is further supported by the responses to the RS question raised by Collect --Snowded ^TALK 07:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware that I had retracted or changed my position.Slatersteven (talk) 13:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it still your position that a website talking about the "very brave members of BNPtv" is suitable as RS, Slater?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which source is that? Is it still you position that the Sunday business post (or its online incarnations) is not RS? What about Pakistani.TV, is that not RS?Slatersteven (talk) 13:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You continue to reference very weak sources Slater and there certainly isn't a consensus to change what has been a long standing position. In fact at no stage has any consensus been established for the change, which is only there due to edit warring and a failure to respect WP:BRD. My invitations to provide a diff to any consensus for change have been refused. --Snowded ^TALK 13:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was pointing out that my exclusion from those who support the change was not correct. I have stated my opinion of the sources, we will have to agree to disagree. There is also no consensus for its revertion to the oder version either, so at this stage we are still workiing on it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Slater, pakistan.tv is the source with the pro-BNP text. You clearly haven't bothered to check it. You're also recommending a stand-up comic's view in a local paper funnies column. Normally I would applaud Snowded's attempts to build consensus, but here it's not worth it. Frankly, you and others are showing clear evidence of POV editing. You've been on here over three years, and you should know better than this.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am beginning to think its ANI time, especially given the failure to allow the stable version to stand when the change was challenged. --Snowded ^TALK 14:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I did not see it was becasuse it was not part of that article but a linked one -(so yes I did read the source, just not ancilery material). If myou read that extra article you will see its headed with "From http://www.bnp.org.uk" so its not pakistani.tv thats saying it, they are repating it but do not take responsibilty for it. Are you susgesting that any sources that quotes the BNP withoout comment is unreliable?Slatersteven (talk) 14:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are not "repeating it". They are carrying it. Quite why you think the site is reliable apart from that is really not clear, as it's obvious from a cursory glance it carries all sorts of junk. Have you read WP:RS ever? How about the comedian's opinion column? What's your reasoning there? Do you believe everything you read in the Daily Star? Anyone with your experience here citing trash sources like this just comes across as a POV warrior.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying its RS, I am asking whjat about it renders it not RS? Moreover many news organisations carry press relaeases does this render them non-RS?. As to the comedaian, I shall reapeat I was using the local news sources (and there are otehrs I could have used) to demonstrate that this is not a view held only by the Times (and no I would not use it in the articel, but this is not the artciel), thats its a vieew that is held by many varied persons. same with hte Star, its about demonstrating that this is a view held by a lot of people, some whome write coumns in newpapers (and some of those in RS). At no point (beyond well thier rubbish) have I seen one reasoned argument as to why the Sunday Buisiness post or daily mail (which has i the past been found to be RS) are not considerd RS ini this case. Nor (beyond criteria I suspect would not be considerd acceptable (say) about searchlight) that it sometimes publishes crap that invalidates Pakistani.TV But it does seem to heavily rely on youtube so that does not exaclty install confidenc in me).Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your reference to Searchlight is rather unexpected. Neither I nor FormerIP nor Snowded has put forward any sourcing from Searchlight. Nor have we framed this as an issue of opposing fascism. Our position is purely that the RS is not substantial enough, in accordance with Wikipedia principles of very good sourcing for lede descriptors. Searchlight exists to hound groups like the BNP, EDL etc. Do you have a conflict of interest with regard to any of the groups that UAF opposes?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)So I will come back to trying to build consensus. The sources you are referencing are not enough to label UAF as left wing, they are enough (possibly in the interests of moving forwards although I remain dubious) to make a statement that despite the multi-party sport some people regard it as left wing. That was the essence of my compromise proposal.

My point about seachlight is that just becasue something sometime publishes rubbish does not invalidate it as a source (I could have just as easily said the BBC, but I piucked on a sources that there has been debate about in the past that I am aware of).Slatersteven (talk) 14:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But you didn't pick the BBC. Your mention of searchlight, your use of the Pakistan.tv source, and your reference on the RS noticeboard to "Mr Griffin", make me ask the same question again: do you have a conflict of interest with any of the groups opposed by UAF?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I picked Searchlight because it has been disputed in then past for many of the same reasons (for example bias and inaccuracy) that many of these sources are being disputed and its linked to this debate (and is used as a source in the article). I find it odd that you should object to my using Mr Griffin as a source (I do not I use the telegraph which is quoting Mr Griffin) when in fact I did n not raise this source and am only quoting the other half of the line that others used to support their claim. To answer your question I suggest you look at my user page where I make my views on parties (and I suppose I should extend that to pressure groups) quite clear. I could also ask the same question of those who want to use a sources when it agree with them but then attack it when it does not, do they have a COI that make them want to dent the political leaning of this group. At no point have I done so, I have assumed GF throughout (until now).Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem Slater is that its not clear what you are now arguing. You seem to agree that the sources are not strong enough to establish a label just that some people think its left wing. Its not at all clear what point you are making by your reference to Griffin at the RS notice board. Previously comparison to the EDL evidence has been made but that has been answered multiple times. Are you now making a direct comparison with a source or sources on Searchlight? Are you making specific accusations of selective use of material against other editors? --Snowded ^TALK 15:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Slater, regarding the COI question, it's interesting you don't simply say "no" (or indeed, "yes".). It's also interesting that you don't appear to care whether a source is RS or not, so long as it provides the impression that an opinion is widespread, or that you cannot tell the difference between a newspaper stating its opinion and reporting the opinion of others. I don't consider Nick Griffin's opinion on the UAF as RS for the lede. I am beginning to suspect that you do.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If Mr griffins opinion of the UAF is not relevant I am OK with that. I was just pointing out that the telegraph sources used to 'prive' the non left wing nature of the UAF was quoting Mr Griffin in both cases. What I am asking for is consistancey in lableing (personaly I do not think we should have any lalbes applied from outside in nthe lead or the info box for any group). This is the talk page and we are not required to follow the saem RS rules here as we would when sourcing for the article. I would not ever use some (not all) of these sources for this articel. I have stated my view on my user page, I do not need to repeat it here.Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you now saying that none of the sources you presented were meant for the article? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No I was saygin that some where.Slatersteven (talk) 15:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL @ Searchlight. Wasn't that pointed to previously to assert something about EDL? UAF has been called left and there is nothing anyone can say to make it not so. Why is this still being argued about?Cptnono (talk) 15:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because the sources have been challenged by a majority of editors Cptnono as you well know. The challenge to the bulk of the references is that they are not reliable, and the one from The Times fails per WP:WEIGHT. Its been to RS now its time to settle this. --Snowded ^TALK 15:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cptnono, you're pretending not to understand how lede sourcing works. I've seen your work on the Israel-Palestine articles, and you would never allow the weak sourcing there what you're arguing for here if it showed your preferred side (and you've revealed what that is) in the wrong light. This is what makes your editing POV. You are not applying a consistent set of principles across the encyclopedia. But more than that, you have been presented with RS that contradicts the left-wing label - you ignore it. You are presented with evidence that the EDL is overwhelmingly called right-wing (compared with the dribble of sources - effectively one, and in passing) that call the UAF left wing - and you ramble on about how you subscribed to something or other and refuse to answer the question. I've seen you do better than this.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Slater has now raised the issue here --Snowded ^TALK 19:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The clear position on the RS notice board is now in favour of the original position before the edit war started - namely that left wing is an inappropriate label for an organisation with multi-party sources. The limited RS used to counter this fail WP:Weight. It is of course open to editors to continue to make a case for the insertion, but they will need to establish a consensus for the change (as should have happened the first time) before making any direct edits to the article. If we get more edit warring then I think it is time for an ANI report --Snowded ^TALK 18:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your interpretation. Certain sources were ruled out but multiple other ones were not addressed. Cptnono (talk) 02:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But you can try an RfC since there was some mention that you were going to the wrong board so a single centralized discussion wouldf be better than three. I will be happy to copy and paste my reasoning you think that is a better route.Cptnono (talk) 02:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See below, you (and are couple of others) are now being obdurate and this is a behavioral issue not a content issue --Snowded ^TALK 06:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Excellent, I will have a good look through today and tomorrow. Johnsy88 (talk) 20:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

With what do you disagree? That the BBC and the Guardian are RS? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Two noticeboards and this discussion page. It has been responded to.Cptnono (talk) 02:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I missed it then! That could certainly change my view on it. Would you mind providing the link again? The ones I provided were:[13][14][15]. 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:[16][17]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8091605.stm].Cptnono (talk) 03:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

what link would you like cptnono and i will get it for you? Johnsy88 (talk) 12:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I would add the UAF do not deny it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The why is this even an issue? Cptnono (talk) 13:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Another source. Peter Tatchels views [[18]] a left wing magazine, so even the left consider UAF leftist.Slatersteven (talk) 15:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

You sure look like you're here, Rob... --FormerIP (talk) 17:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• - a non elected group of left wing thugs! You can not defend democracy from fascism by using fascist tactics against fascists! If you try to, does that not make you a fascist? http://www.general-election-2010.co.uk/unite-against-fascism-uaf.html Off2riorob (talk) 17:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a blog, is it?Slatersteven (talk) 17:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Self published source only good for opinions and comments about himself, no assertion of independent notability. Off2riorob (talk) 18:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [19] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]