Talk:1989 Dewsbury riot

Of references and reverts

Recent additions of text with references by User:Slatersteven have been reverted, restored, then deleted again. User:One Night In Hackney has alleged "fraud" and "fake refs", but provided absolutely no evidence to back up the claims. Further, User:RepublicanJacobite has reverted the same material while citing WP:BURDEN which is clearly erroneous as Slatersteven carefully and completely fulfilled each requirement of that policy. This begins to appear to be a variation of "I don't like it". Unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the reference is being used improperly or the source is unreliable, then the material needs to be allowed to stand. Rational and productive discussion on this topic is welcome, but further disruptive editing will be reported. Doc Tropics 16:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I've read the reference and the quote supplied - per my summary on reverting the material it simply doesn't support the statement. If there is a more extensive quote then lets see it here so it can be assessed. In the meantime lets wait for agreement before inserting controversial text please. --Snowded ^TALK 16:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

To quote the policy at WP:BURDEN: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material" as well as the accompanying footnote reading "This is because it is generally much harder to prove that a statement cannot be sourced to the literature than to provide a citation to the source of the statement". Therefore you have to prove it is correctly sourced, I do not have to disprove it. Quite why you are not willing to assume good faith in an editor in good standing that an article is fraudulently referenced and cause vast amounts of drama when you have not even read the book cited is puzzling. Previously, an editor who added such falsified information was banned from editing. This is a fact which should be kept in mind. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

What the page in question says

'In contrast to the innovation of the NF in the 1980s, the BNP represented more of a continuation of both the issues and the methods of the 1970s. The combination of a sizeable immigrant community and government attempts to foster a multiracial society enabled it to present the native white population as an oppressed people in their own country. The BNP's 'Rights for Whites' campaign, which took off after a major demonstration in Dewsbury in 1989, marked the behinning of a more active approach. 'The real watershed', as John Tyndall observed, 'signifying the party's determination to enter mainstream politics occurred around 1990'.

Thus my edit which read

"The riot has been viewed as the beginning of the BNP's more active approach British politics. John Tyndall commenting that signified the BNP’s ’determination to enter mainstream politics occurred around 1990"

Seems to me a fair reflection of the source, that the BNP became more active (its an assumption they are to say politicaly active but they are a political party so its a fair one, this was done to avoid blatant copying of the source). And that Tyndal said that in 1990 this marked the BNP's determined entry into UK politics.Slatersteven (talk) 21:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and I support Slatersteven's current version of the text as it appears here. I consider that it would also be acceptable to use the Tyndal quote within the article directly, in quotation marks. Using the quote directly has the advantage of eliminating any possible complaints that the supporting text is inaccurate. Either way, this looks like a useful, reasonable, and properly cited addition of text. Doc Tropics 15:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I think re-reading it it need some work, mainoly gramer. Is this better.

"The riot has been viewed as the beginning of the BNP's more active approach to British politics. John Tyndall called it 'The real watershed' adding that the BNP’s ’determination to enter mainstream politics occurred around 1990"Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

No doubt we can tweak and clean up the prose a bit, but at this point I'm waiting for some response from editors who seem to oppose the inclusion in general. Doc Tropics 17:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Massive OR problems. Tyndall does not say the riot was a watershed or anything like that, he just says a watershed occurred in 1990 which is a year after the riot. If you knew what the rest of the page says you would know that it attempts to compress about 10 years of the history of the BNP into an equal number of sentences, and just because one sentence is after another doesn't mean the two are linked in any way especially when there is no inherent connection within the text itself. The "more active approach" assumption you're making is equally dubious, it could equally mean that was when the BNP attempted to create a street based presence with marches, demonstrations and paper sales. So it's not a fair assumption at all, as "political" is a meaningless word that doesn't convey what the BNP were actually doing at the time. What does "politically active" mean, or more accurately what could it mean? Standing in elections is "politically active", having marches is "politically active", having rallies is "politically active", having paper sales is "politically active". It's a meaningless term that doesn't convey anything to the reader about what the BNP's subsequent "more active approach" actually entailed. There was a very specific reason I didn't rewrite it to the source, because the source is not covering anything in-depth and is vague about the events it does cover, there's really nothing in there of much use to this article. Other sources have covered that part of the BNP's history in far better and more useful detail, you would be better off obtaining them instead of arguing the toss about two useless sentences from Sykes. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments on so-called disruption

The assertion that "Recent additions of text with references by User:Slatersteven have been reverted, restored, then deleted again" is false, please check carefully before diving into disputes that have nothing to do with you. Slatersteven had never edited the article prior to me removing fake references on 23 January. This was then reverted on 28 March with the question of "the book exsist so how are these fake?". I would have thought it obvious that a book merely existing does not mean that the text in the article is an accurate representation of what the book actually says. I have read the book, Slatersteven has not (although he is now aware of what it actually says) and Doc Tropics has not. I object in the strongest possible terms to having my initial removal of the source and my subsequent removal of the source and associated text (and indeed, other irrelevant material which I said was original research and was not even allegedly sourced by the book) reverted by two editors who did not know what the book said, one of whom was mistakenly thinking I was removing text added by Slatersteven. If I say the referencing was fraudulent or fake then you have to assume good faith that what I have said is correct, unless you are in a position to contradict me with actual evidence. I have evidence as I know what the book said, neither of you did. It is an absolute disgrace that either of you reverted my edits under those circumstances, in the case of the second revert the burden of evidence is quite clear - by adding it back you are taking responsibility for it being accurately cited. I'm prepared to accept that should say an IP editor blank an entire section of an article reverting it does not mean you are taking responsibility for the edit, but when an editor in good standing has said the material is fake or fraudulent you cannot revert them unless you are prepared to take responsibility for the edit. I have done nothing wrong here, I made it quite clear with my original edit, my second edit and on Slatersteven's talk page that the referencing was fraudulent, sadly the actions of other editors are the problem here. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

TLDR Also, your grasp of policy is sadly lacking. Every time you have quoted policy you have consistently misapplied it, even after being given links to the actual policy in question. I do not think that word means what you think it means. Still, I wish you luck in your learning efforts. Doc Tropics 14:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll translate for the benefit of others. "I'm wrong, you were right, I haven't got the guts to admit it so I'll attempt to be witty and fail miserably". As for your interpretation of policy it's clear to anyone with an IQ in double figures that a sentence reading "'The real watershed', as John Tyndall observed, 'signifying the party's determination to enter mainstream politics occurred around 1990'" does not refer to 1989 (the clue is in the 1990 part y'know?) and your interpretation of it is laughably wrong, thus casting severe doubt on your interpretation of policy given your difficulty understanding the meaning of quite simple sentences in the English language. I suggest you stop being a fly in the ointment wasting time of productive editors like me (I've written one featured article, six good articles and countless did-you-knows, how many have you written?) lest you find yourself in very hot water. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1989 Dewsbury riot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090225001123/http://www.kirklees-pct.nhs.uk/fileadmin/documents/meetings/march_07/KPCT-07-42%20Report%20estate%20strategy.doc to http://www.kirklees-pct.nhs.uk/fileadmin/documents/meetings/march_07/KPCT-07-42%20Report%20estate%20strategy.doc

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:19, 16 June 2017 (UTC)