Talk:Chris Bambery

Removal of content about Chris Bambery.
Large section of this page are repeatedly removed. The sections largely deal with those people Chris Bambery has had political disagreements with and are normally removed without any reason being given. Because of this they are often returned by various people. The last time content was removed, the following justification was given: "Removed a series of highly contentious claims about Chris Bambery in line with the Wikipedia guidelines on biographies of living people, and original research responding to an article by Bambery."

This would seem fair enough until the justifications for what was removed is examined in light of the content that was removed. The first concerned the fact that contentious claims were being made. The policy on 'biographies of living people' makes clear that criticism can (and should) be included in biographies if they can be sourced. This then means that contentious claims, providing they are clearly shown to be claims can be included provided they are from legitimate sources. All the claims on the page have sources listed. The question is are they legitimate sources?

The claim concerning the attempt to have anarchists arrested is sourced to Freedom newspaper. This is a political paper that is currently published fortnightly and was established by Peter Kropotkin (and others) in 1886. Since then it has published regularly and is associated with freedom press. It has had various supporters associated with it (although not necessarily agreeing with its political line) including T. S. Eliot, Benjamin Britten and George Orwell. (All this information is available on the relevant wikipedia entry!). The article referenced makes clear it has legal statements to back up its allegations and as such, is willing to stand by such allegations if a libel case was brought by Bambery. I would argue that a well established political newspaper, with a publishing history of 125 years, is a legitimate source. It does at least show that contentious allegations have been placed in the public shpere and are being discussed. This corresponds with Wikipedias Biographys on living people policy and their policy regarding sources.

The criticism of the right to work campaign are likewise sourced. One of the sources is the Daily Telegraph, a well established mass circulation daily broadsheet. I fail to see why they should of been taken down, other than the fact that they are critical of a campaign that Chris Bambery was firmly involved with.

Finally we have the allegation about "original research responding to an article by Bambery". This refers to the criticism of his article in Internation Socialism Autumn 1993. Wikipedia states "the term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—for which no reliable published source exists." The criticism is clearly referenced, with the book it came from, publishing date and publisher. What is written in the biography is a quick summary of the criticism specifically written about Bamberys article and it can be found on page 373 of "Beating the Fascists". The book is currently the only 'official' history of the organisation Anti-Fascist Action (AFA) and Red Action's role in setting up this group. Between 1985 and 1992 Anti-Fascist Action was the only specifically anti-fascist group in Britain. As such, the book is a reliable published source, relevant to the matter. The criticism of the article is legitimate, since it is criticism of Chris Bamberys political position. It is not original research but research conducted by another group on the left (who ironically enough, are a split from the SWP).

In summing up, I have restored the material removed because I feel that they are all have sufficent legitiamte sources. The only reason to remove them is because they might paint some of Chris Bambery's politics in bad light. Yet wikipedia specifically states that sourced criticisms should be placed in biographies of living persons. This provides balance and allows people to gain knowledge about all sides of an individual, not just an indidividual wants you to know about themselves.

Please address the above and counter these points if you are going to carry out further edits and removals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malatesta161 (talk • contribs) 00:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Granted that the Daily Telegraph and the Freedom Newspaper are reliable sources and have some interest in reporting the truth. However, the Indymedia site is clearly not reliable. I've removed a sentence attributed to Indymedia (which in effect is a repeat of something cited from Freedom Newspaper). On this basis, I think the 'reliable sources' clean-up tag can be removed too. Sionk (talk) 01:44, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Communists Appearing on Iranian TV + Are They Having A Laugh?
That is the question. History students will know that Communists inspired the Iranian Revolution in 1979 and did the heavy lifting. They were then butchered by the Ayatollah and his followers. So, what kind of a Leftie would make an appearance on Press TV, which is run by the same Govt? Some kind of a Useful Idiot, that's who! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.186.23.236 (talk) 16:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)