Talk:Hope not Hate/Archive 1

Recent contributions by User:Londonblue
Changes by the above user have been reverted more than once. by me twice and by User:Millahnna once. The problems include: If Londonblue were to respond to the message I left on his/her talkpage or responds to this message we, or other people, might be able to collaborate on addressing the above issues. However the combination of problems is so bad that for now I am reverting to the status quo ante.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Removal of references
 * Addition of unreferenced material such as the list of celebrity supporters
 * The addition on unformatted material such as the list of celebrity supporters
 * Much of the material is about the BNP not HnH.
 * There is original research in the implcation that the reduction in BNP votes in some areas is a consequence of Hnh's actions
 * The material is propagandistic and not encyclopedic.


 * Hi There


 * As you have rightly guessed i am indeed a new user. No offence was meant when i reverted the changes you made. However, I am still learning and have yet to work out how to add references etc. I felt that as Hope not hate is such a large campaign it deserved a much larger entry than it currently has. Perhaps rather than just deleting the whole entry you could help edit it properly. I don't believe it is particularly biased. Perhap's it is more a matter of the language i have used. Again please do edit it to make it more in keeping with wikipedia.
 * All of the celebrity supporters you refer to have pictures on hope not hates website.
 * It is widely recognised that Hnh's efforts in the key campaigns mentioned was very important in reducing the BNP's vote.
 * In terms of stating that much of the information is about the BNP and not Hnh i believe you are very misguided to believe the two are seperable.
 * Please point out the parts that are 'propagandistic' and i will endeavour to change them. Please not that most points are backed up by facts and figures.


 * All that i ask is that rather than simply deleting the whole entry (most of which i believe is fine) please edit it. After all the point of wikipedia is to provide information and that is what i have attempted to do. Having such a poultry entry for such a large organisation does wikipedia a disservice.

A: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Londonblue (talk • contribs) 14:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Good to see you participating in discussion here. Please do not remove referenced material. Adding additional sourced information from reliable sources would help improve the article. See WP:RS for info on reliable sources and WP:CITE for info on how to cite them. Photos of celebrities on websites are not reliable sources. In fact, the group's website is not an independent source and is not a reliable source for Wikipedia. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 15:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC) I just wanted to add that the reason your new material keeps getting reverted entirely rather than edited is because it is completely unsourced. The key concept in Wikipedia is verifiability (WP:V), the idea that a reader can verify that what is written here reflects what reliable sources have written about the group. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 15:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Lb, for the reply. Let's go through your points
 * The website can be treated as a reliable source for who Hnh claims are its celebrity supporters and that would need to be in the wording. When considering references, third party sources are generally counsidered more reliable than first party ones. Political groupings will play up their support, musical promoters will concentrate on the positive points, sexism and ageism may lead to female performers claiming to be younger than they really are, etc. If the official websites of any of these people state their support HnH, then that will be a good extra reference to insert. If they have given interviews to the mainstream press, (or if they are sports people, musicians etc. to the professional specialist press for their field,) in which they express their support, then that would be even better.
 * If HnH has been widely recognised as an influence, then do please give examples of sources that support each of the claims. The ideal source would be a peer-reviewed academic journal that mentions this. But a news column (not an opinion piece) in the Guardian etc, or on the BBC site would be very acceptable. Don't worry if you don't know how to format the references. If you give as the details (author's name, title of piece, publisher, date, web address or page number) then someone else can insert it and you can look at the raw text to look at the ref tags inside angled brackets <> or templates inside double curly brackets –  that we use so that you can do it for yourself in future.
 * We need reference to WP:Reliable sources that support this. In the absence of those you could provide pointers to the relevant pages of the HnH site so that we can state that they claim that they were a key factor. And if there is BNP material that blames HnH for their lack of success, that could also be noteworthy.
 * I felt that things have a propagandistic feel throughout. Toning down the language could help. In the section on Dagenham I see.
 * "area most at threat from the BNP" You and I may agree that they are a threat but the language needs to be neutral e.g."area where the BNP was likely to receive a high proportion of the vote"ections.
 * "An unprecedented campaign was mounted". Unprecedented needs referencing.
 * "A large office was renovated in the heart of Dagenham and over 10 full time staff and volunteers worked 6 days a week for four months in the run up to the elections." "Large", "heart" "over" have a feel of puffery and are a bit journalistic.
 * "Regular days of action saw hundreds of local residents campaigning on the streets of the borough with an estimates 1000 different people taking part." Whose estimate? How do you know the people were local and didn't come fromall over the Southeast?
 * On 17 April an astonishing 541 helped deliver 92,000 tabloid newspapers. "Astonishing"? Yes that is a lot more that in any action I've ever taken part, but "astonishing" makes the article read like "hype". See WP:Words to avoid for dangerous terms.
 * "With a low turnout (25.29%) the risk of the BNP gaining a seat on the council was large but the voters once again rejected them and Barnbrook received just 642 votes." "Risk" makes the article sound as if Wikipedia is taking sides. "Just" is pushing apoint of view. (If you look at WP:SYN you'll see examples of how language can be used to slant whether the number of wars since the UN was founded can be used to indicate failure or success.) If an independent newspaper (preferably a daily but a local can be used) has described Barnbrook as failing, then you can justify the slant. If not, then it is propaganda. Oh and if the press were divided on how well the BNP did, we would need to give WP:DUE weight to each point of view rather than just picking the sources that suit our personal views.
 * Writing for Wikipediais very diffrerent from writing for a campaigning organisation. We aren't meant to advance our own political views, though many editors do try to do just that.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

UAF
 Many problems. This material shouldn't be added back, since it was not even a report made by Hope Not Hate. 86.183.62.57 (talk) 22:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Nick Lowles was Hope not Hate leader in February 2011, as the link says he ran it between 2004 and 2010.
 * a report criticising pressure groups for concentrating on the threat of white extremists whilst ignoring the increasing threat posed by Islamic Fundamentalism is not sourced by the link above. The only mentions of Muslims or Islam are these
 * here is a widespread fear of the ‘Other’, particularly Muslims, and there is an appetite for a new right-wing political party that has none of the fascist trappings of the British National Party or the violence of the English Defence League.
 * The vast majority of people reject political violence and view white anti-Muslim extremists as bad as Muslim extremists and there is overwhelming support for a positive campaign against extremism.
 * Over two-thirds of people view ‘English nationalist extremists’ and ‘Muslim extremists’ as bad as each other.
 * Recognising that this critcism referred to groups like themselves, Unite Against Fascism responded to the article in March 2011 since there is no sourced criticism to start with the UAF link is not a response to any criticism, it is interpretation of a primary source to even suggest it is.

Criticism
http://frontpagemag.com/2013/bruce-bawer/britains-powerful-enemies-of-freedom/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.250.141.172 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 8 July 2013


 * Thanks, but it does not meet criteria for inclusion. TFD (talk) 22:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

'Robert Spencer & Pamela Geller UK travel ban'
'The decision, which they cannot appeal, will stand for between three and five years': What are you talking about? Of course this decision can be fought, and this is what is being done, see fx

http://online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-20130702-904062.html

Robert Spencer even published their lawyer's appeal on jihadwatch.org months ago, and Pamela Geller will have done the same on her website.

Another piece of evidence: Also Geert Wilders was banned by May's predecessor, he fought the ban, and it was overturned. Did you sleep through these events? Then maybe you shouldn't pose as a Wiki author. Or is it just wishful bias?

Anyway, would you kindly rectify your embarassing error? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.120.231.38 (talk) 05:04, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * You will find you will receive a better response if you are polite in your postings. Geller was excluded from Great Britain for different reasons from Wilders and therefore has no right to appeal.  As she posts on her website, "[The British government] have absolute authority to exclude those who words they think might "justify terrorist violence.""  TFD (talk) 07:08, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * You don't say. Apart from that, would you mind giving the URL? I mean to remember that the lawfirm's letter included both of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.120.231.38 (talk) 08:11, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * PS: Are you ready to accept your defeat? Anyway, here's the proof:


 * http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/09/our-legal-response-to-the-british-ban-grounds-for-judicial-review-to-the-queen-on-the-application-of.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.120.231.38 (talk) 08:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I already read it, it is on Geller's website. It is not an appeal, it is a presentation of the grounds for Judicial review in English law.  Wilders appealed his case to the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (now replaced by the Asylum and Immigration Chamber), but Geller was not allowed to appeal to them.  In order to succeed in a review, Geller must prove not that the Home Secretary came to the wrong decision, but that she acted outside the powers provided to her by law.  Here is a link to the Treasury Solicitor's letter.
 * TFD (talk) 09:44, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * So why do you then think Pamela Geller continues to talk about 'our lawsuit against the Queen of England and the Home Secretary et al'? See http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/01/documents-reveal-british-banned-geller-and-spencer-because-of-their-pro-israeli-views/ . Do you really consider it possible that you know it better than they themselves do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.120.228.89 (talk) 05:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * A lawsuit against the Secretary of State is not an appeal, it is in this case a request for a writ of mandamus. The birther Orly Taitz for example applied for a writ of quo warranto (which is another type of prerogative writ) to remove Obama from office, but no one says she "appealed" his election.
 * Incidentally, Geller is wrong about suing the Queen. Since prerogative writs can only be granted to the Crown, the Queen on the application of Geller and Spencer is suing  the Secretary of State.  See the copy of the "Grounds for Judicial Review" on jihadwatch.org.
 * It is not whether I have a better understanding of English law than Geller, an American who never studied law, but what the documents she has presented say.
 * TFD (talk) 06:19, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, after the experience made it is safe to assume that you will have another 'smart' response to this one. Still my impression is that you are partisan (as I am, only on the opposite side), so here comes the latest news re this case which seems to underline the correctness of what I said earlier:
 * http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/06/victory-uk-court-of-appeal-gives-spencer-and-geller-permission-to-appeal-ban
 * Enjoy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.120.228.89 (talk) 05:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with partisanship but with accurately reporting the facts of the judicial process. The Court of Appeal of England and Wales has permitted the Queen on application of Geller and Spencer leave to appeal a decision of the High Court denying her request for a judical review of the secretary of state's decision.  The wording in the article is correct.  Geller and Spencer cannot appeal the secretary's decision.  They can of course seek judicial review, which is made in the name of the Queen, and may appeal the courts' decisions.  The leave to appeal has not been covered in any reliable sources and is not yet available on the British and Irish Legal Information Institute website.  TFD (talk) 03:32, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, thought so. Whatever you say, I'm cautiously optimistic, in the interest of the preservation of freedom of speech and the fight against a desastrous 'multiculturalism' that includes incompatible cultures which will destroy us from within. I'll keep you posted... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.120.231.38 (talk) 08:46, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Reversion of my Edits
I would like to question the reversion of my edits. Firstly in the introduction I changed "it (Hope not Hate) is backed by various politicians" to "it ... politicians, on the left of the political spectrum". I made this change because the sources given only describe figures in the British labour party.

Out of the three citations that support this claim one leads to a 404 error on Hope Not Hate's website. It is entitled, "Malala's fight" and from the citation appears to have been written by Gordon Brown. Searching combinations of "Malala's flight", along with "Gordon Brown" and "Hope not Hate" on Google did not yield the original article. Furthermore I did not find any expressions of support for the Hope Not Hate group. The other two citations only tangentially mention Hope Not Hate. One of these citations "Organising for Labour. Organising to win" is primarily focussed on Labour party campaigning methods. The article only mentions the power of "community organisations", such as Hope not Hate in campaigning against the BNP. It would be quite easy to infer approval of Hope Not Hate from this source but it is clearly a source coming from the left and the labour party. The final citation links to an article about John Cruddas where it describes how he worked with the Hope not Hate group in 2005. He is a prominent labour party member but clearly a figure of the left.

Clearly these sources are weak, but they do show some evidence of support for Hope not Hate from politicians in the labour party. But this should be made explicit to inform the reader that their political support primarily comes form the left/labour.

The second part of my Edit was to describe criticism of Hope not Hate from right wing sources, these sources are much stronger than the ones discussed above. Perhaps the wording of my edit was clumsy but the sources did imply direct criticism rather than the tangential support that the sources above give. The first reference was from Douglas Murray who is a prominent figure on the right of British politics and has appeared on TV several times as well as writing several books. This source is more than a unread blog, it appears under the respected brand of The Spectator and is written by a prominent and respect figure on the right. The second source again gives direct criticism of Hope Not Hate and classifies it as a far left grouping. Spiked is a again no mere blog. I understand that a Wikipedia page in of itself does not confer notability but if you look at the references on Spiked's Wikipedia page you will see that it is a notable magazine. Finally the third citation is Farage's comments in the independent. As Farage is leader of Britain's third most popular party and has had hundreds of tv appearances, newspaper columns etc. his comments would seem notable to me.

I believe these sources to all be notable and much more valid than the sources detailing the labour party's support, indeed a quick look down the reference list shows them to be much more reputable then many of the other references.

I would be happy to debate on wording changes but I believe the thrust of my edits were in the right direction. Enlightened editor (talk) 13:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * All of the above is a good illustration of original research. You are putting together your interpretation of different sources to form a conclusion.  Farage is leader of a party with a minimal Commons presence.   If that changes significantly after the election then noting his opinion (not a fact based on his opinion) might be relevant.   To form any conclusion from primary sources you need a secondary source that makes those conclusions and even then we look to the quality and balance of what the sources say.  Snowded  TALK 17:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes I understand this, however Farage is now a significant politician in his own right and leader of the third most popular party of the UK. His influence does not need to be confirmed by electoral gains for it to exist. I won't cite the sources for this in detail as they are so widely available, such as the book "Revolt on the Right". I suppose I wasn't very clear in my original post but I was primarily trying to point out the double standards in the application of the original research policy in this article. It is accepted that several politicians support Hope not Hate on very flimsy referencing. Yet, you will not accept much better sourcing for figures on the right. I am happy to go through lots of different wording possibilities. However, at the very least the introduction should be changed to note that Hope not Hate has political supporters as well as detractors, whether or not further claims are made about the grouping of these supporters and detractors. Enlightened editor (talk) 18:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Propose a wording based on reliable third party sources and not your interpretation of primary sources and I am sure we can look at it Snowded  TALK 18:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Hope not Hate and trade-union funding
Why would someone want to deliberately repeat the nonsense that Hope Not Hate are mainly funded by individual supporters?! They are not! They are mainly funded by the big trade unions! -- 5.198.6.211 (talk) 19:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not the place to discuss your opinions. If you have a edit to propose, backed by reliable sources then please propose it  Snowded  TALK 22:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


 * IP, you might find you would get a better reaction from other editors if you avoided personal attacks and partisan wording and otherwise followed policies and guidelines on posting to talk pages. TFD (talk) 00:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Controversy section
Why is there no mention over the recent debacle concerning their Counter Jihad report that was criticised by liberal muslims and ex muslims for conflating them with anti-muslim bigots?


 * A welcome notice was placed on your talk page a year ago when you made your first (and so far only other) edit here. You need to check out the material there in reliable sources.   For a controversy between two groups we would normally look for a reliable third party source.  I don't think that would include an opinion  piece in the Daily Beast but other editors who watch this page probably know better than I on that.  Also if it was Significant you would expect to see something in the main British Broadsheet newspapers covering it.  You might want to see if you can find something  Snowded  TALK 17:44, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * It is not a controversy that what you call "liberal muslims and ex muslims" who have been criticized by Hope not Hate have disliked the attention. But there is no reason to mention it in the article unless those individuals or groups are mentioned in the article or it has attracted the attention of reliable sources.  TFD (talk) 22:09, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Reverted edits
, with regards to these edits: if we're going to say that The Jewish Chronicle withdrew support for HnH, surely it's appropriate to mention the reasons given by the paper  as to why it withdrew support. That's in no way agreeing or disagreeing with the conclusions that the paper made. – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 22:47, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * We've had this discussion before, it is notable that they withdrew their support, but even in the article the reason is not as simple as the reason inserted.  Snowded  TALK 07:05, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

New controversy section
I added a new controversy section which was reverted. These are the facts:

In November 2016 Hope not Hate published a report on hate crime following the death of Jo Cox. An accompanying press release stated that 'More than 50,000 abusive and offensive tweets were sent celebrating MP Jo Cox’s murder'. At least four national newspapers in the UK repeated these claims. In December 2016, Evolution AI commented on the original report, suggesting that the claims could not possibly be true. Hope not Hate subsequently admitted their press release was incorrect. The Guardian, after being contacted by Evolution AI, removed their story covering the Hope not Hate report from their website, stating: 'This article has been removed. It was based on a press release from anti-racism campaigners Hope Not Hate which it admits contained incorrect information.' Martingoodson (talk) 13:05, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * You need an article which reports the controversy and provides the facts. To put them together from original sources is not the way wikipedia works.  Snowded  TALK 13:13, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if this is considered an original source or not but the Evolution AI claims were verified by a third party newspaper: Martingoodson (talk) 13:22, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The Economist is a reliable source that would support a statement that a press release exaggerated a report and that a headline figure was taken up by other national newspapers. The source blames the Newspapers as much as the Press Release.  At best it justifies a sentence somewhere not a section  Snowded  TALK 13:57, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The Economist states: "Hope Not Hate admitted that its initial press release was incorrect and said that it was later changed. The charity referred us to the study’s authors, Imran Awan of Birmingham City University and Irene Zempi of Nottingham Trent University. Mr Awan agreed that newspaper headlines had oversimplified the study’s findings. Even so both authors retweeted articles repeating the press release’s false claim." The charity made a false claim in a press release which was widely reported on and then quoted with approval by both authors in twitter messages. There was no public correction of the false claims. After the Evolution AI investigation the authors claimed that the press release was only an 'early draft'. Subsequently, the Guardian newspaper was forced to remove the article it published on the Hope not Hate report. This seems to correspond to a 'controversy' - these facts are in the public record and should be reported here. It is a value judgement to suggest that the press release simply 'exaggerated a report'. Futhermore the Evolution AI article debunks many other claims in the original Hope not Hate report, not limited to the press release, as also reported by The Economist. Martingoodson (talk) 14:15, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * OK a brief search indicates that you may be founder of the data science consultancy Evolution AI in which case promoting your own report is in conflict with Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest policy.  If you are then promoting that reference is not on.  We have a section on history into which the Economist reference can be slotted - its all it deserves and I was in two minds as to how notable it was in the first place.  Snowded  TALK 15:31, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I am misunderstanding the Conflict of Interest guidelines but it states in the 'Citing yourself' section that 'Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive. Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work.' . I think I have followed this guideline. I have simply stated the facts as they have been reported on by an impartial third party - The Economist newspaper.


 * To simply take one side of the controversy as fact and then to state that the controversy does not therefore exist is not an impartial reading of the facts. The Evolution AI article has debunked the Hope not Hate report and a retraction of a news article in a national newspaper has subsequently occurred. It is accepted, even by Hope not Hate themselves, that they published falsehoods and they were forced to retract them. You may not agree with one particular side of this controversy but that doesn't mean the controversy doesn't exist.Martingoodson (talk) 15:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * It could be seen as promotional to insist on its inclusion - a consultancy report is not a brilliant source in Wikipedia terms. The Economist is a reliable source so it can be summarised and I think you have to be content with that.  You should declare an interest anyway just to avoid issues.   Creating a section really requires more than one example.  Otherwise you have no idea if I think it is controversial I've made a change to incorporate what I think is validly sourced material in an existing section which lists other activities.  I think that is OK but lets see what other editors think.   I'm not taking sides and neither should you  Snowded  TALK 16:16, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Your edit has effectively buried the controversy as sub section 6 in a section entitled 'Changing focus', hardly where a reader would first look for any controversies. A high quality article should be easily navigable. Readers have a reasonable expectation that they will quickly be able to find out whether the Hope not Hate campaign are a reliable source of factual information. I suggest we ask for a third opinion since we have reached an impasse. Martingoodson (talk) 16:50, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * It has made it one of a series of historical incidents. It is not our place to suggest that this incident indicates that they are not reliable, if the Economist said that it established such a condition we might.  I realise this is your first edit on Wikipedia and that you have put personal effort through your company into making a point, but that is not relevant per a whole range of wikipedia policies.   I've put a link on your talk page so you can read up on them.  Please do not make accusations such as "buried the controversy" its not helpful.  Snowded  TALK 17:15, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * You're right it is not our place to suggest that they are not reliable - it is our place to make sure readers are able to find the relevant information to draw their own conclusions. I don't think we have succeeded in doing that - although clearly you disagree. Therefore, again, I suggest we move to some kind of dispute resolution. Do you have any objections or other suggestions?Martingoodson (talk) 17:40, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * See if other editors get involved. Otherwise you can raise a RFC.  I really don't think dispute resolution is for something this minor and you need to be careful, not only the conflict of interest but neither is wikipedia a place to make a political point.  Snowded  TALK 17:50, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I have not raised the subject of politics either here on the talk page or in my edits. My edits refer to a scientific data analysis which have been verified by independent third parties. Politics should not come in to this discussion and it's unfortunate that is now has. I will request a third opinion as I believe this dispute does not warrant an RFC.Martingoodson (talk) 18:13, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * A RfC is the way to ask for additional comments. You can't just select someone  Snowded  TALK 18:17, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Third_opinionMartingoodson (talk) 18:22, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * An RfC should really come first and most editors would wait a day or so to see if other editors engage before raising that. Snowded  TALK 18:28, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok, here's an unsolicited 3rd opinion. I'm not sure why the word "falsehood" is being used as the Economist refers to "Hope Not Hate’s mistake". And mistakes are made - the most respectable newspapers get their facts wrong at times even when they do their own reporting and have to retract stories. We don't say that makes them unreliable sources. Scientists make mistakes without being fired or finding themselves ignored The Economist also does not use the word controversy so I don't see on what basis we would. I see no "prolonged public disagreement or heated discussion." And we should use the Economist as a source, not Evolution AI. Doug Weller talk 19:29, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The word "falsehood' is being used because it's an accurate term to describe statements which are not true. Nobody is suggesting anybody should be fired or ignored, simply that the facts should be available on this page. When scientists retract articles this is generally recorded in a controversy section (eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haruko_Obokata). It is not the editor's place to make value judgements on whether an organisation is an unreliable source - the editor's role is to record facts from a neutral point of view. The facts are that a credible source has made technical criticisms of the Hope not Hate campaign's methodologies and these criticisms have been accepted by two newspapers and the campaign itself. This criticisms should be recorded in a 'Controversy' or 'Criticism' section rather than a 'Changing focus' section.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martingoodson (talk • contribs) 10:30, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you both for your comments. Since we have reached an impasse, I have raised a request for dispute resolution here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Hope_not_Hate#New_controversy_section. Martingoodson (talk) 10:53, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Jewish Chronicle - is an archived copy of something sufficient when they seem to still treat HnH positively?
See Young Jews ‘more engaged’ in EU vote than other ethnic minorities about a "survey, commissioned by lobby groups Hope Not Hate and Bite the Ballot," with extensive quotes fromn Jemma Levene, deputy director of Hope Not Hate. That was in May, and in September they comment on a former Director of HnH, Ruth Smeeth, simply calling it an anti-extremist group. Our copy of the statement that says " it has now lost its claim to be taken seriously" is an archived copy. I'm a bit surprised that I can only find an archived copy while the articles I link to above are not archived, and the first one shows that in fact the JC still takes HnH seriously. Doug Weller talk 17:12, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

RfC about a new controversy section
Should there be a new controversy section? Martingoodson (talk) 18:00, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * On incident that is not a major controversy (see Doug comments above) No and its a poorly phrased RfC anyway because you want a section that includes references to the work your consultancy company carried out - not really on you know Snowded  TALK 18:01, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

This is an extension of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hope_not_Hate#New_controversy_section discussion

In summary: in November 2016 Hope not Hate published a report on hate crime following the death of a UK MP. An accompanying press release stated that 'More than 50,000 abusive and offensive tweets were sent celebrating MP Jo Cox’s murder'. At least four national newspapers in the UK repeated these claims as did the report authors themselves and the campaign twitter account.

In December 2016, Evolution AI commented on the original report, suggesting that the claims could not possibly be true and detailed 'severe methodological errors' in the report. The Guardian and the Economist newspaper supported the Evolution AI report and Hope not Hate retracted their original claims.

One view is that these criticisms should be recorded in a 'Controversy' or 'Criticism' section because a credible source has made technical criticisms of the Hope not Hate campaign's methodologies and retractions have occurred. The other view is that everyone makes mistakes and that a new section is not warranted.

Disclaimer: I am an author of the Evolution AI report. Martingoodson (talk) 18:04, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Misstatement of the opposition to you I'm afraid. Look if you want to raise an RfC on this please read the guidelines and formulate a proper question.   Snowded  TALK 18:08, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I did mention the fact that mistakes occur, but if you look at what I actually said above, that hardly accurately summarises my comments. Doug Weller  talk 18:11, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

On this proposal: 'controversy' sections are best avoided in articles where possible, they just become flypaper for people to add any criticism of the target they like. It's better to include criticisms in relevant parts of the article where appropriate, except where the controversies are so overwhelmingly significant or numerous that they need their own section. In this case, we only have one 'controversy' (and arguably not even that: there's no actual dispute here, since Hope Not Hate admit they got the fact wrong). There's no need for a separate section when it's covered adequately in the article already. Robofish (talk) 23:34, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

No longer "anti-fascist", but instead "hard left"?
This user so "updated" a mention of Hope not Hate. This surprised me, and I reverted the edit until it could be discussed on the relevant talk page. (HNH is currently not mentioned there, or indeed in either of the two talk archive pages.) Hope I did the right thing. -- Hoary (talk) 23:47, 15 July 2018 (UTC)


 * you did. Thanks. Doug Weller  talk 16:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Robert Faurisson
Nothing on Robert Faurisson ? I just read on french Wikipedia that he died the day after a lecture he made in Shepperton on October 20th 2018, which was interrupted by members of "HNH".--Abolibibelot (talk) 18:15, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Got a reliable source showing this is relevant to this article? BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:45, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Funding
I made an edit on Hope Not Hate's Wikipedia page, wherein I wrote that in 2015, they had received a grant to the tune of $166,000 by the Open Society Foundation, and included a reference[1]. Why was my edit removed? There is nothing "POV" about what I just included - I wrote a statement of fact that was relevant and not untruthful. Please explain.

https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/sites/default/files/open-society-initiative-for-europe-2015-20170424.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:9E5F:8200:D012:2871:495D:BDE0 (talk) 00:24, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello! I reverted a stretch of five edits made by IP accounts, and my edit summary applied more to this kind of thing, which I think is pretty clearly unacceptable. Your edit, rather than particularly pushing a point of view, I don't think establishes due weight: the OSF document you linked is a primary source. Secondary source coverage in books or newspapers would establish that this fact is of particular value to include in an encyclopedia, and I think that'd be a better starting point for a discussion. Ralbegen (talk) 00:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern, though I must say, with respect to your point about "due weight", there are many sources that draw attention to HNH's funding from the Open Society, however, they are rather populist in tone, and noticeably biased towards the right, to the extent that I am not sure if they would pass Wikipedia's credibility litmus test; Breitbart.com, Tommy Robinson's videos, and then there is this article from Leave.EU https://leave.eu/the-soros-web/

In particular, I believe this information is of value to the public, because I think Hope Not Hate are commonly viewed as a grassroots organisation, with no special funding from special interest groups. In any case, Hope Not Hate do not contain any reference on their website to this former patron of theirs. This fact however, counters that assumption. In any case, there appears to be very little curiosity and interesting regarding their funding from most mainstream papers. People seem reluctant to make a connection between this group and their donors, which I am not suggesting is a bad thing that only happens with left-wing NGOs.

Now I want to make clear that I am not alleging that they are ALWAYS on Soros' bankroll, when as far as I can see, 2015 appears to be the only year they received such a donation, and my intention is not to portray the entire group as cynical money-loving opportunists. But insofar as information is needed, this is reasonably important information that ought to be on the public record. I want you to know that while I value and respect your opinion as editor, while I can see you have a lot of work to do, which is purely voluntary and unpaid, and while I shall definitely not contest your edit a third time should you decide once again that it does not meet Wikipedia's Editorial standards, I spent quite a lot of time researching and looking before I stumbled upon this document and I believe that it should be in the public domain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:9E5F:8200:D012:2871:495D:BDE0 (talk) 00:56, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You're right that Breitbart, Tommy Robinson and Leave.EU aren't reliable sources. WP:RS describes the standards expected for sources, and we follow what reliable sources write about subjects. You may think that it's of value to the public, but that doesn't mean it's something to include in an encyclopedia entry. Ralbegen (talk) 15:09, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

> You may think that it's of value to the public, but that doesn't mean it's something to include in an encyclopedia entry. It is certainly in the public interest if they're misrepresenting themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8084:D21:4080:40D7:7673:3F59:515F (talk) 12:53, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

How can Hopenothate be described as 'non-partisan'
In its own words

"Over the last fifteen years HOPE not hate has beaten the BNP, beaten the Brexit Party, thwarted the murderous plans of violent nazi gangs and exposed the far-right across the world."

by any definition of partisan, being politically engaged in defeating political parties must cause us to define the organisation as partisan. Similarly, it has a definite political/cultural agenda ; again this falls under the definition of being partisan.

I can't source anything on this because no one has had the occasion to point this out. It is very difficult to find anything descriptive of the organisation that doesn't lean on its own self-published definitions. This is a problem with this page that cannot be resolved unless a 'credible source' decides to point this out. This overreliance on sources and articles that refer to hopenothate uncritically is a serious issue I think exists with this page. CantingCrew (talk) 15:43, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It is helpful for articles to include different viewpoints. Perhaps you will find critical comments on the group from amongst those that it attacks. Jontel (talk) 16:31, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , in this case it means not affiliated with a political party. It's a legal definition. Doug Weller  talk 17:27, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That is helpful. I do not regard 'It is a self-described non-partisan, non-sectarian third party organisation.' as presenting useful information. I would support its deletion. Jontel (talk) 18:00, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what these words add. Might be worth being more specific, e.g. is not affiliated to any political party. I would not support researching "critical comments on the group from amongst those that it attacks" as this would primarily mean trawling through fascist websites, which would not be a useful exercise. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:19, 1 December 2020 (UTC)