![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Opinion pieces are not reliable sources. See
WP:RS to learn more about this. All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough
03:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC).
Doesn't cover all sources, breaks WP:NPOV by only presenting Young's view of what it is, something that has been very much challenged. Doug Weller talk 19:48, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
ref. final paragraph in Criticism sub-section; while the article referenced is primarily about FSU - the criticism by Nafeez Ahmed "that Young had previously defended the pseudoscientific research of the Pioneer Fund, a Nazi endowment in the US established..." seems to be of Young and not the Free Speech Union. Threatens to undermine the rest of the legitimate content in that section. Perhaps remove or replace to something regarding the FSU from that article? (09:44, 19 August 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Expatpaula ( talk • contribs)
Imogen West-Knights, writing for Vice, said that in setting up the FSU, Young wanted "to be able to slag off [minority groups] to his heart's content".[3] Joel Golby, writing an op-ed for The Guardian, said that subsequent to his foundation of the FSU, Young was likely to become a "Nigel Farage copycat". Goldy said: "we didn't take Ukip seriously at the start because it was just Robert Kilroy-Silk pouring excess energy from not being on TV any more into saying 'legitimate concerns' a lot... And then, oops, we all woke up and Brexit had happened."[4]
This entire section falls under opinion piece and should be removed. The article by Imogen West-Knights and by Joel Golby are both opinion pieces. ( Samcowie ( talk) 16:14, 1 December 2021 (UTC))
This entire section falls under opinion piece– yes, this is the point of Reception sections.
... and should be removed– what part of WP:RSOPINION says that? — Bilorv ( talk) 17:50, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Hello,
There seems to be repetition in the article. This section is already included in the 'criticism' section. This section should either be removed from the article or from the 'criticism' section to avoid readers having to read the same thing twice. Does everyone agree? ( Samcowie ( talk) 16:27, 1 December 2021 (UTC))
TrangaBellam ( talk) 11:21, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
@ Bilorv and Samcowie: just so you know, I've removed the paragraph on the Miller case per WP:COATRACK and to a lesser degree WP:BLP. I know Bilorv added the vague template earlier to it, I've done a search and I cannot find any reliable sources that state how the FSU helped in the case. The closest I was able to find to a reliable source were two opinion pieces in The Spectator, one of which was used in the article, and both of which only contained a brief passing mention. I also checked briefly the two judgments issued in the case, and the FSU was not listed in either. If there are sources that clarify what that support is, could they be stated here please? Sideswipe9th ( talk) 16:52, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Opinion pieces are used throughout this article. The piece by Imogen West-Knights is used to categorise the FSU as right-wing and also to discuss Toby Young. Am I missing something here? Are opinion pieces accepted in certain circumstances? Samcowie ( talk) 17:00, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
The group has been criticised by journalists and former student members who believe it has a right-wing agenda and that its stated aims are misleading., which is verifiable as they have been criticised for that. However saying the organisation has been criticised for something is different from saying it is something. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 17:12, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
An edit was undone indicating that the FSU has an affiliate in South Africa. Bilorv referenced the due weight entry, which deals with "viewpoints." No viewpoint or opinion was evident in the removed portion -- it simply pointed out that the FSU has another affiliate in South Africa. Since the FSU article has a heading for international affiliates, and given that the FSU factually has an international affiliate in South Africa, this appears to be the most appropriate place for it to be housed. Should a separate entry for FSU South Africa be created? If not, I cannot see how there is anything remiss about recording an undisputed fact on a Wikipedia page that purports to list the international affiliates of an organisation. Finally, Bilorv also referenced a press releases entry which problematises the praise and advertising value of those sources. The removed portion did not include any normative pro/con perspective nor did it advertise -- it simply noted the factual existence of an FSU affiliate. Looking forward to your engagement. Super Warmonkey ( talk) 16:12, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Are there RSs on the FSU’s funding? This seems to be a gap in the article. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 17:15, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Opinion pieces are not reliable sources. See
WP:RS to learn more about this. All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough
03:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC).
Doesn't cover all sources, breaks WP:NPOV by only presenting Young's view of what it is, something that has been very much challenged. Doug Weller talk 19:48, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
ref. final paragraph in Criticism sub-section; while the article referenced is primarily about FSU - the criticism by Nafeez Ahmed "that Young had previously defended the pseudoscientific research of the Pioneer Fund, a Nazi endowment in the US established..." seems to be of Young and not the Free Speech Union. Threatens to undermine the rest of the legitimate content in that section. Perhaps remove or replace to something regarding the FSU from that article? (09:44, 19 August 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Expatpaula ( talk • contribs)
Imogen West-Knights, writing for Vice, said that in setting up the FSU, Young wanted "to be able to slag off [minority groups] to his heart's content".[3] Joel Golby, writing an op-ed for The Guardian, said that subsequent to his foundation of the FSU, Young was likely to become a "Nigel Farage copycat". Goldy said: "we didn't take Ukip seriously at the start because it was just Robert Kilroy-Silk pouring excess energy from not being on TV any more into saying 'legitimate concerns' a lot... And then, oops, we all woke up and Brexit had happened."[4]
This entire section falls under opinion piece and should be removed. The article by Imogen West-Knights and by Joel Golby are both opinion pieces. ( Samcowie ( talk) 16:14, 1 December 2021 (UTC))
This entire section falls under opinion piece– yes, this is the point of Reception sections.
... and should be removed– what part of WP:RSOPINION says that? — Bilorv ( talk) 17:50, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Hello,
There seems to be repetition in the article. This section is already included in the 'criticism' section. This section should either be removed from the article or from the 'criticism' section to avoid readers having to read the same thing twice. Does everyone agree? ( Samcowie ( talk) 16:27, 1 December 2021 (UTC))
TrangaBellam ( talk) 11:21, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
@ Bilorv and Samcowie: just so you know, I've removed the paragraph on the Miller case per WP:COATRACK and to a lesser degree WP:BLP. I know Bilorv added the vague template earlier to it, I've done a search and I cannot find any reliable sources that state how the FSU helped in the case. The closest I was able to find to a reliable source were two opinion pieces in The Spectator, one of which was used in the article, and both of which only contained a brief passing mention. I also checked briefly the two judgments issued in the case, and the FSU was not listed in either. If there are sources that clarify what that support is, could they be stated here please? Sideswipe9th ( talk) 16:52, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Opinion pieces are used throughout this article. The piece by Imogen West-Knights is used to categorise the FSU as right-wing and also to discuss Toby Young. Am I missing something here? Are opinion pieces accepted in certain circumstances? Samcowie ( talk) 17:00, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
The group has been criticised by journalists and former student members who believe it has a right-wing agenda and that its stated aims are misleading., which is verifiable as they have been criticised for that. However saying the organisation has been criticised for something is different from saying it is something. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 17:12, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
An edit was undone indicating that the FSU has an affiliate in South Africa. Bilorv referenced the due weight entry, which deals with "viewpoints." No viewpoint or opinion was evident in the removed portion -- it simply pointed out that the FSU has another affiliate in South Africa. Since the FSU article has a heading for international affiliates, and given that the FSU factually has an international affiliate in South Africa, this appears to be the most appropriate place for it to be housed. Should a separate entry for FSU South Africa be created? If not, I cannot see how there is anything remiss about recording an undisputed fact on a Wikipedia page that purports to list the international affiliates of an organisation. Finally, Bilorv also referenced a press releases entry which problematises the praise and advertising value of those sources. The removed portion did not include any normative pro/con perspective nor did it advertise -- it simply noted the factual existence of an FSU affiliate. Looking forward to your engagement. Super Warmonkey ( talk) 16:12, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Are there RSs on the FSU’s funding? This seems to be a gap in the article. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 17:15, 28 July 2023 (UTC)