Talk:Free Speech Union

Opinion pieces
Opinion pieces are not reliable sources. See WP:RS to learn more about this. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 03:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC).

Lead is woefully inadequate
Doesn't cover all sources, breaks WP:NPOV by only presenting Young's view of what it is, something that has been very much challenged. Doug Weller talk 19:48, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Had a crack at it here. — Bilorv ( talk ) 09:41, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Criticism of Young not Free Speech Union
ref. final paragraph in Criticism sub-section; while the article referenced is primarily about FSU - the criticism by Nafeez Ahmed "that Young had previously defended the pseudoscientific research of the Pioneer Fund, a Nazi endowment in the US established..." seems to be of Young and not the Free Speech Union. Threatens to undermine the rest of the legitimate content in that section. Perhaps remove or replace to something regarding the FSU from that article? (09:44, 19 August 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Expatpaula (talk • contribs)
 * Agreed, the whole paragraph is a bit tenuous in relevance,, but the sources look relevant. I'd encourage you to be bold and find something else from these articles that is worth including. — Bilorv ( talk ) 10:30, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Opinion piece
Imogen West-Knights, writing for Vice, said that in setting up the FSU, Young wanted "to be able to slag off [minority groups] to his heart's content".[3] Joel Golby, writing an op-ed for The Guardian, said that subsequent to his foundation of the FSU, Young was likely to become a "Nigel Farage copycat". Goldy said: "we didn't take Ukip seriously at the start because it was just Robert Kilroy-Silk pouring excess energy from not being on TV any more into saying 'legitimate concerns' a lot... And then, oops, we all woke up and Brexit had happened."[4]

This entire section falls under opinion piece and should be removed. The article by Imogen West-Knights and by Joel Golby are both opinion pieces. (Samcowie (talk) 16:14, 1 December 2021 (UTC))
 * This entire section falls under opinion piece – yes, this is the point of Reception sections. ... and should be removed – what part of WP:RSOPINION says that? — Bilorv ( talk ) 17:50, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You're correct. I misread the opinion piece section. Apologies. (Samcowie (talk) 18:54, 1 December 2021 (UTC))

Free Speech Youth Advisory Board
Hello,

There seems to be repetition in the article. This section is already included in the 'criticism' section. This section should either be removed from the article or from the 'criticism' section to avoid readers having to read the same thing twice. Does everyone agree? (Samcowie (talk) 16:27, 1 December 2021 (UTC))
 * No, I disagree. The content could be combined, but the framing the events as a part of the organization's history and some student comments as opinion also makes sense. It is not duplication, but I do see that cohesion could be improved. — Bilorv ( talk ) 17:50, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I suppose cohesion is my main issue with the page. I do think that either the advisory board section should remain or be removed and the criticism section enhanced. It just seems messy to me. Given that the page already contains very little information, it doesn't make sense to me to have the same thing posted twice, in their own sections. Just an observation. (Samcowie (talk) 17:55, 1 December 2021 (UTC))

Nafeez Ahmed
TrangaBellam (talk) 11:21, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Harry Miller case
just so you know, I've removed the paragraph on the Miller case per WP:COATRACK and to a lesser degree WP:BLP. I know Bilorv added the vague template earlier to it, I've done a search and I cannot find any reliable sources that state how the FSU helped in the case. The closest I was able to find to a reliable source were two opinion pieces in The Spectator, one of which was used in the article, and both of which only contained a brief passing mention. I also checked briefly the two judgments issued in the case, and the FSU was not listed in either. If there are sources that clarify what that support is, could they be stated here please? Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:52, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the additional research. It's not going to be appropriate to cover if the extent of their activity in the case (if any) is not publicly documented, and even if so we'd want some description in mainstream media as we don't usually cite legal documents directly. — Bilorv ( talk ) 16:55, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That is true, and I wouldn't have cited the judgements in that way. I was more attempting to datamine them for any relevant terms that would assist in trying to find reliable secondary sources talking about the case and the FSU's involvement. Alas there seems to be noting beyond a few passing mentions in opinion pieces and unreliable sources. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:13, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Opinion pieces are used throughout this article. The piece by Imogen West-Knights is used to categorise the FSU as right-wing and also to discuss Toby Young. Am I missing something here? Are opinion pieces accepted in certain circumstances? Samcowie (talk) 17:00, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Per WP:RSOPINION the piece by West-Knights is attributed as her opinion, as are the other pieces in the Criticism section by Golby and Ahmed. I'd direct you to the text of WP:RSOPINION in the first instance as to when they are appropriate to use and how you are to use them in those circumstances. As this specific paragraph mentioned another person (Miller) you'd also want to refer to WP:BLPRS.
 * More generally, it is factual to say that West-Knights and others have said the FSU is right-wing in their criticism of the organisation. But that is different from saying in WP:WIKIVOICE that the organisation itself is factually right-wing. The article text straddles that fine line at the moment by saying that the organisation has been criticised for this per the lead: The group has been criticised by journalists and former student members who believe it has a right-wing agenda and that its stated aims are misleading., which is verifiable as they have been criticised for that. However saying the organisation has been criticised for something is different from saying it is something. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:12, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

International affiliate
An edit was undone indicating that the FSU has an affiliate in South Africa. Bilorv referenced the due weight entry, which deals with "viewpoints." No viewpoint or opinion was evident in the removed portion -- it simply pointed out that the FSU has another affiliate in South Africa. Since the FSU article has a heading for international affiliates, and given that the FSU factually has an international affiliate in South Africa, this appears to be the most appropriate place for it to be housed. Should a separate entry for FSU South Africa be created? If not, I cannot see how there is anything remiss about recording an undisputed fact on a Wikipedia page that purports to list the international affiliates of an organisation. Finally, Bilorv also referenced a press releases entry which problematises the praise and advertising value of those sources. The removed portion did not include any normative pro/con perspective nor did it advertise -- it simply noted the factual existence of an FSU affiliate. Looking forward to your engagement. Super Warmonkey (talk) 16:12, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The issue is not with the factual accuracy or the verifiability of the fact, but the significance. It is not surprising that an organisation has an affiliate in another country. There are perhaps tens of thousands of companies that do not rise to the level where Wikipedia should cover them. An affiliate like this is not normally noted unless it is for some reason commented on by independent sources. A press release does not count towards this criterion. — Bilorv ( talk ) 17:06, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not sure I am following your reasoning. The existing reference to the New Zealand FSU is simply this: "The New Zealand Free Speech Union is a sister group of the Free Speech Union and uses the name under license." It doesn't point out anything notable or significant about the NZ FSU, only that it exists. The edit for the SA FSU similarly only pointed out that it exists. I am not sure why the existence of the NZ FSU is notable but the SA FSU is not notable. Of course, if the article pointed to why the NZ FSU is notable, my question would be answered, but as it stands the article goes no further than pointing out its existence. The NZ FSU's own article itself might point to significant aspects, but none of that explains why it is referenced in this article while others are not. Perhaps if significance is the determining factor, the international affiliations heading and the existing reference to the NZ FSU should be removed until an affiliate does something worth noting in the original FSU's page. Super Warmonkey (talk) 19:02, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't write the Daily Blog section and apparently it slipped past me when somebody else did this January. I just saw your most recent edit in my watchlist and reverted it. Newcomers often make the mistake of thinking that things in articles are there for a (good) reason, or by intention of some one person, so I hope it clears it up when I say: most article content is bad, and we want it to be better.In this case, whatever the Daily Blog is (I can't actually work out if it's professionally run or is indeed a blog), the piece is a press release, so not a good source, and I've removed this content. — Bilorv ( talk ) 19:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Funding
Are there RSs on the FSU’s funding? This seems to be a gap in the article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:15, 28 July 2023 (UTC)