Talk:Far-left politics in the United Kingdom

PoV
An article such as this, and the associated template nears clear third party sources to establish its legitimacy as a subject and also to determine what is or is not included. At the moment it is in effect an essay by one editor, with multiple associated edits to other articles. Lets get the basics right first please. Snowded TALK 08:39, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Agree. IMO describing a group as far left implies an editorial POV.TheLongTone (talk) 16:03, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

This article is a mess; it'd be much better to use more readily cited definitions like "socialist", "Marxist" or "anarchist". The criteria for inclusion are unclear as there are many other groups similar to those listed, and the introduction appears to be written by someone with no particular knowledge of the field. While our article on the history of the socialist movement in the United Kingdom isn't perfect, redirecting there might be the best bet. Warofdreams talk 23:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Agree, almost inevitably results in opinion based labelling.  I'd support a redirect  Snowded  TALK 23:36, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Disagree with any merge. "Socialism" is far too vague, especially in the British context, where there is a clear historical difference between the mainstream parliamentary left of the Labour Party, the Fabian Society, trade unionism and Christian socialists and on the other hand far-left groupings which advocate Marxist-Leninism, Maoism, Trotskyism and left forms of anarchism on the other. For this same reason we have an article on far-right politics in the United Kingdom, as those groups are distinct in their more radical outlook from mainstream right groups like the Conservative Party, etc, rather than lumping them all together. I don't see how there is any POV in the article, which part do you disagree with exactly? Claíomh Solais (talk) 08:29, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Just look at the number of reversions following your creation.  Snowded  TALK 08:32, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Well that is a matter of opinion, the inclusion or exclusion of specific entities can be debated. With the article listed as it is now, what do you disagree with? Claíomh Solais (talk) 08:35, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Exactly it is a matter of opinion and you are writing an essay based on your opinion. Check out the five pillars  Snowded  TALK 08:36, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * An essay? I am writing an article about far-left politics in Britain, based on references from mainstream books found in the bibliography section. This is clearly a well established subject matter. I don't understand why you are attempting to obstruct. You can't even seem to state what is POV? None of the content attacks or supports the ideology of the subject matter. Specific organisations are up for debate; some sources claim the Respect Party is far-left for example, while others state they are not, that is what I mean by that. Claíomh Solais (talk) 08:40, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The material I have just reverted is a history of the left in Britain not necessarily of the far-left which is a more recent term.  If you have a reliable third party source which makes the case then we can look at it.  For the moment two editors think it should be merged into other articles and more than two editors have reverted several of your claims.  Lets see what other people think on the merge point before you run ahead with your essay  Snowded  TALK 08:43, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The two main groups which founded the Communist Party of Great Britain descend from left-splits of earlier groups on the British left, so giving a background on them and the contemporary context of less radical rival groups such as the ILP is important for the subject. See Kendall's The Revolutionary Movement in Britain, 1900-21: The Origins of British Communism, which discusses these groups;
 * 1. Social Democratic Federation -> British Socialist Party -> CPGB
 * 2. Social Democratic Federation -> Socialist Labour Party -> Communist Unity Group -> CPGB Claíomh Solais (talk) 09:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not disputing the facts, but the use of then in an article labeled 'Far Left' which has a more precise meaning than a general history of socialism. Snowded  TALK 09:28, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Socialism and far-left politics are not intrinsically linked and therefore I would like to add that I also disagree with the redirect target. I think it would have been better to work on the page as it was, or at the very least not have a redirect target as yet until one is agreed upon. Helper201 (talk) 02:59, 27 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Especially in the context of Britain where Reformist socialism (ie - Fabian Society, Labour, Methodist Church kind of stuff) has predominated, to force it all together does not make sense. The revolutionary Marxist groups and anarcho-communist/syndicalist groups are treated as substantially different to the mainstream left in reliable sources to warrant a specialist article just about them. Not sure what Snowded's personal vendetta against the article is when he doesn't seem to be willing to suggest content changes or even point out any supposed biases. From the earliest stages to it's now more developed form, the content has not taken any sides in favour or against the ideologies of the subject. Claíomh Solais (talk) 13:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

You are not writing an article on Far-Left politics, you are writing a history of socialism and using the far left label. The majority of editors do not support the pair of you in part because this is a clear coat-rack article. As far as I can see four editors agree that the article should be redirected and/or is a mess while two if you think it has value. That is not sufficient to override the redirect. If you want to call an RfC here then do but you need support to keep it Snowded  TALK 16:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Nice try. All that existed when the article was started (and the earlier talk comments) was a list of the groups, when it was a stub, with no references... that is when those older comments are from. Now that far more general content has been developed and references added, the only person who keeps going on is you (a one man crusade). If you which to delete the content, then dominate the article for deletion through the correct channels. Claíomh Solais (talk) 18:19, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I think its a coat rack article and I am concerned about using a pejorative label. If you want to say that is a one man crusade or a vendetta then I think that says more about your motivations than mine :-)   I've proposed a merge and posted to all engaged editors and the politics notice board.  If the majority agree with you fine  Snowded  TALK 06:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * From what I can see if you wish to redirect the material on this page, I think it should be divided up and copied to the most relevant pages for each section of information. On the other hand the information could perhaps be condensed down and copied over to the general 'far-left politics' page with a new UK section. To think that most (let alone the whole article) fits cleanly under socialism seems absurd. Helper201 (talk) 08:05, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Request for definition
Per earlier comments, this is so far an essay on the history of the left in britain, not the far left as far as I can see. So moving the article is an option, or merging per the suggest of another editor (which at the moment is a majority position). To help the process what definition of the Far Left is being used to inform the primary author of this article, and what is the source for that definition? Snowded TALK 08:55, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * OK you've added to your essay and not responded to this question. Unless there is a satisfactory answer I will merge it as at the moment only you support the existence of the article  Snowded  TALK 05:48, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * please proceed to whatever you had in mind. I'm too tired to slap more tags on it. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * OK I redirected it - hopefully I used the write syntax but its not something I have done before Snowded  TALK 22:31, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Redirect proposal
As far as I can see this is an essay by a single editor which largely replicates material elsewhere, specially the History of Socialism article. The use of 'far left', 'far right' etc in wikipedia is also problematic and subject to issues of historical context. We can see that in the number of reverts in the early days of this articles creation where groups who are clearly not far left were tarred with that brush. Any new material here would be best subject too scrutiny on other articles. The article was previously redirected but the original author isn't happy with that so this section is to test the view of involved editors. Snowded TALK


 * redirect per the above Snowded  TALK 05:58, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Snowded, why not do the AFD or RFC? --George Ho (talk) 08:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I looked up merge and it said open up a discussion on the talk page.  Also I think this is a merge - some of this material has value on another page.  I notified the Politics interest page as well to get informed editors engaged  Snowded  TALK 08:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * ...Okay. What target article if the page becomes a redirect page or is merged? Per previous revisions, I see History of the socialist movement in the United Kingdom or Socialism as a possibility. If neither, what else is a better target? By the way, you might look at Talk:Cold War II and its Archive pages. The discussions might help you organize... or compare... or whatever helps more. George Ho (talk) 10:08, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the material potentially belongs on several articles or none. As you say there are several.  The problem we have is that this is a personal essay covering the history of socialism under a label which is always problematic in Wikipedia.   Subjecting contributions to the scrutiny of editors in established articles is more difficult than simply writing your own which is what has happened here.  Snowded  TALK 06:25, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose redirect - material is not replicated elsewhere and the specific group of ideologies (Marxist-Leninism, Trotskyism, Maoism, anarcho-communism, etc) are classified by reliable sources included in the article as far-left and are treated by academia as a specific movement distinct from the social democratic and democratic socialist politics which is the overwhelming focus of the article suggested to redirect to (ie - the Labour Party, ILP, Fabian Society, Christian socialism, ethical socialism, trade unionism, etc). The subject of covering Category:Far-left politics by country is quite well established on Wikipedia. This political movement is distinct enough from the mainstream left and yet notable enough to warrant its own article focusing on the topic. For example, we don't just put the Conservative Party and the far-right politics in the United Kingdom into a generic "right-wing" or "conservative" article as if there is no distinction between them. The article itself is extensively references from reliable sources. Claíomh Solais (talk) 23:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect, probably to history of the socialist movement... article. I'm interested to hear what referenced and useful material is in this article that isn't available elsewhere.  If there is some, absolutely merge it wherever is most appropriate - probably the history of the socialist movement... article.  This topic could merit an article, but at the moment it's an essay which takes quite an idiosyncratic approach to the subject and is short on references. Warofdreams talk 21:20, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Where in the history of the socialist movement in the United Kingdom is the information covered? As far as I can tell, there is a brief two paragraph section called "Bolshevism and the CPGB" but otherwise the article is overwhelmingly focused on the mainstream democratic socialist/social democratic movement and the Labour Party in particular. It doesn't really go into any depth about the background of British communism and the broader far-left of the time, nor the formation of Trotskyist groups breaking away from the CPGB. Other early communist groups such as Pankhurst, Aldred, etc, are completely ignored.


 * It doesn't go into the antagonistic relationship between communists and the Labour Party, nor where communists gained support. The development of the New Left out of the CPGB post-1956 is not even mentioned. The names Benn, Foot, Kinnock, etc are mentioned but Cliff, Grant and Healy are completely absent. With the predominance of democratic socialism in Britain, the topic of Marxist-Leninism/Trotskyism/Maoism/Revisionism would simply be overwhelmed in a generic "socialist" article IMO and if we tried to expand it to have more focus on the far-left (which would be a lot of content considering the vast number of factions in it's history) then it would be viewed as bias by association. It is best to simply have one centralised article on the far-left to go into more depth about it's specifics. Claíomh Solais (talk) 22:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Maybe the solution would be to have an article about communism in the UK, which covers Marxist-Leninism/Trotskyism/Maoism. Revisionism though is part of socialism.  It was the ideology of the Social Democratic Party in Germany.  Otherwise, we have an odd case where communists and anarchists are included except where they happen to be members of Labour.  TFD (talk) 15:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose redirect. I can't see the problem with this as a discrete topic and page, per the arguments advanced. There's a clear distinction in UK left history betweem Labour and the mainstream left on one side and the various Marxist and extraparliamentary trends and groups included here on the other, the latter of which can and should be covered separately under this heading (and don't, as noted, seem to be covered much in the suggested redirect targets). As for the current content, skimming through it and without vouching for its unimpeachable accuracy, it reads way better and appears more informative than most WP politics pages, which are usually a garbled and misleading mess. University imprints and others publish books dedicated to the topic, so what's the problem?  N-HH   talk / edits  09:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * But is not a clear distinction. There are for example Marxists within the Labour Party and non-Marxists outside it.  Historically, the line between Labour and other left-wing parties has always blurred, Ken Livingstone and George Galloway being two recent examples.  But look at an earlier example, the Independent Labour Party, which was led by Keir Hardie, future leader of the Labour Party and included Marx's son-in-law, GB Shaw and various Fabian groups.  The party was affiliated with the Labour Party from 1906-1932, but its MPs joined Labour in 1947 and it merged into the Labour Party in 1975.  How are you goind to determine what periods of history of the party come under far left?  Was Shaw far left or just when he was in the ILP?  TFD (talk) 12:06, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, no it's not 100% clear, but distinctions often aren't, especially over time and in political classification. If that's the threshold, we'd have hardly any political pages here. As with everything, at some points you have to make a judgment, based on what serious sources do. My best guess would be that most writing would, broadly speaking, count "far left" as comprising communist and anarchist groups. Some members of those groups may, at some point, have been members of the Labour Party too. But neither Shaw nor the ILP fall under that, at any point to the best of my knowledge (ps: the page does currently mention the ILP, briefly, before noting it was subsumed into the Labour mainstream. That seems the obvious way to deal with that kind of context here and the borderlines cases). The problem is of course that if we go with a name change to, say, "radical left", as suggested elsewhere, the issue becomes less clear, not more.  N-HH   talk / edits  10:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Consider redirecting to a list, using the list in the article, assuming such a list does not already exist. The prose in the article...is really just a list of its own with really long entries that make it seem like an article, when it's really not. The content in the article seems overall well written though. I'm just not seeing a reason why is should be its own list of fairly arbitrary prose examples of a vague-ish broad topic, rather than being incorporated into their own main, and well defined articles. Timothy Joseph Wood  13:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

For RfC
The article "Far-left politics in the United Kingdom" was created in December 2016. For some time, attempts to convert into a redirect page have been reverted. I found possible targets from history logs: History of the socialist movement in the United Kingdom and Socialism. Shall the page be a redirect page? If so, and neither of both targets is suitable, which other target do you suggest? George Ho (talk) 02:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I think the problem with this article is that it assumes an arbitrary break between the moderate? left and the far left, which is identified in one source used (Against the grain: The British far left from 1956) as Labour and groups to its left. But actually many of the same people have been active in both the Labour and outside.  Militant for example was a major faction in the Labour Party.  George Galloway was a Labour MP; Ken Livingston was in Labour, left and returned.  During the 19th century, revolutionary socialists belonged to the Labour Party.  I don't think the literature makes this division.  Against the grain is actually a collection of essays and as it says is " the first general history of the British far left to be published in the twenty-first century."  I cannot see any evidence that any were written in the 20th century.
 * The fact that there is literature on the far right in the UK should not influence us. While the "far left" focuses on socialism in common with one of the major parties, the far right focuses on fascism, which is distinct from the Conservative Party, despite occassional overlaps.
 * So I would agree either a re-direct or re-naming the article "Left-wing politics in the UK." It is slightly broader than socialism because the Left includes anarchism and syndicalism.
 * TFD (talk) 15:48, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Renaming might be a compromise Snowded  TALK 17:07, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure renaming is necessary, but wouldn't object, so long as the broad topic survives (see my comment above). I think it's too easy to get hung up on "far left" being pejorative. It is a term used in serious academic and other sources to categorise the radical left. As ever with political terms, the fact that it is sometimes misused and/or used deliberately as a pejorative doesn't necessarily make it one in itself. If Richard Littlejohn describes Jeremy Corbyn as "far left" in his Mail column, yes that's pejorative and polemical usage; if a political scientist describes the Revolutionary Communist Party as "far left" in an academic overview of British political groups, I'm not sure it is. And while there may be some dispute as to where you draw the line between the mainstream and the more radical/extreme, and there are individuals who have arguably straddled it over time, that's true of all boundaries and distinctions like this, and I don't think that means you can't make a reasonable, and useful, attempt to do so – and serious sources have. As well as Against the Grain, there's this whole book and this one, (both from the 20th century, albeit one uses the term "radical"). Understanding British Politics by Stephen Driver has several passages discussing the radical, non-Labour "far left". This political encyclopedia for example has a whole, discrete sub-section specifically titled "Far left", listing various British (and Irish) groups.  N-HH   talk / edits  17:17, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I know the term is used, but there is no consistency in its definition. One of your sources for example is about groups to the left of Labour while the other is about the left of Labour and groups to its left.  The Encyclopedia uses the term far left to categorize different groups and parties but does not have an entry for the topic itself.  The term was used in recent years (in an article published by Labour) to describe parties that emerged following the collapse of communism that are to the left of Labour and similar parties, but they are better know as "Left" parties, which is what they call themselves.  It seems like an article title in search of a topic.  What's the point of an article that disusses anarchists and the Respect Party but ignores Clause IV or CND?  TFD (talk) 21:31, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The New Left's relationship to CND is mentioned in the article in passing. But CND itself was not a far-left group since it was broader tent than that and it's goal was promoting pacifism rather than revolutionary Marxism. It was set up by a very effete grinning Anglican priest (John Collins), hardly a revolutionary communist. Even with Clause IV, the Labour Party has never stated that it stands for the revolutionary overthrow of British capitalism; it is a reformist party. Ken Livingstone (or rather his relationship to Trotskyist Socialist Action) and some of the Militant infiltration of Labour during the 1980s should be mentioned, but this is an isolated case of hostile entryism, rather than Labour as a whole (Livingstone has been kicked out of the party before). I am sure the Tories have had some fascist infiltrators too, but we wouldn't class them alongside far-right groups. Claíomh Solais (talk) 23:58, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Per my simultaneous answer in the section above and what I've already said just here, of course there are grey areas and different people will sometimes use the same term slightly differently. That doesn't necessarily invalidate the entire topic.  N-HH   talk / edits  10:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Continued discussion
I have a question: Why aren't we discussing whether this article should actually be a redirect or not at AfD? Wouldn't that make more sense than doing this? Help me understand. Sro23 (talk) 10:16, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I think Claíomh Solais or Snowded may answer this better than I can. George Ho (talk) 19:51, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Because some of the material has value but really belongs on other articles Snowded  TALK 22:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose We've tolerated it for a full year and a lot of spare change, why is it now intolerable today, when it wasn't last month? Far left is not entirely socialism, but actually a rather wide spectrum. One that I somewhat disagree with in many areas, in many nations political systems, but regardless, robs nuance of views into one single collective. Is Wikipedia now to become one unitary commune (pun intended)?Wzrd1 (talk) 08:08, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment -- the unsourced editorialising can and should be removed, but the topic itself is notable. See for example: Ideology and Politics in Britain Today. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose as above. — OwenBlacker (talk) 20:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Proper sourcing
I removed a whole body of material which had no sources and took a "anti-facists were trots" line. I've just removed it again as the source provided was a blog which is not a reliable source. Two other sections have no sources and unless reliable ones are inserted will be deleted - I have tagged them for the moment. Snowded TALK 21:33, 14 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Reference has now been added from Nigel Copsey's book Anti-Fascism in Britian, which states essentially the exact same thing as the link. That the IMG's response to the rise of the far-right was the "No Platform" policy and that the NUS (which the IMG had considerable influence in at that time) then adopted the policy too. What exactly are you opposing or disputing here? In the 1970s, the IS (SWP) and the IMG were the main groups on the far-left organising publicly against the rise of the far-right. The ANL was the most notable of these groups, for instance.


 * Are you going to start working on the article constructively now that the motion to redirect it hasn't passed, or are you going to continue this fly-by mass deletion of referenced information just cause you, for whatever reason, don't seem to personally like it? Claíomh Solais (talk) 22:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I think there is a consensus to rename, there are also several editors who expressed concern about the essay like quality. Two whole sections have no references at all.  Other sections which have references are problematic as they seem to be a synthesis of material rather that proper third party sourcing.  You are wrong in respect of the IMG, yes they supported the no platform policy but they had only minor influence on the NUS which at that time was dominated by the Broad Left with IS opposition.  The No-platform policy was a consensus over multiple left wing groups it was not trot initiated. Your statement that the SWP and IMG were the main groups opposing the far-right is dubious, they may have been vocal and prolific in their use of posters but the opposition came from the left as a whole and the trots were in the minority.   It is (and Copsey and others make that point) a standard Trot approach to try and subvert popular movements to their cause but that is a different matter.  The issue remains that you seem to be writing an essay based on your own reading of sources and/or political position.   Snowded  TALK 22:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The IMG were the first party to create the term "No Platform" in 1972. What sourced evidence do you have that is was created by a cross-section of different groups? It has since been used by others, but was invented by them. Copsey states on page 119; "The International Marxist Group (less than 1,000 members) also declared itself to be in favour of physical opposition and advocated a "no platform" policy for fascists. This policy was further supported by the National Union of Students, a body within which the IMG exerted considerable influence."


 * Nobody said that the SWP and IMG were the only groups opposing the far-right, or that anti-fascism is Trotskyist. The Labour Party and the TUC also campaigned against the far-right and probably all of the far-left groups (ML, anarchist, whatever) are anti-far right, but the latter didn't create any major anti-fascist groups during that time. What the article states is that the IMG pioneered the No Platform policy, which they did. That the SWP created the ANL/RAR, which they did. As significant organisations, that warrants a mention in this article. Labour/TUC are not far-left, so their efforts against the NF aren't particularly relevant to this article. Claíomh Solais (talk) 22:56, 14 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I'll check Copsley when I get home as I don't have it with me, or other sources relating o the period. The assertion the IMG had a major influence in the NUS is dubious and I think we need other sources, in particular we need something which establishes the relevance of this to the article.  Copsely is not writing about the far left per se. .  As I remember it (and I was there) the motion at NUS did not come from the IMG but that is a personal recollection so I need to check.  I'm pretty sure it was a composite of motions from several sources as the NF marches in Bradford and elsewhere were causing concern.  The point is that you are over emphasising the role of the trotskyites and using the 'far left' brand too widely.  We've had similar debates of other articles by the way, with attempts to label anti-facist groups as trotskyite fronts so this is a wider wikipedia issue. If the article is staying then the synthesis needs to removed and any unsourced material deleted.  I've tagged for the moment until I have time to go through it in detail  Snowded  TALK 23:06, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Definition
the Definition section is entirely sourced to Ideology and Politics in Britain Today, pp.183-184. I would question why we should use an A-level textbook as a source or use "In-text attribution", since the author is merely stating matters of fact rather than expressing an opinion.

The author defines the far left as "committed to revolutionary Marxism." He further says they have "virtually no chance of electoral success of any kind." If that is the definition we are using, it would be better to use a more precise term for the title of the article, to avoid confusion.

Some editors may think that since we have an article about the "Far-right politics in the United Kingdom," symmetry requires and article about the far left. But our guide should be what reliable sources do. They have a clear definition and body of literature about the far right, while the term far left is used inconsistently and there is no body of literature. But that's because there is no more precise term that groups together the BNP and EDL. For the same reason we do not have an article "Centrist politics in the United Kingdom."

TFD (talk) 14:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


 * So rename it? Snowded  TALK 22:13, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Not yet. Propose a new name and that's it. If no new name is proposed, how about another RFC on the titling this time? George Ho (talk) 01:27, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

New media
Hi, the new media recently added shows a sticker belonging to an active initiative to re-build a party in downtown Edinburgh. However it has been reverted by user as that name in the party is defunct. I prove that there is an active initiative to re-build that party. See the active link for the initiative: https://communist.red/join-the-communists-build-the-revolutionary-communist-party/ That proves my point that an active group of communists put out stickers in Edinburgh to call people to join their movement. Therefore this picture belongs to Far-left politics in the UK (1991-present section). I kindly await the user to revert his/her edit please. Thanks. Ogün Eratalay message  14:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Launched in January, said there would be founded in May, nothing in the media about it in Edinburgh but there is this. A publicity leaflet in Edinburgh has no significance and I cannot see a reason to publicise it by using this editor's upload.WP:UNDUE  also applies.  Doug Weller  talk 14:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Ertly Did you just happen to find this or did you place it there? Any chance you have a conflict of interest in this case?  Doug Weller  talk 14:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * See also the comment on my talk page. Doug Weller  talk 16:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)


 * The unjust proposition that me myself have placed that sticker/leaflet and taken the photo to upload it, is in the kindest terms is biased. I did not put that sticker there, I have photographed it and I am trying to upload it to an article concerning far-left politics in the UK. The user that has reverted without even bothering to check the web link on it is not a judge who decides what photo to include in an article. Therefore I know that his views are biased, I do not expect any feedback from him. Any other comments are welcome. I have been in the Wikipedia over many years and not faced such an unbelivable hostile attitude. Thanks... Ogün Eratalay  message  11:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Ertly OK, I"m sorry that I suggested you might have been directly involved. You didn't answer my question about any conflict of interest, but it doesn't matter unless, and I doubt it's the case, you are an official in the party. You have also posted to my talk page and failed to respond there.to the posts by two experienced editors.
 * Here they are, please explain how your image complies with the policies and guidelines quoted.
 * (talk page stalker)But, it seems to me that including such an image in Wikipedia is promoting that attempt to rebuild the party without adding anything of value to the encyclopedia. Donald Albury (A) 5:20 pm, Yesterday (UTC+1)Reply
 * (talk page stalker)The picture itself does not explain that; without your assertion that it was taken in Edinburgh in June 2024, it lacks significance, but that assertion doesn't satisfy WP:V. As a piece of photojournalism it's contrary to WP:OR. To assert, pictorially or in text, that someone is trying to recreate a party requires WP:RS and must be WP:DUE, and reliance on an image alone is contrary to WP:IMAGEOR. NebY (talk) 5:45 pm, Yesterday (UTC+1)Reply Doug Weller  talk 12:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Ertly I think I should also note that I'm not a judge to decide, I'm an experienced editor trying to apply our policies and guidelines  and your accusation of bias (ironically showing apparent hostility) is simply wrong. I also would say my edit summary was sadly insufficient as I should have mentioned policy/guideline reasons, although my response above does mention WP:UNDUE which is the basic reason. I hadn't thought about our policy on original research.  Doug Weller  talk 13:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)