Talk:Unite Against Fascism/Archive 3

RS Noticeboard
Collect has brought the "left-wing" issue to the RS noticeboard. TFD (talk) 03:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually I brought the AP article to the RSN page - where it is quite clear that this entire issue has been grossly mislabelled on this page by some editors. Tha AP and the other sources are all "reliable sources" for the use of "left wing" in this article.  Collect (talk) 12:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Anti Fascist? NPOV
Just because they see themselves as anti-fascist doesn't mean that they are. UAF should be described as anti British nationalist. It joins Islamists, like the fascist Al-Mujahirun. It contradicts NPOV to continue lable the UAF on wiki like that.MuratOnWiki (talk) 22:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources consistently describe them as "anti-fascists". No one would use the term "anti-British nationalist", whatever that means.  TFD (talk) 23:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources also describe the UAF as (far) left-wing, but that seems to be a moot point. --Panzer71 (talk) 13:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you want to find those sources and we'll add them in then? Alexandre8 (talk) 16:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think plenty of reliable sources have been provided on this page already. --Panzer71 (talk) 21:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * No, Alexandre, sources negative to the group were already provided and ignored.And something like the suggestion would be destroyed (partially for good reason). Since I like honesty I will say it: No, MuratOnWiki, Wikipedia editors will always give the benefit of doubt to those fighting less socially acceptable causes. And then when editors try to stop it others will edit war and wikilawyer it to get their way. Welcome to the show. This article has consistently been guarded and there is nothing you can do about it. Cptnono (talk) 06:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * IT's funny since the group themselves are borderline acceptable considering they often get arrested as much if not more (looking at the stats) at rallies they are attending. Funny how hard line socialism is acceptable here and nationalism is not. I would have thought the two of them should deserve equal ridicule. Alexandre8 (talk) 13:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * On the EDL page they have to conform to wiki standards and have a NPOW 'far'right' description. Stalinists are not allowed to describe themselves as simple "engineers of human souls", sooooo why are the UAF allowed to describe themselves in their own words? It is biased. Would it not be easier to call them a 'far-left street protest movement'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.246.254 (talk) 11:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * We've been through the "far-left" issue before and at length on three separate wiki forums so that is settled unless there is new data. Otherwise the anti-fascist conforms with third party sources, the fact its how they also describe themselves is not relevant -- Snowded  TALK  11:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Original research
An editor has changed the term "protesters" to "a few protesters" and added the unsourced statement that UAF has no position on "Islamic Fascism". Unless sources and agreement is found, these statements should not be included. TFD (talk) 00:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree totally. This amounts to unsourced criticism based on the UAF's stated aims, before even taking into account the lack of so-called "Islamic fascism" to be opposed in the UK. 81.151.158.156 (talk) 00:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I also agree. You might as well add in they have no position on "climate change fascism" or "food fascism" or "body fascism". Completely absurd.BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed -- Snowded TALK  17:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Along the same lines


'In March 2011, the anti-fascist Searchlight organisation, headed up by Nick Lowles of Searchlight (magazine), released a report criticising groups like the UAF for concentrating on the threat of white extremists whilst ignoring the increasing threat posed by Islamic Fundamentalism.', supposed source

The link makes no mention of Unite Against Fascism or anti-fascist groups. 86.135.157.56 (talk) 21:59, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

It is important the UAF campaign against all types of fascism or they don't fit their name. So far they only campaign against what they perceive to be far right groups. They are too scared to combat religious fascism. Alexandre8 (talk) 03:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Does the source say whats attributed to it? I can't find itSlatersteven (talk) 11:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Alleged UAF violence towards women
I'll put this here for all of you who really do not see the true face of the uaf...

UAF laughing at a woman being punched in the face: youtube.com/watch?v=OJcG2C22okE ( broke link to be in complianceCptnono (talk) 03:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC) )

UAF kicking a woman on the ground: youtube.com/watch?v=V4KdhFkr1Ns ( broke link to be in complianceCptnono (talk) 03:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC) )

Laughing at a beaten woman. How heroic, how wonderfully 'diverse' of them.

UAF "anti-Facists" are nothing of the sort. ( redacted possible BLP vioCptnono (talk) 03:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC) ) Perhaps we can have a bit of clarity now?... Or perhaps not. 87.112.243.235 (talk) 02:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I am restoring this talk page discussion. Someone tried adding the info into the article and it was removed. There actually is RS (not YouTube) discussing the videos. "Class snobbery" was a highlight I enjoyed. Although I disagree with how the IP worded it, I think an attempt at discussion is OK and think that we should be fine letting the guy open it up even if a vetran editor would have worded it differently. Cptnono (talk) 03:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The above was originally posted by an IP. It was then repeatedly removed by established editors. There is nothing soapboxing about it so now I am forced to clarify since another established editor has forced me to waste my time. I would much rather be drinking and listening to some tunes but now I have to explain to you in wikispeak why the above is OK. And then when you revert again I am hauling you to the edit warring board.
 * The UAF recently received press for being at a counter demonstration to the EDL. From those days events, videos surfaced that purportedly showed UAF members making fun of a girl getting beat on. This was a big buss on YouTube and at random nonRS spots around the internet. But the reason it is here is because RS actually discussed it. Some only discussed the fact that their was a video while other RS had opinion pieces (acceptable for inclusion if done properly). Like I said above, mocking the class snobbery was my favorite part.
 * One thing I ran into was that I could not verify if it was actual UAF or if everyone just assumes. That would be an easy out for anyone trying to not have it in the article. Good thing that that question is sufficient to have this comment and those above on this talk page. You know: Discussion is a good thing. I am sure as someone who enjoys politics and Wikipedia you agree and would never consider shutting out others simply because you do not agree. Here are a couple random ones for you to check out (easy ones for you to not call RS if you want to continue bickering that much). Maybe you will respond and this discussion will continue. No sweat off my sack if it doesn't. I really just wanted to facilitate a newcomer's attempt to improve the project. I know you assume he was not attempting to contribute but I disagree. And edit warring over a talk page discussion is lame.Cptnono (talk) 04:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Cptnono, I'm sure you are aware of WP:NOTFORUM, and that WP:BLP applies to talk pages just as much as to articles. If you can't 'verify' what is going on in the videos, they have no business being listed here (and they may well have been copyvios anyway). If RS discusses these events, then so can we, but we don't need to be used as a soapbox in the meantime. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The IP is trolling, posting to obtain a reaction and unfortunately Cptnono has chosen to assist him. Incidentally, Captnono, of the two sources you presented, one is an editorial, while the other does not mention the UAF.  Besides, it is presumptious to provide sources and ask other editors to update an article.  TFD (talk) 04:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)And Andy's section header is worse than the original (but the original needed to go). The problem was not the violence against the chick but the laughing about it. Not exactly sure. Yet more reason to keep the discussion open to figure out if there is anything worthwhile for the article. Note that after the discussion is complete it can sit in the archives so that editors can go back to it easier than having it as a revert in the history. Consider adjusting the section header again (make it long if you want since a talk page header can be cumbersome even if the article header should not be.)
 * (not edit conflict) I am aware of notforum. You aware of AGF? And note that I actually redacted what I saw as a BLP vio up above. So stop debating if we can have a discussion and actually join it.Cptnono (talk) 04:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) And I am not trolling. You may think the IP was but I again point to BITE and AGF.Cptnono (talk) 04:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Is any of that supposed to make sense? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec) Cptnono, I'm terribly sorry you find locating reliable sources for wikipedia such a drag. The Indepedent op-ed refers mainly to anonymous individuals on line, explicitly says the video has not been verified, and states that "That type of unpleasant posturing is not at all representative of organisations like Hope Not Hate, Unite Against Fascism..." Given the edit summaries, I don't think the IP meant for that sentiment to be included in the article. The second article doesn't even mention Unite Against Fascism, and noise on YouTube isn't RS. If several editors disagree with you, and you keep reverting, you might want to ask who's edit-warring. You also might want to read AGF before you accuse editors of censorship as you did me. If you genuinely want to welcome a new editor who you think has been unfairly bitten, go to their talkpage, as I have already suggested when you complained about my reversion on my talkpage. It's here:User talk:87.112.243.235.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You still discussing how or if it can be incorporated into the article or if we can talk about if it can be considered i the article. I can;t tell anymore with all the spite in your comment. You have also ignored what I said about YouTube. No, finding sources isn't a drag but since I did it days ago it is a pain to do it again when other editors chose not to even try. Have you actually looked it up or are you basing it based on what I provided? What I saw (I suppose repeating myself is necessary) is that individuals that might have been involved with the UAF counterprotest poked fun at a girl (or a dog as they said) getting her butt kicked. It actually got press. I do not know if they were UAF and I won't comment on if they were wrong to make those comments or not. I do think it is worthy of discussion and think reverting attempts (even if poorly worded) doesn't improve the article.Cptnono (talk) 04:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And the section header is still misrepresentitive of the discussion which is also inappropriate. "Videos showing possible UAF members mocking violence against an EDL girl" is long but what it really is.Cptnono (talk) 04:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What you think of what you saw on Youtube is your own research. What you haven't provided is RS for anything much to do with improving this article. If you're annoyed at people's tone with you, you could have done better by not accusing people of censorship, threatening to haul people off to ANI, or wishing other editors have terrible evenings. That's in addition to demanding that other editors look for RS that you've already found, and that clearly doesn't support any content for inclusion anyway.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

www.libertiesalliance.org/
The objection raised was that the text did not reflect the source, so I altered the text to reflect the source. Perhaps it would have avoided confusion if the real objection had been given in the first place. When removing source material because the source is not RS, say that for pitys sake. Now do we agree that this website is not RS?Slatersteven (talk) 16:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It looks like a blog run by the EDL. So no, not RS for claims about their opponents. --FormerIP (talk) 16:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Slater, two different people took it out. I said "for pity's sake" when I removed it because the site is quite clearly not RS, so we shouldn't be fussing over whether or not we represent it accurately. Perhaps you should have checked it before restoring the material.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I checked the edit summeries, which said nothing about it not being RS. My restoration was based upon what the edit summeries susgested was the problom. Why is it clearly not RS?Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

It may be an islamphobic blog (is ot a blog?), but tis not run the the EDL. Rather it seems to be a blanket organisation http://www.libertiesalliance.org/2011/10/02/fifth-annual-counterjihad-conference-held-in-london-on-24-and-25-september-2011/. it seems to be a front or off shoot of the Center for Vigilant Freedom (an American orgamisation).Slatersteven (talk) 16:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Steven, scroll down the homepage. How many more times would it be possible to fit the EDL logo or the face of its leader into a single webpage? In any event, it is very clear that it is not RS. --FormerIP (talk) 21:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * What hs that to do with it, beyond OR is there any evidacen that this is owned or run by the EDL? Also why is it clear its not RS?Slatersteven (talk) 12:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Mention of violence in introduction
User:AndyTheGrump does not want the three incidents of violence reported by police and the press mentioned in the "lede" (as if we ourselves were the journalists). Seeing as these constitute a large bulk of the article, his contention that they are given undue weight by being placed in the "lede" which is supposed to direct the reader to the primary elements of the article is strange. Pehaps he would prefer a different wording, but mine was based directly on the article content. Can we come to some consensus on this? Violence against police sounds more like riot than "pressure" and deserves mention along with the questionably favorable wording given to the group in the introduction. Obotlig (talk) 18:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

You'll have a tough time getting it through, because it seems like people aren't taking a neutral viewpoint about their violence. I certainly agree it's one sided and always has been. Alexandre8 (talk) 18:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Most of this contoroversy seems to be centred on the Bolton demonstration in March 2010. I suggest editors review the sources given - and other online reliable sources - to come to a decision about the degree of involvement of the UAF. What is abundantly clear is that the reports of UAF violence come entirely from the police, whose neutrality here may be suspect. Despite arresting UAF members (and its leader) no charges were brought! Indeed, there is video evidence of the police themselves committing violence on a UAF member. The Independent Police Complaints Commission commented that its "investigation will examine the level of force used on Mr Clough and the apparent difference between the footage and the account given by officers which resulted in criminal charges.” Emeraude (talk) 11:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I am extremely sceptical of discounting public claims made by police authorities. Here you say it resulted in no criminal charges yet quote something which says criminal charges were brought.  Anyway, I was just providing a summary of what is already in the article.  It seens to me that every variety of group that refuses to respond to lawful orders to disperse claim the police started it or that the police simply favour the other side. It tends to come off as a lot of rubbish, whoever says it.  The rules of evidence may make it imposible to prove who did what and positively identify the person and convict them of an act of violence as an individual. If the police of a developed country say X group resisted them it is automatically credible to me. Obotlig (talk) 01:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The addition to the lede was based on a hefty over-read of the sources used. The Daily Mail article (once you get past the scary lede, one of the reasons why we really shouldn't be using the Daily Mail on topics like this) reports the police commenting that in general the two groups protested peacefully, with a small breakaway group causing problems. The Times report does not report anyone targeting the police or Griffin with violence. (Resisting arrest is not the same as targeting the police). The Independent is the only one that passes in any sense, and it's one event, not enough to support the more general characterisation claimed. The comments of Obotlig and Alexandre suggest they are set on content and are looking for resources to justify it. This is getting wikipedia editing the wrong way round. It's a common mistake, but it's an approach that will often simply result in disputes and reversions, as sources get stretched to prove a point.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 01:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Again, I was only trying to sum up what is already in the article. Trying to guess at my intent is not assuming good faith and may well be erroneous. I would instead invite you to ask yourself if your accusation may not fit your own behaviour here. Obotlig (talk) 02:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is that what is in the article is, as far as I can see, an assembled list of times there have been arrests of UAF supporters at UAF demonstrations. To take these four occasions to claim a police stance on the group (content which itself doesn't even reflect the reports of these four events) is clearly original research. One needs reliable sources asserting that the police claim that the UAF has been inciting violence against the police or extreme right-wing groups as a matter of course or on a regular basis. This should be obvious practice to follow. As for the Independent article: the charges for conspiracy to organise violent disorder were dropped; not even that charge can be taken as evidence of police opinion. News articles about events that had not yet run their course should be handled with care. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * For one thing you're creating a strawman of wording I did not use. Secondly my first post on this page offered the solution that the conflict may merely be a matter of wording - considering the topic by whatever wording constitutes a large part of the article it needs mention. Third, labeling the targets as "extreme right wing" may rely on peculiar interpretations of questionable sources - I think a group is as capable of labeling itself "fascist" or acting in a manner consistent with that as a group is of labeling itself "anti-fascist" (you begin to wonder whether anyone involved ever took political science). Fourth, it is patently absurd to say that statements made by or charges filed by the police do not reflect the opinion of some police officer(s). Finally I will say that we all have opinions and the illusion of neutrality among us or journalists is a rather frail facade. It is by working together constructively that fair and useful articles are created. My personal opinion might be that all parties involved are childish clowns in a carnival show of self-mockery, ignorance and disrespect to orderly society. Or maybe I like police, or socialists, or anarchists, or Nazis, or think they are all clowns. This is not colouring my view on how this article should be fairly organised when compared to its equivalents. Anyway, thanks for any thought you might be willing to give as to how to word some mention of the controversial topics. Obotlig (talk) 05:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Your wording was "but since 2009 has been described by the police as inciting violence against the groups it targets and police officers." I don't think I've misrepresented it at all. This implies that "the police" (not a police officer) have this as a general characterisation of the UAF since 2009, not that on once occasion a leading figure was arrested for conspiracy to organise violent disorder but the charges were later all dropped. Groups like EDL are routinely described as far-right or extreme-right by reliable sources. It's not an interpretation on my part. Lastly, fairness does not mean that all groups opposed to each other are to be portrayed as mirror images of each other. Even saying "a plague on all their houses" would be taking up a POV. We need to follow what the RS says, and not over-reach.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources stating that the U.A.F. is anti-fascist
The only source that his article provides for the anti-fascist nature of the UAF group is a newspaper report on the BBC news website stating the violent conduct of the UAF group during a certain demo. It is a struggle to find anywhere in this report a clear indication by the BBC that they belive that the U.A.F. is an anti fascist group. I request that a coherant source is found showing that the UAF is anti-fascist, and until this is done the word anti-fascist is removed from the opening stub, or it is said that the group belives themselves to be anti-fascist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.129.46 (talk) 23:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You are asking for a source that a group that calls itself 'Unite Against Fascism' is anti-fascist? Doesn't the name give you a hint? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I am glad you were able to read and comprehend my earlier post, a more relevent answer would be appreciated. This draws a direct parrel to the EDL article, the opening stub classes them as far right, however the EDL themselves do not class themselves as far right. In the discussion it was accepted that what a group calls itself is not a firm source for what the group actually stand for. I fail to see how this is any different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.129.46 (talk) 23:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I misread your earlier post, I thought that you asked whether "the group belives themselves to be anti-fascist". I provided what I though was reasonable evidence to this effect. As for what they 'actually stand for', that is more problematic - but without a reliable source that suggests they are anything else, it seems reasonable enough to at least allow them to express their own opinion about themselves, though you might possibly have a point - I'll look into finding a source that describes them as such, though I suspect it won't take a great deal of searching. As for the EDL article, any issues you have with that should be discussed on the appropriate talk page, not here, though there seems to be little difficulty in finding sources that describe them as 'far right'.


 * (P.S. please sign your comments with '~' ). AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure that there will be plenty of sources showing that the U.A.F. is indeed anti-fascist. I just belive it would improve the article if these sources were found and referenced to.


 * Here you go:


 * BBC - "Anti-fascist group Unite Against Fascism (UAF) is one of a number of groups taking part in a Unity community event at the weekend to demonstrate the diversity of the city"


 * Birmingham Post - "...there were about 150 UAF and other anti-fascist supporters"


 * Daily Mail (which of course knows a fair bit about fascism, from its own murky past) - "Children protesting with the EDL made gestures towards the anti-fascist UAF after the two groups met in the middle of the city"


 * I think the first link (BBC) is a better source than the existing one. I'll replace it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the primary issue is that the UAF were formed to oppose the British national party and a such are not really anti fascist, but just anti BNP. - which fascists are they marching against? They oppose British nationalism not fascism. Off2riorob (talk) 00:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't follow your logic. UAF describe themselves as anti-fascist. The BBC (etc) describes them as anti-fascist. Do you have a source that says they aren't anti-fascists? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You have it in a nutshell there. They were created to oppose the British national party. Which fascists are they marching against? The UAF is fascist itself, It has opposed free speech and violence has been used in its attempts to restrict free speech. Off2riorob (talk) 00:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * And your source for all this is? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * All the comments I have presented are widely opined and citable. UAF members have committed violence, UAF has attempted to stop the BNP peacefully marching. The UAF were formed to oppose the BNP. Off2riorob (talk) 00:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * So you can source 'opinions'? Well, here's another one: I'm disappointed in you Rob, and am of the opinion that you have let your own POV on the matter interfere with your judgement, which is usually much better than this. (And BTW, I've seen what a BNP march looks like, and it didn't look 'peaceful' to me. ) AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This group are as bigoted and biased and violent and extreme as anyone they oppose. Such is the nature of extreme partisans. Off2riorob (talk) 00:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Even if that were true (and you provide no source) that wouldn't make them fascists - unless 'fascist' is just a term of abuse, in which case the word has no meaning. Anyway, this isn't a forum for discussions on the nature of fascism. I provided the source requested, and unless you are proposing changes to the article, I think this topic is closed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I was rather attracted to defend a talkpage discussion position than edit the article - my comments are all well known and just stated in an attempt to keep the content on a NPOV focus. I agree with you, that 'fascist' in this modern situation is just an attacking insult with little reflection or understanding of the complicated definition of the word. I am just joining in the discussion as a neutral in an attempt to balance out the discussion of an article that I have seen is POV and controlled by supporters of the group. Off2riorob (talk) 01:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Rob, I think you misunderstand me. I'd have no hesitation in describing the BNP as 'fascist', in the classic meaning of the term. As for the EDL, I'd say it might be questionable - but this is beside the point. UAF evidently consider them fascists, or something similar - and we have sources that describe UAF as anti-fascist. You may not agree with their tactics, or their politics (though those are clearly diverse amongst many of their supporters), but that doesn't necessarily make them wrong in their perceptions of the far right. And since when has a POV problem been solved by arguing for the opposition anyway? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * iaindale.blogspot.com - Unite Against Fascism Are as "Fascist" as the BNP - That's what happened to Nick Griffin this morning. I can't abide what Griffin stands for and abhor his divisive rantings. But I would defend his right to utter them. That's what happens in a free, democratic society - we may not agree with what someone says but we will defend to the death their right to say it. Except Unite Against Fascism don't quite see it that way. They are the kind of people who believe in 'no platform' for people they disagree with. One of UAF's members actually said on TV today: " I believe in freedom of speech for everybody but fascists." - Off2riorob (talk) 01:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Note - since this discussion on the nature of fascism was clearly getting wildly off-topic, per WP:NOTFORUM, I collapsed this section, from Rob's contribution on 00:27 onwards. Rob has objected to the collapse, but since he seems not to be proposing any change to article content, my opinion stays unchanged. This is not a forum for general debate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ya shouldn't discuss issues if ya get to not like it and want to hide it. Off2riorob (talk) 02:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Off2riorob, you are clearly not a neutral when it comes to any right wing article and you really need to spend more time on content issues and evidence rather than attacking editors who disagree with you.  -- Snowded  TALK  03:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think Rob may be a little tired and emotional, judging from his comments elsewhere. Given that I generally have a great deal of respect for his efforts, I'd think the best thing is to leave this for now, and see what his response is when he's more himself. We all have our off days, and this isn't typical for Rob. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * He has a blind spot on these articles. Hopefully he was a little tired and emotional as he also suggested I be banned from NLP articles at ANI (to cap his previous attempts to have me banned here for supporting what was a community consensus).  Pity really as you say -- Snowded  TALK  04:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted that if the UAF is against fascism it wouldn't be against the far right. The far right is the side of "liberalism" and "freedom". While fascism is the side of the far left. As fascism is intimately tied to socialism, since you cannot wield far reaching government controls without limiting the freedoms of the people, thus the opposite of liberalism and the right wing. If the UAF is against fascism, it should note that it is truly against socialism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.52.180 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 11 November 2011


 * It should be noted that the claim that 'fascism is the side of the far left' is a ridiculous bit of revisionism pushed by a small minority of right-wing ideologues, and has no credibility whatsoever amongst mainstream academics specialising in the subject. Anyway, this is not a forum for debates on such matters, and should be debated elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:05, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually a extremely large number of economists and politicians who were in fact left wing clearly state that fascism and communism are in fact left wing. The writings of several prominent individuals such as Marx and Friedrich von Hayek clearly demonstrate that fact.  Marx himself claims that without the freedoms of RIGHT WING LIBERALISM that LEFT WING SOCIALISM would never have a chance to exist  In addition, there is not a connection between "left wing" and "morality".  That connection is a revisionism claim that is held far too often.  And you are correct sir; this is not forum for debate.  This is discussion on what to add to this article.  And if the UAF is truly against fascism, then they would truly be against unbridled socialism, which inevitably leads to fascism.  Try reading "The Road to Serfdom" if you would appreciate a definitive depiction of what too much government control can lead to.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.153.241 (talk) 12:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * How the fuck could Marx have written anything about fascism? You are clearly deluded. Please find another forum for your idiocy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

NOTAFORUM. Also I think everyong involved (including the supposed reliable sources and organisations) did not sucessfully complete political science. I think I am repeating myself on that though. Obotlig (talk) 04:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Workers' Liberty Report of Unite Against Fascism conference 2012

 * Report of Unite Against Fascism conference 2012
 * Of these perhaps twenty were members of Socialist Action and a hundred members of the SWP - the two left groups which in reality dominate the leadership of the campaign. 
 * And: a number of SWP speakers, including UAF leaders Weyman Bennett and Martin Smith, stressed that they are for class demands which undercut the base of fascism.
 *  SWP members, in particular, face a choice: do they want to continue this undemocratic lash up with the right-wing Stalinist sect that is Socialist Action, a lash up dominated by non-class politics that are incapable of defeating the far right, and excluding dissident voice in order to keep the whole structure in place? Or will they listen to their Marxist education and working-class, democratic instincts, and change course to build the kind of effective anti-fascist campaign that is badly needed? 

For information only - those in UAF directly refer to it as "left." And refer to SA and SWP as "dominating" the UAF. Collect (talk) 14:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * A Workers Liberty blog? You are not really putting that forward as a reliable source are you?  Snowded  TALK 14:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you miss the "For information only" note? Aha - I thought so. Collect (talk) 14:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't miss it, I am just familiar with the way you build 'evidence" so best to clear things up at the start Snowded  TALK 14:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "Use snarky comments" is not a great system for discussion. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There is nothing to discuss regarding this 'report'. It is of no relevance to an encyclopaedia based on the appropriate use of reliable sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Absolutely nothing to discuss. It doesn't say that UAF is left wing anywhere. So, not a source is it? Emeraude (talk) 14:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It's no good Collect highlighting sections of text. The report, whether his extract or the full document, DOES NOT SAY THE UAF IS LEFT WING. Emeraude (talk) 15:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It says that Stalinism is "right wing" and that the two major leadership elements are of the "left." I rather think that not noticing such wording is .... interesting.   The topic, by the way, is specifically on point regarding the direction of the article.  Collect (talk) 04:43, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I would suggest popping over to Stalin and putting "right-wing" into the first line, then. --FormerIP (talk) 04:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Collect, I don't give a rat's arse what you think is 'interesting'. This isn't a forum. We base articles on reliable sources, not the spoils of your Google-mining exercises. That you are ignorant of the over-inflated self-importance of minor British far-left groups is no particular surprise to me (and I envy you in your ignorance - I wish I'd never encountered them either), but it has no bearing whatsoever on what we put in the article. Drop it. Find something of at least marginal relevance to the discussion instead... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The source says that the leadership of the UAF is dominated by the Left, which is not the same as saying that the UAF is left-wing. Ironically, one of these "left-wing" groups is called a "right-wing Stalinist sect".  But nowhere does it say that the group itself is left-wing.  Collect may for example have a poker game with left-wingers, it does not make it a left-wing poker game.  TFD (talk) 05:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Try someday to post without making comments about me - it makes your posts seem a trifle obsessive. . An organization which its own supporters state is "dominated by the left", where multiple major reliable sources state that it is "left wing" may reasonably have an edit "It has been called by (named sources) 'left wing'."  Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

A modest proposal
Since what 'some bloke from Workers Liberty' writes on a blog is of no relevance to Wikipedia content, I propose we ignore this section entirely, per WP:NOTFORUM, and get back to discussing how we can improve the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hear! Hear! Emeraude (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The post is, moreover, a report of an organization - hence not simply a "blog" -- refusing to recognize this can be done by any editor, but the earth still moves. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * So of 350 participants at the conference, "perhaps" 120 were left-wing. TFD (talk) 23:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Only if one does not read the report .   One ought to read the report before leaping off that bridge. Collect (talk) 00:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That is what it says in the report. "Including people outside and in the balcony it came to about 200-250, so let’s be generous and say 350 during the day.... Of these perhaps twenty were members of Socialist Action and a hundred members of the SWP - the two left groups which in reality dominate the leadership of the campaign."  TFD (talk) 00:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Erm, this source actually describes Socialist Action as a "right-wing Stalinist sect" - though admittedly it also suggests they are on the left. Evidently, it can't even be cited for the opinion of the bloke wot wrote it... ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk)
 * Regardless of the fact that this is not a reliable source, the whole thing is still totally irrelevant, because nowhere does it say that UAF is left wing! Nowhere! Not even a suggestion of it! You might just as well use it as evidence that the UAF is right wing or composed of Martians, because it doesn't say either of those things either. Emeraude (talk) 11:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Ludicrous
Sunday Mercury POLICE managed to stave off violent clashes yesterday as the right wing English Defence League (EDL) and left wing Unite Against Fascism groups carried out rival marches in Leicester 5 Feb 2012

Boston Globe 6 Feb 2011 (AP dispatch of 5 Feb also) 1,000 members of the left-wing group Unite Against Fascism 

etc. There is no rational basis to elide any statement that UAF has been called "left-wing" in reliable sources internationally. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Haven't we been over the whole left-wing thing before? Yes, I think we have.... 2 lines of K  303  12:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It is easy enough to find "reliable sources internationally" that describe Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush and Margaret Thatcher as 'right-wing' (amongst other things). Since you clearly think that such things matter, Collect, why don't you add this to the relevant articles? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * This has all been explained to Collect before. TFD (talk) 16:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Many times here, in RfC and several other places.  S/he will keep coming back to it however  Snowded  TALK 16:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The issue is not about labelling anyone or any group -- TFD knows that I oppose using Wikipedia's voice to label anyone in such a manner "left" or "right", but whether the fact that certain reliable sources hold an opinion and clearly cite it as opinion is a different kettle of fish.  TFD routinely adds "right wing" etc. to articles and does not even have RS sources to use Wikipedia's voice  ( where he decides the opinion is sufficient to ascribe to Wikipedia proper),  where he removes the sourced "conservative" in order to add "populist anti-immigration" to a descriptor of a political party,  changes no-brainer "communist" to "far left", (note that I do not back using Wikipedia's voice to label anything as "left wing.)" He makes edits such as  with the odd edit summary Remove fringe extremist point of view. Labels newspapers as "right wing" per  with less sourcing than is present here. Uses a "single source" to label a person as a Nazi  ad nauseum.  You can search all of my 25K edits to find where I gratuitously use Wikipedia's voice to label anyone at all.  Cheers.    Collect (talk) 13:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

IMO, there are sufficient reliable sources to say that sopecific sources have called UAF "left wing." This does not mean we ought to call it "left-wing" in Wikipedia's voice - just that it is reasonable for us to state what the opinions of others are, properly cited as opinion. Just like all other articles. BTW, I would certainly agree that saying in the Reagan article that (say) source A called him "right-wing" if such sources are given and cited as opinion. Ditto Thatcher. I only watch a bit over 2000 active articles, Andy - Lo alecha hamlacha ligmor. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * When an academic source said that recent scholarship tends to place the Tea Party Movement within the tradition of the American radical right, as described by Seymour Martin Lipset, Daniel Bell and others, you tenaciously fought to exclude that fact from that article. Yet here you are quite happy to gather passing descriptions of the UAF as left-wing and add them to this article. Can you explain to me what interpretations of NPOV and WEIGHT has led you to these very different treatments of these two articles.  TFD (talk) 01:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The academic source specifically said the TPM was not radical right which elides your notice. Yet you insistewntly misuse the source to say what it does not say and specifically says it wrong.  Use of a source for something it does not say is wrong, TFD.  AAnd is against the very concept of Wikipedia.    When you have claimed something wrong and you are caught, it would be nice if you actually admitted it!  Meanwhile, I do not object to opinions cited as opinions as you d*** well know, and should have known for years now.  There are now dozens of sources using "left wing" with regard to the UAF, and that is mnore than a casual number to say the least.  My positions on all articles are exactly the same. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * :D The UAF is blatantly infected with left-wing politics in the same way the EDL are probably made up of 75% thuggish right wing Nazis. why do you think the same old editors rush to remove a link to the LEFT even though you have major news organisations using this term through apolitical observations of both the UAF and EDL (not a label) of left wing.

The political system in this country will not tolerate any form of political fascism (for good reason - look at the first half of the 20th century) and certain editors are clearly prepared to defend the governments and Unite Unions (which contributes to around 75% of the labour party's financial donations) stance of fascism by never allowing any anti fascist organisation to be labelled or associated with the LEFT because it would be perceived by the public (who cant be bothered to do their own research and use WP as gospel for all knowledge) as LEFT versus RIGHT instead of the UAF's official line which is Anti Fascist Pressure Group (lol)

We all know what the UAF is so keep trolling Johnsy88 (talk) 13:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * This is a talk page for discussing article content. It isn't a forum for off-topic rants. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

UAF and EDL are always described as opposing Left-Wing and Right-Wing pressure groups why are the same publications that are used to describe EDL as far right not accepted to describe UAF as Left-Wing? JasonnF (talk) 22:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You are right - but so far the consensus here has been to not even allow the Times as a source for the UAF being described as "left" at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The Times is generally regarded as a reliable source for recording events. However, like all reliable sources, it can be wrong, and when applying adjectives to people or organisations it is simply giving an opinion which may or may not be accurate. In this respect, The Times is quite simply wrong. The paper's opinion of the UAF is just that, opinion. While the majority of the UAF's followers may be to the left, not all are by any means and the list of supporters given in the article makes it clear that they range across the political spectrum,, including some people from the right wing of the Conservative Party. So, to describe the UAF as a left wing group in such absolute terms is nonsense and we have to accept that The Times, on this occasion, is guilty of bias, opinionating or, more likely, sloppy journalism. Emeraude (talk) 08:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Not all UAF followers are left-wingers the same can also be said for EDL, obviously the majority of both organizations are on the fringe of politics but why is one being treated differently to the other. Every political organization has members that are not considered the norm for where the party is on the political spectrum I find it strange that this group is the only one singled out. JasonnF (talk) 08:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This issue was subject to an RfC, went to two notice boards and all the evidence was reviewed. The current wording is a result of that process.  I suggest you read the material.  The issue of the Times was taken into account in that assessment.  I actually don't agree with Emeraude's reasons above but I don't see the need to engage in this again given the past process.  If there is substantive new evidence maybe, but rehashing old material has no value.   Snowded  TALK 10:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * We call the EDL "far right" because there is academic consensus for that description, while there is no consensus to call the UAF left wing. TFD (talk) 15:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * And show me where I say Wikipedia's voice should be used to so label the UAF? Or any person or group?   What I say is that reliable sources have opinions -- and it is proper to give their opinions, proerly cited as such, in the article.    Collect (talk) 16:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Lots of articles identify the ideology of groups, conservative, liberal, etc. There is even a field in the template for political parties for "ideology".  If we excluded factual information from articles, then there would not be any articles.  TFD (talk) 17:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Isn't it a bit of a conflict of interest for people who identify themselves pridefully as socialists on their profile pages to refuse to accept sources calling UAF Left-Wing? I am new to wiki not sure how this all works. JasonnF (talk) 18:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Mr. New to Wikipedia, we present what reliable sources say, whether or not we agree with them. I do not know who "pridefully" identifies themselves as socialists on their userpages that are part of this conversation.  TFD (talk) 03:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Surely anyone who identified themselves "pridefully" as socialist would be happy to see UAF labelled as left wing? The fact remains, they can't because so many of UAF's supporters and signatories (David Cameron!!!) are not left wing. But regardless of how many lefties support UAF, it is policies which determine whether a political group is left, right or centre, and UAF has no policies other than opposing fascism (putting it in the same camp as those well-known left wingers Winston Churchill, Charles de Gaulle and F D Roosevelt!). Emeraude (talk) 06:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 June 2013
The edit is requested due to the importance of highlighting the increasingly militant street-violence employed by the organisation, which I believe is contemporarily relevant given its position as opposing fascism, doing as much, often more harm, than the organisations it gathers to oppose.

"The UAF organisation has in recent times descended into militancy, readily resorting to violence not only against those against whom they oppose ideologically, but against any police presence separating rival marches. On the 1st June 2013 58 members alone were arrested at a rally opposing the BNP in Westminster, increasingly questioning the legitimacy of the UAF as an organisation opposing fascism and all its worst traits. The differences between the BNP, EDL and UAF in terms of rally/march behaviour, tactics, animosity, intent, and fear and alarm caused to the general public is now blurred.

Source: 'Fifty-eight arrested during Westminster protests' 01/06/2013 BBC News Online

Abbamanic (talk) 23:23, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Link to BBC article: . As for your proposed edit, we base article content on published sources, not contributors own analysis or opinions. The BBC article makes no comparison between UAF and the BNP, says nothing about violence at the counter-demonstration, and likewise nothing about "the legitimacy of the UAF as an organisation opposing fascism". AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:30, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Disagree with requested edit Not supported by source. TFD (talk) 02:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Not done: per WP:SOAPBOX and WP:SYNTH. In the future, please stick to the source, and seek consensus for your edits before using the edit semi-protected template. -- El Hef  ( Meep? ) 03:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Leon Trotsky-phobia
An edit to the lead adds "deploying the spirit of Trotsky’s united front method" "It describes itself as a national campaign with the aim of alerting British society to a perceived threat of fascism and the far right..." The source used is an opinion pieces in the International Socialism (ISJ), published by the Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party.

Opinion pieces are not reliable sources. ISJ is not a reliable source. Even if it were, it is an opinion that lacks notability. We would not say for example that the Alliance in the Second World War was a typical Trotskyist front? I notice that the view that UAF is left-wing appears fairly consistently in the literature of the BNP, EDL and other far right organiations but is not a normal description in mainstream writing.

TFD (talk) 13:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The author of the article, Martin Smith, is on the steering committee of UAF. Are you telling us that a UAF steering committee member is an unreliable source for the methods deployed by the UAF? --Nug (talk) 20:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think this is, per se, and unreliable source, but it's a characterisation rather than a concrete fact, so not something we can state in WP's voice. Formerip (talk) 20:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Smith isn't writing in the journal as a representative of UAF. In any case, it is clearly opinion. Who knows what 'the spirit of Trotsky's united front' is? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:06, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It was attributed to Martin Smith, who identifies himself within the article as UAF steering committee member, thus he is writing as a representative of UAF. --Nug (talk) 21:10, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 'Thus'? Sorry, but that is questionable. He identifies himself as "on the steering committee of UAF" in a paragraph which recounts his own personal 'campaign' against 'fascists' - it is a personal statement of commitment, nothing else. Anyway, it is opinion - Trotsky is long dead, and as much as the SWP might like to claim to be his spiritual heirs, Wikipedia isn't here to give credence to such claims. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:20, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no explicit disclaimer, so the default position is that he is writing as a representative of UAF, and he is describing the methods employed by the UAF. You shouldn't allow your personal animosity to Trotsky to influence your editorial POV. --Nug (talk) 21:31, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you cite policy for this 'default position'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:34, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

It raises alarm bells when for subjects that have received widespread mainstream media attention, editors provide obscure, highly partisan sources. I sincerely doubt that Nug and Estlandia rely on the Trotskyist press for their understanding of current events. I could find no mention of Smith or the steering committee on the UAF website. I did find however that members of UAF Scotland elect a steering committee. But the fact one speaks for a group that elected one to a committee does not mean one speaks for an entire organization.

Oddly, Smith appears to confuse "united front", which is a working class coalition against the bourgeoisie, with "popular front", which is a coalition of left-wing and bourgeois forces against fascism. And the "united front" was a Communist, not specifically Trotskyist, invention.

My interpretation of weight is that Trotskyist interpretations are not normally included in articles. If we do then we should be using sources that are experts with that ideology.

TFD (talk) 21:54, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The infobox mentions Martin Smith as assistant secretary, which he was at the time of writing his article. I find it incredulous that TFD can't find any mention of Mr Smith on the UAF site, a simple search on the that site reveals many hits such as "UAF officer Martin Smith will appeal against his conviction by magistrates for assault on a police officer.". --Nug (talk) 22:15, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * See the list of officers on their website. Smith is not included, although he may have been an officer at one time.  Note also that it says its officers are "elected".  Also, note the list includes a Labour MP and MEP. but no elected MPs or MEPs of the Socialist Workers Party.  TFD (talk) 22:41, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The lack of transparency of who the officers of the UAF actually were, is remarkable. But nevertheless, it cannot be disputed that Smith was on the steering committee (and may well still be) when he wrote his "insider" view of UAF tactics. Now do you have any evidence that Smith's view is "Trotskyist interpretation"? You state "I notice that the view that UAF is left-wing appears fairly consistently in the literature of the BNP, EDL and other far right organisations", are you claiming Smith is far right because he writes that UAF was "deploying the spirit of Trotsky’s united front method"? And what exactly is the problem with Smith's article being published in International Socialism Journal, which you characterised as being published by a Trotskyist organisation? I know Stalinists have a problem with Trotsky, but what is your issue with him? --Nug (talk) 21:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Find a non-fringe source that describes UAF as a Trotskyist united front (or a Communist popular front, or whichever permutation you prefer) and we can consider including this in the article. Otherwise, forget it. We don't base assessments of protest movements on the unsubstantiated assertions of single activists. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:22, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Firstly, has RSN deemed the ISJ as a fringe source? Secondly Smith never described the UAF as Trotskyist (or Communist popular front), he just said the methods deployed by the UAF are in the spirit of Trotsky’s united front. Why the knee-jerk reaction? I thought only Stalinists go ape over any mention of Mr. T. --Nug (talk) 21:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not suggest that we provide Trotskyist, Stalinist or far right opinions in articles unless they are noteworthy, and even then we must present them as the opinions of those groups. Since the UAF does not have an ideology, different members of the steering committee may have different views, and it is incorrect to ascribe the views of one member to the group.  Even if we did, it would be wrong rely on documents sourced to political groups to describe them.  Do you think that Peter Hain, who is an officer, would describe them as a Trotskyist front group?  TFD (talk) 21:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Martin Smith is a notable person and his view as a member of the UAF steering committee, which was properly attributed as his view, ought to be in the article regardless of your own personal political POV. We can also include Peter Hain's view too if you like. --Nug (talk) 21:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Opinions become noteworthy when they receive widespead attention. It may be that the media is wrong in not reporting this story, but not up to us to correct the errors in the media and to right great wrongs.  You should write to the UK broadsheets and ask them to report what Smith said.  TFD (talk) 22:25, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no such policy that requires opinions be covered in mainstream media before they can be covered here, you are misinterpreting WP:Noteworthy which describes the criteria related to whether a topic can have its own article. --Nug (talk) 09:46, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

@TFD... It is blatantly obvious you simply do not want this entirely relevant and valid source included because you do not like it, which isn't a reason to not include it.I just don't like it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.173.55 (talk) 11:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * See WP:WEIGHT: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.... Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views."
 * The ISJ is not a reliable source, and Trotskyism is the view of a tiny minority.
 * If you disagree with this policy, then get it changed.
 * TFD (talk) 12:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Bias in intro
The EDL page and infobox has descriptions of right and far right. Let's not kid ourselves, UAF is a left wing at best and extreme left organisation at worst. It is not a pure anti-hatred group like Hope Not Hate or One Law For All. Its core includes members of far left parties, and an Islamist, Azad Ali. It has never protested Islamic fascism or any racism comitted by any non-white. And for an anti-racism group, they do seem to bang on an awful lot about trade unions... Indiasummer95 (talk) 15:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * UAF has received support from all mainstream British political parties. As for the remainder of your comments, we base article on published sources, not contributor's opinions, AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * More accurately: "has had members from each of the major British parties" as I have not seen any source stating that the parties as such have supported the UAF. Collect (talk) 15:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "UAF has received support from within all mainstream British political parties"? Anyway, the point is that UAF cannot be simply characterised as 'far left'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Close - but I do not favour characterising any group in Wikipedia's voice - but where a reliable source uses the term, it is reasonable to ascribe such an opinion as an opinion of that source, no? Collect (talk) 17:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * As always, weight matters. How significant is the opinion? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:15, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The Times and other newspaper usage as noted in the past?  Collect (talk) 18:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a reliable source that Barack Obama was born in Kenya - a Kenyan newspaper article when he was elected to the Senate. Editors have used your argument to say that we should mention it in articles about Obama.  TFD (talk) 18:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * And we certainly could say that a Kenyan newspaper had the opinion that Obama is a Kenyan. So?  The issue here, however, is you saying that a well-known exceedingly reliable source's opinions can not be mentioned here. Which is absurd.  I suggest that The Times is a teensy weensy bit more notable than that Kenyan newspaper.  Apparently your mileage varies by a huge factor.  Collect (talk) 02:19, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Where Obama was born is a matter of fact not opinion. It is helpful to be able to distinguish between the two.  TFD (talk) 20:50, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that UAF should not be characterized as "left-wing", because it draws membership from people of different ideological backgrounds. How other groups are characterized should be discussed on their talk pages.  TFD (talk) 17:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed - that's a no-brainer. We should always be wary of assuming that a newspaper, however well-respected, has no political agenda. The Times is still a journal of record when it comes to reporting events; no paper is bias free when it comes to opinion and whatever it (or any other paper) says about the political position of any group is always suspect. Emeraude (talk) 10:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

It is a far leftist front group for the swp, they share all of the key figures. Everyone knows it. To pretend it just some neutral protest group is immensely absurd and makes this wiki entry utterly laughable. Question, since when did the TIMES become not a source? Answer, when certain biased editors decide it goes against their propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.152.217.38 (talk) 20:24, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * There is a difference between 3 times that the mainstream media has mistakenly called the UAF "left-wing" and the tens or hundreds of thousands of times the EDL, BNP, NF, BFF, BUF, etc. have been called "far right." TFD (talk) 04:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Answer: I didn't say that The Times was not a source. I said it "is still a journal of record", i.e. a highly reliable source. Please read what is written and take it in. Emeraude (talk) 08:37, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * You can't call UAF not left wing because it has been supported by members of each main party. Has it been supported by the entire party? EDL is widely seen as right wing, ethnocentric or racist, but has members who are black or even Muslim. That doesn't mean that the Muslim Council of Britain or Operation Black Vote support them. Indiasummer95 (talk) 15:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

"Racist" Blood Donors
This should go in:

On 5th June 2013 the UAF were criticised for heckling blood donors when they mistook them for UKIP supporters in Hove Town Hall.

http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/10463657.Blood_donors_heckled_by_anti_fascist_protesters_at_Hove_Town_Hall/ http://www.thecommentator.com/article/3710/anti_ukip_protestors_disrupt_another_farage_event_this_time_in_sussex

212.139.97.203 (talk) 21:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The Commentator is not a reliable source. The Argus might be, but I can't see that this is anything other than trivial.  If it was not mentioned in the national press then its not really notable  Snowded  TALK 22:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Yup. Of the two sources, The Argus does not say that the demonstrators were from UAF, and The Commentator seems to be some sort of right-wing pressure group (and note that it only says that the demonstrators were "believed to be" UAF). I very much doubt that The Commentator would be seen as a reliable source for anything beyond its own vague opinions - hardly worth a mention. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree with Andy. TFD (talk) 22:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Surprise surprise.87.112.173.55 (talk) 04:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I've checked The Commentator out. It is owned by Robin Shepherd.

"Robin Shepherd (born 6 January 1968) is a British-born political commentator and analyst. He is Director of International Affairs at the Henry Jackson Society.[1] Formerly a senior fellow at Chatham House, The Royal Institute of International Affairs, in London, he has been associated with a number of think tanks in the United States and Europe.[2]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Shepherd

I'd like to know why people who claim it is an unreliable source can say that without reason. I think it is reasonable to say that if he is trusted by the above then he is at a level of trust that is generally accepted in other Wikipedia entries. It's a general news publication in just the same way as any other trusted media source is. Saying it is rightwing is rather biased. I mean the Guardian Newspaper is leftwing, but that doesn't prevent it being used as a source. The idea is to state the facts and let the reader decide. It most certainly did happen. That fact should be stated, and it isn't trivial either. It was a major embarrassment, hence the two news reports made.79.67.254.105 (talk) 17:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * If it was "a major embarrassment" it would have been reported in more than a local paper which doesn't say that UAF was involved anyway, and a minor partisan website which only states that UAF were "believed to be" involved. Vague assertions about minor incidents quite possibly not involving UAF at all don't belong in the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:31, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * There is no evidence that the Commentator has fact-checking, unlike the Guardian (which is liberal not left-wing) or for that matter the conservative newspapers, the Times, Telegraph, the Mail, etc. It is really just an opinion piece. TFD (talk) 18:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

OK so put it in as "believed to be" then. Of course the reason it doesn't say categorically is that it doesn't have absolute proof, as in perhaps they were arrested and convicted of it for example. Now we all know that Wikipedia sources are not restricted to cases where there is absolute proof. We have many examples of commentary by those who have some sort of authority in a subject. In fact, as I was saying before, it is up to the reader to decide, and so if there is a source that later finds evidence that they were not UAF, or perhaps some were and some were from a different group, then that could be put in as well to counter it. It seems to me that your purpose in arguing this is more to do with the desire to keep it out and that you don't approve of rightwing media and think it makes it inherently unreliable. Most sources in political publications are biased, but you enable a voice to all.79.67.254.105 (talk) 19:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * How the hell do you know "the reason it doesn't say categorically"? You can't possibly know that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:59, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * While policy does not require that every statement be true, it does require that it be reliably sourced and relatively widely reported, per verifiability and neutrality. The political orientation of Commentator is a red herring - other right-wing publications are acceptable as rs.  TFD (talk) 20:13, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

The reason publications avoid say anything untrue is because they are legally liable for damages to reputation under British law in cases where an untrue accusation defames them in any reasonable way, and this would quite likely fall into that category if it were untrue. So you will notice that for professional publications where circulation is wide and a lot of damage could be inflicted on the group they are extremely careful, and this is why you have a degree of reliability with large publications. So they played it safe and stated what they knew for certain to be true. The law is quite complex here, but it generally has the effect of publishers erring on the side of caution. Also the owner of the publication is liable for the actions of anyone he employs.

Now I have done some further research on this and I can verify the statement is true, in that it is believed that it was the UAF, so I accept now that it would be more accurate to say it is believed to be the case. If you look at the Argus comments section you will see numerous references to the UAF, despite the paper omitting this. I've had a bit of a search in other places, such as a Facebook page connected to the UKIP, and it also mentions the UAF. I've looked on the local UAF website where the event is mentioned and they say many different groups turned up and named some but omitted the UAF. However, one must understand that such behaviour is an offence in Britain where it brings distress to others. I'm not sure of the exact laws here, but I would suggest it is reasonable to say that if the UAF were there then they would have quite likely left out their name in case it may in some way help to incriminate them. I really don't know more than that and I'm simply saying this looks like the case. Of course one should be wary of publications with a direct interest, but the Argus readers are just the readers of the local newspaper, so they are in effect witnesses to it if they were around. Anyhow it verifies the claim of 'believed to be UAF'.79.67.254.105 (talk) 20:44, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * We don't publish speculation here, or material 'verified' by SPAs.   Snowded  TALK 20:49, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

What is this then? "The EDL has been described as Islamophobic.[18]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Defence_League

I mean I just picked a group that would be around about the radical alternative on the other side of this political divide. Gerry Gable is hardly a mainstream or in any way a balanced source of opinion, and yet you seem to have one rule for one side and another rule for the other. Perhaps you might to explain the difference. All I'm asking here is for you to include an event that did happen and is attributed to the UAF by a media source of considerable authority. See the contributing journalists to the publication if you care to investigate further. This isn't anything like just someone's personal blog. These people are experts and some are widely known and write for all sorts of professional publications. Gerry Gable is a radical far left activist who campaigns against the very people he is commenting on. So you are showing a remarkable lack of political balance here.79.67.254.105 (talk) 21:49, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Its not about political balance, its about what is in reliable secondary third party sources.  Also please learn to use WP:INDENT  Snowded  TALK 22:09, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The place to discuss what is in other articles is on their talk pages. The argument that what is published must be true because of libel laws is not part of rs policy.  Not all false information is libellous.  Even reliably published facts may not be significant.  TFD (talk) 23:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * It's perfectly obvious why my reference to that group is valid in this discussion. I was proving to the person above that the statement was false, so I proved it, since you seem to insist on proof for everything. Now since it is the case that Wikipedia does accept comment from those types of sources and features what is most certainly 'speculation' and a pure matter of opinion then it's hardly fair to say my source is insufficient because of being 'rightwing' etc or that it is just the catch-all term 'speculation'. It is reasonable to believe such a source is likely to cross-check things. I just think you are tying yourself in knots. I've no idea what you mean by 'rs policy' or what that has to do with it.79.67.254.105 (talk) 23:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * RS = reliable sources. As for what is 'perfectly obvious', I'd say that it is perfectly obvious that you are obsessed with getting a bit of poorly-sourced trivia into the article in order to cast UAF in a bad light, in spite of the fact that you don't even have a source that states for a fact that they were even involved. Well get over it - it isn't going to happen. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:33, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I've got about the best proof here. This is an address from Nigel Farage at a UKIP conference. It's currently on the front page of their website, so it is official. Go to 21:00 or there abouts. He says it was UAF and he was there. This is not trivial or he wouldn't have brought it up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ZJdyEB7aUQo

I expect you will probably find some other reason to dismiss it now, but that's how it is. It happened it is political. It's pretty obvious really if you think about it. I mean it was rather sublime, and unlike the trivial, you don't see these things happen very often.79.67.254.105 (talk) 03:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Farage says nothing about UAF 'heckling blood donors'. Please stop wasting our time. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:05, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * No but the Argus does. Are you suggesting the UKIP held more than one meeting that night or something? Also if you care to listen on he has decided to write to the Labour leader about it asking that he withdraws his support. So it is clearly escalating into something of significance, hence the trivial claim is groundless. 79.67.254.105 (talk) 04:24, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Read WP:OR. And I don't give a toss whether you think it is 'escalating into something of significance' - we go by published sources, and none have said anything of the kind. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:37, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * That was a published source. It was published on the front page of the UKIP website and it is also on Youtube. I gave you the Youtube link here simply because the link is a permanent one.


 * It seems like you are really desperately scraping the barrel of reasons why it shouldn't go in. If it were like most other pages then the proof that I provide would be sufficient. You are just talking nonesense. We are allowed to use our own words on here, as it is a discussion. If you don't consider that an escalation then what on earth do you call it? He's asking the Labour leader to withdraw his party's support, and most of the founders are from his party, including many MPs, and so that is an escalation of events in my dictionary.

We could try a published source as well. "es·ca·late (sk-lt) v. es·ca·lat·ed, es·ca·lat·ing, es·ca·lates v.tr. To increase, enlarge, or intensify:" http://www.thefreedictionary.com/escalation 79.67.254.105 (talk) 14:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The same three or four editors have been collaborating to keep a positive bias spin on this page for years. They are utterly shameless. 87.112.173.55 (talk) 14:56, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I've got another local newspaper article on the event here:

http://www.brightonandhovenews.org/2013/06/03/hundreds-turn-out-in-hove-to-hear-ukip-leader/21702


 * So far that is 2 local papers, one currant affairs publication, one party conference and a letter to Ed Milliband, and still it is trivia! Well I guess some of us have more of a nose for what is and what isn't than others. This is a political embarrassment ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embarrassment ) and this is why the party is now using it for their own campaigning.79.67.254.105 (talk) 16:21, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * More irrelevance. No mention of UAF. No mention of blood donors. As for you nose, it isn't a reliable source as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Stick it elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:29, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I provided you with links to Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Essentially what makes something "non-trivial" is widespread coverage in mainstream media.  If this article is neutral then it should reflect what the average reader of the independent or the Times would know about the UAF through reading his morning paper.  It could be that those papers are biased, but it is not up to us to correct that bias here.  TFD (talk) 16:38, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * No, it's one local paper. Brighton And Hove News is a website whose reliability cannot be established, but regardless of that, its report makes no mention of blood donors or UAF so as a source for '"Racist" Blood Donors' it's of no use whatsoever. The "current affairs publication" is so blatantly biased that it can in no way be regarded as a reliable source. Similarly, letters by anyone to Milliband are not reliable sources for this story and neither is YouTube. So we are left with ONE local newspaper report, from the Brighton Argus, that does not even mention UAF, and only says that some blood donors were mistaken for UKIP members (but were not prevented from giving blood) - bit of a non-story really, until it gets blown out of all proportion and away from the facts by the typical morons who inhabit local newspaper comment blogs! Emeraude (talk) 16:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Here is a video of that actual event inside with Nigel Farage saying it is UAF.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoJLi5NyQQ8


 * Are you still going to deny that this is reliable? I can't see how it could possibly have been faked. You can watch the event as it took place and judge for yourself. I think it would be balanced by referring to this as an embarrassment for the organisation.79.67.254.105 (talk) 18:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, absolutely. What NF says inside a meeting of the party faithful is not a reliable source. He no doubt said a lot of other things that we don't take as gospel. He's a politician! That the event happened is not in dispute; that it was UAF is not proved on NF's say so. (And even if it is, this still remains a trivial incident barely worthy of Wikinews, let alone an encyclopaedia, which explains why no other publication of note has seen fit to cover it.)Emeraude (talk) 22:32, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * He’s a leader of a the third most popular party in the country. He said the UAF did it. I've proved that and I've proved that it is widely believed to be the case as well, and so far I have not come across any denial that it was the UAF from one of their representatives.


 * Essentially what I've been doing here is finding sources and trying to get as close to the truth as possible. You have video evidence there and video evidence is a primary source, which is vastly more reliable than any report, because you can see it with your own eyes, so on the contrary, it is better, not worse. In addition I have presented numerous sources so you can cross check one with another, hence increasing the reliability factor.


 * Now go and put it in, and say Farage says it is UAF, because that is exactly what he has said. Once it is in the page as a feature then it can be added to later on by other users and other information that comes to light, as per the normal function of Wikipedia.79.67.254.105 (talk) 22:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * No. We are not going to 'put it in', for the reasons already explained. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Who is 'we'? Are you all acting as some sort of Wikipedia cabal here? All your reasoning has been absolutely pathetic. You scream it is speculation when you don't agree with something, you argue sources when they are perfectly reliable and so on. Now you have run out of your parenthetic excuses so you simply tell us you demand it to be left out. This is blatant political bias.79.67.240.102 (talk) 20:04, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * You have not found a proper source and this has been explained to you.   Snowded  TALK 20:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The sources I have found have been proper sources and of the same type as used elsewhere in Wikipedia, as in local papers etc. You and others working with you have rejected them on bogus grounds. I have shown you a video published on the UKIP's website with Nigel Farage saying they were UAF, and the same video shows them in the building. Why is this improper? Why can’t we simply put in Wikipedia what I have proved without any reasonable doubt what so ever? All you are doing here is stating without reason that it doesn’t conform to a set of Wikipedia standards. You don’t say why. Surely a party conference is something that can be recorded in Wikipedia? It was witnessed by enough people. I think that you are applying the rules in a grossly unfair way. 79.67.240.102 (talk) 22:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you see any difference between how the UAF is described in this article and how it is described in the Sun, which I presume is the paper you read? TFD (talk) 03:57, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't read The Sun. You would be better off looking at that video, as it gives you footage of what actually happened. That beats second-hand accounts, which I quite agree, can be very biased when we are dealing with political groups liker this. The EDL is the same. It's one of those things where publications take sides. It's not too dissimilar to a game of football in fact.212.139.103.109 (talk) 17:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * If there is a bias in mainstream media then it will appear here, because policy (WP:WEIGHT) requires that articles reflect what is in those sources. I suggest you read that policy by clicking on the link and if you disagree with it then to discuss it on the policy talk page.  TFD (talk) 17:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * 212.139.103.10 should not assume that others have not watched the UKIP video. So let's be clear what is in it: NF does not actually say that the hecklers were UAF! (That may have been his intention, but he doesn't sy it.) He casts various aspersions on UAF, the unions and Labour - all standard political party attacking opponents stuff; he does not say the hecklers were UAF. But suppose they were (and NF is not a reliable source in this - he says all sorts of stuff that would also not make him a reliable source - he's a politician for goodness' sake) this still remains a trivial news item that has no encyclopaedic value whatsoever. That video is evidence of what? That NF asks the always pointless question "Can you hear me at the back?" Yes. That UKIP can't give their leader a decent microphone? Well, yes. That his supporters continually chant his name? Yes, again. But that's about it. NF is NOT a reliable source by definition, and a video, produced and edited by UKIP, is certainly not a reliable source. But who cares anyway - the whole issue is trivial, pointless and dull. Emeraude (talk) 19:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Well what is interesting in the wider scheme of things is the UAF's target was traditionally the BNP and as the EDL came along later on they included them as well. Quite recently I spotted an article by the UAF that was discussing whether the UKIP should be targeted as well. (I could dig out the link if you want it) Anyway, this seems to be the first major UAF organised disruptive protest against the UKIP. There might have been others that I have not come across, but to my knowledge this looks like a bit of a turning point. One possible reason is the BNP's support has plummeted and the UKIP's has risen substantially, so it is as if the 'right' (in the eyes of the UAF) is regrouping under the UKIP banner. Indeed this change of direction is why I have found it interested. I'm not sure how much you people who claim it is trivia understand regarding British politics in this area, but I've got quite a bit of knowledge in it and so I hope that helps.

Incidentally the Telegraph has just published this on the UAF http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/andrew-gilligan/10122496/Anti-fascists-fuel-the-fire-of-hate.html You might like to read it for a bit of background as it is currently. 79.67.241.151 (talk) 17:08, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * "I'm not sure how much you people who claim it is trivia understand regarding British politics in this area...." That is an unacceptable remark to make about other editors. But seeing as you have questioned the integrity and expertise of editors, how does a degree in political science from a UK university, postgrad research into extreme right politics, contributions to academic journals and a lifetime of teaching politics and related subjects grab you? That UKIP is to the right is unquestionable (see the sources) and not some new idea dreamt up by UAF. And it is a trivial news item though, there's no question. Emeraude (talk) 17:39, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * It doesn't grab me nearly half as much as someone with real-life experience of the battles fought between the UAF and groups of the 'right' of British politics. The UKIP is economically right, but it is by no means extreme right, as in it wouldn't use violence to achieve its political ends. Besides, I said I didn't know whether those claiming trivia knew. I wondered whether they might be foreign themselves. So please calm down. I'm not disputing your academic experience. 79.67.241.151 (talk) 20:54, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * You think Wikipedia editors do not have real life experience? I wouldn't wish to trumpet my academic experience, but it was you who raised the qualification of Wikipedia editors to comment on what is trivia. That some blood donors were mistaken for UKIP members (and still gave blood) is an utterly trivial news event, so trivial that just one local paper reported it! Regardless of my academic credentials, prior knowledge or whatever, it is of such insignificance that it does not belong in an an encyclopaedia. Any foreigner can work that out! Incidentally, UKIP's political position cannot be defined by its non-use of violence. It is possible to be extreme right without advocating violence, and UKIP is not just economically right wing, but that discussion belongs on the UKIP page, not here. Emeraude (talk) 06:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Removal of references to UAF being far-left.
I recently made an edit linked to a Guardian article which referred to the UAF as far-left. This was removed on the grounds that the article was an opinion piece and irrelevant.

Any article ever referring to a an organisation being far right or far left is clearly going to be an opinion since these terms do not have an objective definition. The piece was written in The Guardian; a well respected centre-left British newspaper so could hardly be described as overtly partisan.

In addition, the leadership of the UAF is made up of members of Socialist Workers Party who self define themselves as a radical left party.

Why is there such a massive aversion to using the term far left when the term far right is used in countless articles on Wikipedia to describe other organisations like the UAF's main antagonist the EDL. (the evidence for them being far right is also just links to opinion pieces in newspapers).

If the term far right is used then surely it is proper to use the term far left for activist socialist organisations which operate outside of mainstream politics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.144.19.127 (talk) 11:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "Any article ever referring to a an organisation being far right or far left is clearly going to be an opinion since". That is not so. When media has formed a fair consensus on labeling a group far whatever these terms will appear in regular news reports. __meco (talk) 11:59, 29

February 2012 (UTC)


 * Response to 109.144.19.127 (talk)
 * It wasn't a "Guardian article" - it was an opinion piece by David Toube under the "Comment is free" heading, a regular feature in the paper which allows people not connected to it to voice their opinions. As such, it is misleading of you to describe it as a Guardian article. You say that the terms far right and far left do not have objective definitions. This is not entirely true, but by the nature of politics, most terms have a certain vagueness. The same applies to centre-left, which you yourself use of the Guardian. The SWP does not self-define itself as a radical left party - it is a revolutionary socialist party. That the leadership of the UAF includes the SWP is not disputed by the SWP, the UAF, its other leaders or its supporters, or editors here. It is mentioned within the article, so adding it to the introduction is unnecessary. The leadership includes people from other parties/groups as well. This is also mentioned within the article. There is no need in this article to go into detail about any parties/groups other than the UAF - they have their own articles where this is done.


 * Your edit was not even based on a proper reading of Toube's comment piece. You wrote: "It is defined by some commentators as being a far-left movement as evidenced by its core leadership drawing its membership from far left parties like the Socialists Worker Party and other socialist direct action groups." Objections to this include but are not limited to: 1 A single person giving an opinion is not some commentators. 2 Toube nowhere mentions socialist direct action - he does refer to Socialist Action, a left group, which you clearly misread. 3 Neither does Toube specifically say that UAF is a far-left movement. If you infer that, then that is a case of original research and inadmissable. 4 Since Toube does not actually "define" the UAF as a "far-left movement", it is difficult to see how you can claim that evidence for his non-existent claim lies in the "core leadership" (your phrase, not Toube's). Emeraude (talk) 12:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I did not think we used groups definitions of themsleves were these were contradicted by RS. So are there any RS that call the UAF bfar left, if thre are that is what we use.Slatersteven (talk) 12:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * In fact a number of such have been given previously (including from The Times etc.). There is no reasonable doubt that relaible sources have used that term, applying it ti this organization.
 * Perhpas for the dake of discusion they shuld be re-listed here, and if they exist then clealry we shuld lable the UAF what RS label them.Slatersteven (talk) 13:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Here is what had been removed in the past for no really good reasons:
 * The Times, Daily Mail, Sunday Business Post, International Business Times and other news organisations have described the group as "left-wing".

Hope this clears the air. Collect (talk) 13:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * OK I wqould ask why clealry soourced content is being removed?Slatersteven (talk) 13:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Read some of the "discussions" which boiled down to
 * Cameron is not far left therefore he can not possibly support a far left organization, therefore we can not point out that RS sources have used that term.
 * Note further that the claim only says that it has been referred to as "far left" and does not aver that it is a fact (another thing some folks like to jump on depending on whether they like or dislike something). Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

May I remind editors that this discussion strand is specifically on the edit by 109.144.19.127 (talk) and my reverting of same, for which I have given a rationale, i.e. that the source was inadequate and was being misused and misrepresented. Before dragging us interminably over old ground that has been flogged to death ad nauseam, please refer to the archives of previous discussions where this has been more than adequately covered. Emeraude (talk) 14:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Collect is exhibiting a selective memory. S/he raised those same sources in a previous discussion with went to the NPOV and RS notice boards as well as an Rfc before being resolved in favour of the status quo,  i.e. no use of "far left".   Snowded  TALK 08:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Quite why Collect added back the information to the lead despite Talk:Unite Against Fascism/Archive 2 is something only he can try and explain, if he can. 2 lines of K  303  10:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The real problem is that "IDONTLIKEIT" is not a valid reason to remove properly and fully RS-sourced claims whuiich are stated in an absolutely NPOV manner. And per WP:CONSENSUS, assertion of a consensus must accept that not only can cnsensus change, the discussions here and on other pages have shown that the Wikipedia general practice has changed.  The material does not use Wikipedia's voice to categorize any group here,  and does not "describe the UAF as 'left-wing'",  it only states an ascertainable and objective fact about what named sources have stated.  It is thus improper to remove the properly sourced and stated claim.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 03:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)   Cheers. Collect (talk) 03:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * And your evidence that consensus has changed over this issue can be found where? "ILIKEIT" isn't a reason to ignore past discussions... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Further you (Collect) are simply repeating the same point with the same material as last time, and edit warring when you know full well that to change a concensus requires discussion on the talk page. This is generally true, but especially so after an RfC process lasting months.  You assert that wikipedia general practice has changed - can you provide evidence for this?  Snowded  TALK 06:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The same material in the same place in the article. 2 lines of K  303  10:06, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There are insuffiicient sources for the description and it is misleading to include it. TFD (talk) 07:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * How many sources would be sufficient to state that the sources named referred to it as left-wing? 10, 20? 50?  I suggest that "source counting" is an inane exercise - the RfC from over a year ago was over calling the UAF "left wing" and was not about stating what named sources call it as a matter of their opinion.  We should not say that it is "left wing" of course.   Now again -- how many sources do we need for stating that The Times referred to it as "left wing"?  I thought showing that it did so rationally only requires one source, but here you aver we need many sources for that simple fact - so how many sources do we need to show that The Times used the term?  Cheers.  Would  from ABC Online  (from Australia) help?     Collect (talk) 13:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You made the same points a year ago, and with the same sources.  Snowded  TALK 13:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And there are more sources available now. The RfC a year-ago was basically no consensus - and my suggestion over a year ago was that we can state what named sources say, but that we should not assert any position in any "political spectrum" as a simple fact.  My position then and now is the same, and to say "but we discussed it more than a year ago without any consensus therefore we can not discuss it now" is simply inane as an argument.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:05, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * This is extremely tiresome. Nothing has changed since last year (except one of the sources has now disappeared from my view). The fact that four (or three) sources say something does not make it so. The article has to be concerned with what the UAF is, not what a few very carefully selected sources once said, but other equally or even more reliable sources don't. Has it not been considered that the Times and the Mail (famous for "Hurrah for the Blackshirts") may have got it wrong? It all hinges on the fact that some senior people in UAF are from the left; that does not make UAF itself left, any more than the Allies were communist because one of its leaders was Stalin! All you can say (and this itself is only an OR inference) is that UAF (or the Allies) are to the left of fascists, which really is saying not very much at all. Emeraude (talk) 14:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Collect, you were asked a series of direct questions above. I note you are avoiding answering them.  Perhaps you would do so.  Then please list what are "new sources" and what "new arguments" you have that justify you returning to the issue (and your interpretation of the RfC result is wrong by the way) Snowded  TALK 14:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * They are far-left, you know it, I know it, he knows it. But a small group of individuals will never allow it to be written here without an avalanche against them. It's fortunate that anybody who checks wikipedia on such groups will, on finding this article, look elsewhere for info. Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 09:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hear, hear. It is plainly obvious that an agenda is being pushed here that rather mysteriously doesn't apply to articles on the other side of the political coin.--Panzer71 (talk) 10:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Ridiculous double standards and a stain on Wikipedia's neutrality.--lincs_geezer (talk) 19:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The SWP who are the UAF's parent organisation are accepted as being far left. The UAF are supported by far left Unions and other left wing groups, left wing newspapers, the left wing BBC, and the left wing Labour government.(Cyberia3 (talk) 10:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC))
 * The SWP is NOT the UAF's parent organisation and it's ridiculous to say it is. Exactly which far left unions are you referring to? NUT? NASUWT? Left wing newspapers? Presumably the Daily Mirror which is nowhere near the SWP. Left wing BBC? An old canard not worthy of discussion. Left wing Labour government? That's a joke surely. Apart from the fact that Labour is in opposition, no Labour government since Attlee's has been left wing,and even that was nowhere near the SWP! Emeraude (talk) 18:04, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Mentioning the vice chair Azad Ali
No where in this article is the vice chair, Azad Ali's, somewhat interesting opinions mentioned including implementing sharia law & ending of democracy in the UK, Killing British soldiers, etc etc. I feel in the interest of balance it's important to inform the readers that the organisation chooses to put people with these views at the top of the organisation. --Richardeast (talk) 14:26, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Without going into this further (there may be other issues, but I'll leave them for now), I'd point out that there seems to be a sourcing problem here - the article states that Azad Ali is one of four UAF 'vice chairs' but doesn't provide a source for this. Neither do either of the articles cited above. We have to get the facts right - not least to ensure sources are referring to the same person. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The second soucre, which Richardeast says is evidence of Ali's views on " Killing British soldiers" says: "Mr Ali said: ‘I have never called for or supported the killing of British soldiers or any violence whatsoever. My work with the Muslim Safety Forum and response to the terrorist attacks which took place in London are a testament to this. I have given presentations to senior police officers and other officials on how dialogue is the best way forward, and not confrontation and the use of violence. At these meetings, I have openly condemned Al Qaeda as abhorrent and very far removed from Islam'." We really must read things carefully before jumping up and claiming things that are not supported by the source! Emeraude (talk) 14:55, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The first link is to a blog and neither source mentions the UAF. According to another blog by Andrew Gilligan of the Telegraph, Azad Ali of the UAF is a coordinator of the Islamic Forum of Europe.  You need a source though about Azad Ali and UAF, otherwise it is just synthesis.  It seems to argue btw against UAF being "left-wing", since the Left does not advocate sharia law.  He is not the vice-chair btw, but one of four vice-chairs.  TFD (talk) 15:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Hogwash. Right-wing groups are the ones wanting one law for all. Labour push for sharia to satisfy their Muslim core vote and LibDems are too spineless to criticise it at all. The enemy of their enemy (Capitalism, USA, Israel, assimilation, any degree of nationalism) is their friend. Indiasummer95 (talk) 15:23, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Tony Blair was not anti-American, Ben-Gurion was not anti-Israel. TFD (talk) 15:58, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Left-wing multiculturalists wish to ruin the nation's harmony by allowing different ethnic groups to continue their native traditions in their new country when it contradicts British norms. That's why they want sharia. And the Ben Gurion claim was a straw man because we're talking Britain here. Indiasummer95 (talk) 19:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTFORUM. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Indiasummer95- I think you're confusing Wikipedia with a UKIP conference, kindly don't spout that rubbish here again. TFD/ AndyTheGrump, agreed - I think the 2 Azad Alis are 1 of the same, but will look for a source to verify. If I can, I would still like to include in the article as I think the information would interesting to the end reader. Emeraude, any sourced response by Mr Ali should obviously be included too... let others decide the validity of the arguments of those who claim he holds these views and what he claims he didn't say, but, as I said - the fact that someone, on record stating these opinions, is considered a key person within the organisation is relevant. --Richardeast (talk) 09:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * If you add biographical information about one of the four vice-chairs, then you should add information about the other officers as well. The other three vice-chairs for example are trade union officials, as is the treasurer.  The officers also include a Labour MP (Peter Hain) and MEP.  TFD (talk) 16:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If those appointed vice chairs were controversial, made a statement or were of interest to the reader then I would totally agree with you. For instance, if Plaid Cymru (heaven forbid!) appointed someone like Nick Griffin as a vice chair... I would support highlighting that. I believe the statements attributed to Mr Ali definitely elevate his relevance and are of interest to the reader given the area of politics UAF are engaged in. I'll have a think about how best to word it.--Richardeast (talk) 19:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Dubious, the nature of the organisation is that it has people of different political views and backgrounds. To highlight one based on a definition of what is or is not controversial is questionable.   Peter Hain has several controversial rules and an interesting history with the Labour Party not to mention his views on the current South African regime.   Snowded  TALK 20:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * You would have to show that Azad Ali's membership on the board is controversial, but I have not seen any sources that say it is. I think too that vice chairs are elected not appointed.  Nick Griffin was elected too - to the European Parliament, but is not mentioned in that article. I am sure that if he were on the executive of Plaid Cymru it would be controversial, but then we would have newspaper articles about it.  TFD (talk) 21:44, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Andrew Gilligan says it is (15th june), as does channel 4's "Dispatches (TV series)", and for very good reasons: "One reason why UAF will not campaign against Islamist extremists is that one of its own vice-chairmen, Azad Ali, is one. As well as his UAF role, which he took up last year, Mr Ali is community affairs coordinator of the Islamic Forum of Europe, a Muslim supremacist group dedicated to changing “the very infrastructure of society, its institutions, its culture, its political order and its creed from ignorance to Islam”.

Mr Ali has written on his blog of his “love” for Anwar al-Awlaki, the al-Qaeda cleric closely linked to many terrorist plots, including the September 11 attacks, and used to attend talks by Abu Qatada, the extremist cleric whom Britain is seeking to deport.

He has described al-Qaeda as a “myth” and denied that the Mumbai attacks were terrorism. On his blog, he also advocated the killing of British troops in Iraq. He sued a newspaper for reporting that he had said this, and lost.

Filmed by an undercover reporter for The Sunday Telegraph and Channel 4’s Dispatches, he said: “Democracy, if it means at the expense of not implementing the sharia, of course no one agrees with that.” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/andrew-gilligan/10122496/Anti-fascists-fuel-the-fire-of-hate.html

A Daily Telegraph senior journalist, quoting one of the most respected current affairs programs in the UK is a valid source, but soon the uaf tag team shall come to agree that it isn't. 87.115.69.29 (talk) 00:53, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * So should we also report on the political quirks of the other vice-chairs?  The issue really needs to be picked up as a controversy by more than one Daily Telegraph opinions piece.  If it is then there would be a case for inclusion  Snowded  TALK 08:31, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah I see, so all of above are simply loveable little "quirks", thanks for clearing that up. This IS controverisial by any standard. Read the above, then google Azad Ali and have a look for yourself. As soon as this is covered by another journalist you will dismiss it equally though won't you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.69.29 (talk) 08:48, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * If it becomes a controversy and is picked up in more than an opinion piece then there may be a case. Can't be clearer or fairer than that.  Oh and please don't suggest other editors engage in original research  Snowded  TALK 08:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

− 	It is not "one opinion piece" it is a senior journalist in a mainstream broadsheet and it is Dispatches (TV series) What the senior figures in a high profile protest group say and do IS important, all the spinning in the world won't change that. What do other editors think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.69.29 (talk) 09:02, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * While you are waiting learn to sign your comments and use WP:INDENT Snowded  TALK 09:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * In fairness, the article is investigative journalism that combines facts an opinions. But in order to include this "controversy", we need to show that there is a controversy, not just that one journalist is shocked.  TFD (talk) 18:06, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Surely that should be "shocked". Emeraude (talk) 20:50, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

--87.114.35.4 (talk) 11:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

It is stated above if this "is picked up in more than an opinion piece then there may be a case". Well this is part of that. Don't delete because you disagree, discuss why it is irrelevant in your opinion. You are in the wrong deleting a talk discussion, that is what the talk page is for, talking about specifics of the article. Ali should be included in the controversy section, he is a vice chairman. This is a referenced report by a reputable, non controversial, organization ran by the respected Maryam Namazie.

-Siding With the Oppressor, a report by Maryam Namazies One Law for All campaign has this illuminating section on Ali: http://www.onelawforall.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/SidingWithOpressor_Web.pdf

"Azad Ali was appointed vice-chair of Unite Against Fascism in 2012. Ali is community affairs co-ordinator for the Islamic Forum of Europe, which is an arm of the Islamist group Jamaat-e-Islami.

In 2008 Ali wrote on the IFE blog that al-Qaeda recruiter Anwar al-Awlaki was ‘one of [his] favourite speakers and scholars.’ He wrote favourably of Awkali’s blog, and said: ‘I really do love him for the sake of Allah, he has an uncanny way of explaining things to people which is endearing.’

On a separate occasion he wrote: ‘Reading his blogs, one cannot help but feel his frustration at the constant denial of Islamic principals. Worse is the complete incompetence of some Muslims to distinguish between Jihad and acts of murder.’ 276

Earlier that year Ali asked readers of the IFE blog to nominate a ‘Commander of the Believers’ for a future Islamic caliphate. He said: ‘ Since we are all working our socks off, in different ways, for the resurgence of the Khilafa, I have one question who would you give bayyah to today and what would you say are the qualities needed for them to get your vote?’

Ali chose Ismail Haniyeh, leader of Hamas. He said: ‘My vote for the title of Amir al-Mu’mineen would have to go to the Palestinian Prime Minister, Ismail Haniyeh. Not only is a motivational leader, with political depth and skill, but also he is a Hafiz of the Qur’an, Mashallah!’277

In 2008 Ali used quotations from a jihadist writer to argue that it was a religious obligation to kill British and US soldiers in Iraq.278

When a newspaper published this he attempted to sue them, but the judge said his case was bound to fail and had an ‘absence of reality.’ Justice Eady said that this was the plain meaning of Ali’s blog post, which ‘seems clearly to convey the meaning that, on the “balanced” view of jihad, killing the occupying troops would still have been justified in November 2008.’279"

276http://henryjacksonsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/anwar.pdf (p. 12) 277http://hurryupharry.org/2008/11/25/azad-ali-i-am-working-for-a-hamas-caliphate/ 278http://hurryupharry.org/2009/01/23/azad-ali-oh-no-he-didnt-oh-yes-he-did/ 279www.pressgazette.co.uk/node/44965# 87.114.35.4 (talk) 14:47, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

As you said above if this "is picked up in more than an opinion piece then there may be a case". 87.114.35.4 (talk) 21:39, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The relevant policy is WP:WEIGHT: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."  I do not see the odd comment published, especially by the Henry Jackson Society or Communist publication to have weight unless news and academic articles mention them.  We had a similar discussion at Talk:Tea Party movement/Archive 10 and in other discussion threads where an editor wanted to add a column written in a prestigious magazine by a prestigious historian.  TFD (talk) 16:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for replying. I believe that the figure is notable and his remarks and background are demonstrably controverisal enough to be mentioned in the controversy section. We now have Andrew Gilligan, Dispatches and Maryam Namazie, among others, all giving a similiar significant viewpoint on Ali and his ties to the uaf. Ali is a vice chair, a significant position within the uaf, it is entirely reasonable therefore for his on record statements and beliefs to be noted and included in the relevant section. A single sentence properly referenced to the above people, would cover it. 87.114.35.4 (talk) 20:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

So 1 week later and still no additional comments. I am going to write it into the relevant section tomorrow. A single sentence properly referenced to the above people would cover it. 87.114.35.4 (talk) 15:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * On what grounds? No one has said anything for a week because you have failed to make your case and have been demonstrably shown to have failed. Your previous comment contained nothing new, so no one responded; it is arrogant to take that as acceptance of your plan of action. (Policies on undue weight and consensus are directly applicable here.) Emeraude (talk) 16:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree with Emeraude. TFD (talk) 16:07, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * et moi Snowded  TALK 01:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

None of you have offered a coherent legitimate reason for your opposition to the facts about the highly controversial UAF vice chairman. Simply agreeing with each other, which I see from talk history is hardly surprising, is not enough.87.112.185.2 (talk) 13:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * They have – the policy which you have not overcome is WP:WEIGHT. Not one of those four sources mention UAF once. This article is about UAF, not Azad Ali. Sure, he's vice chair – but the apparent criticism levelled against him has not demonstrably had repercussions on UAF, so there's no need to mention it in this article. —  Richard  BB  13:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Include Michael Adebolajo?
The EDL page mentions the claims by Anders Behring Breivik that he was involved with the EDL. I put a link to a video of Adebolajo, the murderer of Lee Rigby, speaking racial and religious hatred at a UAF march. I was told that the video evidence wasn't reliable, but also that it didn't matter.

If the Woolwich murder had been on a non-white, and the murderer had spoken at an EDL rally, I bet 100% it would have a whole section to itself. Indiasummer95 (talk) 13:04, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Firstly, YouTube videos are not WP:RS. Do you have a reliable source that states that Adebolajo is in any way connected with UAF? One doesn't have to be a member/supporter to turn up at a demonstration...
 * Incidentally, per WP:YOUTUBE we have to be very wary of citing uploaded videos - they are frequently copyright violations. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:17, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Adebolajo's bio on the page Death of Lee Rigby has two citations for the oncident. Indiasummer95 (talk) 19:57, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Neither source states that Adebolajo was a UAF member (not that digitaljournal.com looks like WP:RS to me - I'll look into this further). Anyone can attend a demonstration. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:09, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've just checked at WP:RSN. See Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_91 - not WP:RS. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:17, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Even if he was a member, it only belongs in the article if there was been significant coverage in articles about the UAF. Breivik's involvement with the EDL has been extensively mentioned in media reports about the EDL.  Also, there is no connection between Adebolajo's actions and UAF beliefs, unlike Breivik.  The Church of England article does not include every member accused or convicted of a serious crime.  TFD (talk) 17:37, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The EDL wanted nothing to do with Brevik because of his strange views. It should be remembered that while Brevik had seemingly racist views, he killed his own people and not immigrants.(Cyberia3 (talk) 10:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC))
 * "strange views"? "seemingly racist views"? Wow! Emeraude (talk) 11:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

appears to be a reliable source here. It states: '' 2009: Adebolajo speaks at a demonstration against the English Defence League and Stop Islamisation of Europe organised by Unite Against Fascism at Harrow Central Mosque. He is recorded as saying: "Don't be scared of them, do not be scared of the police or the cameras. You are here only to please Allah. You're not here for any other reason. If you are here just for a fight, please leave our ranks. We only want those who are sincere to Allah. Purify your intention."'' seems fairly clear. appears to meet Wiki-standards with In 2009, Adebolajo gave a pointer to his present status at a demonstration against the English Defence League and Stop Islamisation of Europe organised by Unite Against Fascism at Harrow Central Mosque. Seems reasonable that he belongs in the article from here. Collect (talk) 21:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * So he 'spoke at a demonstration'? Anyone can speak at a demonstration. There is no evidence whatsoever that he had any recognition as a speaker from UAF. There is no indication that he was a member of UAF. And as for sources, you are citing an anonymous editorial in the Nigerian Tribune. An editorial which mentions the demonstration in passing. An editorial that seems to suggests that Adebolajo's homicidal behaviour was the result of him growing up in an environment where "parents are legally prohibited from administering corporal and other appropriate punishment on their children". And this is a reliable source? I think not. Though it could only be cited for what it states anyway - that he 'spoke' at a demonstration. It says nothing whatsoever about the significance of him 'speaking' as regards UAF. It is about him, not UAF. If it belongs anywhere (which given the source, is highly questionable), it is in an article about him. Not this one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with Andy. This has no more relevance to UAF than the fact Ted Bundy was a delegate to the Republican National Convention has to the Republican Party.  Any idea what the attendees did when he asked those who were not sincere to Allah to leave?  How does that jibe with claims that UAF is far left?  TFD (talk) 22:41, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree, it's not relevant to his article, although it could be relevant to the Death of Lee Rigby article. To include it here would be nothing more than a smear. Perhaps it would be different if there was evidence of him being actively involved in UAF (for example, attending planning meetings for demos). But anyone can attend a demonstration. Formerip (talk) 23:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * If secondary reliable sources made the connection, then it is proper to mention the connection in a Wikipedia article. The cavil before was that the sources did not make the connection -- it is now clear that they did make the connection.  Is it embarrassing for the UAF? Maybe.  It is definitely not a criminal allegation about that organization.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:10, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Collect, how do you think this new principle might be applied so as to improve, say, the Daily Mail article? Formerip (talk) 01:25, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * So you think we should add Ted Bundy to the Republican article? TFD (talk) 01:12, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If he had been a major speaker at a major Republican event making "interesting statements" - yes. Funny thing -- his attendance as one of a few thousand Republican delegates to a convention is noted in his article.   Checking research tools finds no source supporting such a claim ("major speech"), however.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:21, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Please find some sourcing that Adebloja (I don't owe him the respect of checking the spelling) was a "major" speaker at a "major" event. It seems pretty obvious that he was not an invited speaker at all. Formerip (talk) 01:28, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Kindly show me an RS source for "he was not an invited speaker at all", much less "it seems pretty obvious" as I can not find any reliable source for that particular claim. We have reliable sources for him being one of two speakers at the rally, and that the rally was backed by UAF at the mosque.   Rallies at mosques, for some strange reason, frequently have members of that community involved.  YMMV on that particular syllogism.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Please leave my mouth out of this.
 * Wrong burden of proof. If he was an invited speaker of UAF at the demonstration, that would be significant and worthy of inclusion in the article. So, provide evidence that this is the case. Formerip (talk) 02:04, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Yup. You don't get to demand that we prove a negative. Collect, if you want to claim he was a recognised speaker, cite a source for it. And what is this 'RS' that states that he was 'one of two speakers at the rally? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:07, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Reliable sources make the connection -- that is the basis for all editing on Wikipedia. Where the sources state that two specific people were speakers p that is sufficient to say that they were speakers. Requiring "proof od invitation" does not work -- the research is left to the reliable sources and not to us.  And I suggest "it seems pretty obvious" is not from any reliable source -- and unfortunately what we WP:KNOW is not usable in articles.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:27, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Inclusion of a Criticisms section
I included a 'criticisms' section to bring the page in line with those on other organisations and improve end user functionality, however it appears to have been heavily edited to the point where it was pointless and then subsequently deleted. The comment was made that 'a blog is not a reliable source', however as this section is comprised of criticisms from others on the UAF, and thus is somewhat opinionated in itself, this should surely not apply (and indeed it does not on other pages). The same user also commented that the reference provided to the Press TV website was not supportive of the statement made on the Telegraph Blog, however they appear to have misread as if you check on the revision history the reference was simply supporting the quotations used rather than the specific criticism mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grahambrown607 (talk • contribs) 09:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You used the quotes to support a criticism not contained with them and sorry, a blog is not a reliable source it is an opinion.  It needs to be notable in some way otherwise just anything could be included.  Snowded  TALK 09:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, a blog can be a reliable source if written by someone who is regarded as an expert in their field and concerns their specialism. However, as a general rule, blogs will not be reliable sources and we will always prefer the acknowledged experts to have provided their sources through more conventional media. Emeraude (talk) 10:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Dispute resolution thread opened
I've opened a thread concerning the critical views I've added that were reverted by a couple of users. the thread is located here:. --Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 19:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Premature posting, you have not attempted to resolve the issue here and are clearly edit warring Snowded  TALK 21:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I am a dispute resolution volunteer at the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes. I looked at this talk page while determining whether the case should be closed as premature, and in my opinion we have seen enough here to know that more of the same is unlikely to result in any sort of agreement. I also think that the more structured nature of DRN, especially the "discuss article content, not user conduct" rule, might help here. I encourage everyone involved to give DRN a chance. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't really see dispute resolution as the way to deal with a single editor, throwing out insults on various articles and edit warring.   Snowded  TALK 05:11, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Having only seen this through TPS, I do not think it needs DR either. Right now it does not appear to be a good faith addition, possible POV or coatrack addition. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 06:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

58 Arrests in the UAF's latest 'demonstration'
This needs to be added to the arrests and controversy section. refs: http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/58-arrested-as-antifascist-demonstrators-clash-with-bnp-in-westminster-8640650.html ... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10093427/Police-arrest-58-as-anti-fascist-protesters-clash-with-BNP.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.152.217.38 (talk) 22:17, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You'll have a tough time getting any real warts and all coverage of the real antics of the UAF on here. It's ever more apparent editors are not taking a neutral viewpoint regarding the violence and harassment the UAF cause. If you try and enter it, the editors will find some feeble justification to have the content removed (probably consensus initially) and if you continue to counter it, it will then just ultimately boil down to "complain to the Press Council".

Had this been the EDL they would be falling over themselves to enter the noteworthy content.--82.3.162.93 (talk) 21:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * So what specific content is being proposed? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * It is about a BNP demonstration and no one has fallen over themselves in adding it to that article either. TFD (talk) 22:26, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No and that, I suspect, is because not one of the arrests was of the BNP and that would not conform with way these articles seem to portray BNP and the UAF.--82.3.162.93 (talk) 22:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Just what is "the violence and harassment the UAF cause"? 58 people were arrested at the UAF demo. None has been charged with crimes of violence. None has been charged with crimes of harassment. They have been charged under s14 of the Public Order Act, i.e, with being where they were not allowed to be between certain hours under an order made by the police, maximum sentence a fine. And it's extremely doubtful that the arrests were legal given that no one seems to have heard the police announce that the area was proscribed. Emeraude (talk) 13:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * CORRECTION: They were arrested under s14, POA. To date, none seems to have been charged. Emeraude (talk) 22:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * UPDATE: Just to tie this up, of the 58 arrested, only 5 were charged and the case was thrown out at Westminster Magistrates' Court yesterday. Emeraude (talk) 07:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Azad Ali
I am looking for references for Azad Ali (the one who commented in favor of killing British soldiers) being a vice-chairman of the organization. Yes, this page lists a person of that name, but is it actually the same person? - Mike Rosoft (talk) 15:05, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Lokalkosmopolit sock
See Sockpuppet investigations/Lokalkosmopolit. Put up more flags! was editing this article recently. Dougweller (talk) 13:56, 4 June 2014 (UTC)