This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Redwatch is a magazine and website produced by the British based Neo-Nazi group Combat 18 that displays photographs and information of its political opponents.
I have added the POV dispute tag for the following reasons:
Some discussion of "Noncewatch" (a subsection of Redwatch) would also not be amiss. 213.120.56.33 22:02, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
As per the following history record:
The above reason cited by the above user is far too general. Looking at the page, it would appear that the information is adequately referenced. For these reasons I am removing the 'disputed' tag.
If "85.138.0.224" or anyone else wants to restore the disputed status, please provide specific reasons for doing so, in line with Wikipedia custom and practice and this page. 62.7.143.154 20:03, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
deleted the following for contravention of NPOV:
, there is no way for them to enforce the ban because Redwatch do not disclose names of informers
then obviously this would apply to any organisation or political party, not just the BNP.
( Redzen 17:14, 13 October 2005 (UTC))
This part in particular isn't very neutral:
Noncewatch has largely backfired, with its mendacity bringing doubts about the accuracy of information on the rest of Redwatch and spawning its own nemesis Gomechewatch.
The page could do with a going through with an NPOV comb though :) - FrancisTyers 11:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
It is objectively true that much of the information on Redwatch is inaccurate and has even led to attacks against random individuals. Much of the information is incredibly poorly sourced and vague. It would be POV to assert otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Streona ( talk • contribs) 23:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
This is a talk page. My source for saying that Redwatch is vague and inaccurate is Redwatch itself. Such items such as a photo of scruffy looking people carrying an SWP banner in Trafalgar Square several years ago with no notion of who any of them are is typical of the quality of information on Redwatch-- Streona ( talk) 12:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
"However, Redwatch have been unable to provide details of any such websites or magazines." Redwatch was formed as a direct response to the details of "fascists" being published in searchlight magazine. This is stated several times on the website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.17.126.221 ( talk) 00:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
There is what now seems to be a Canadian Redwatch as well. Hosted on Blogger.
www.canadianredwatch.blogspot.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.139.34.47 ( talk) 18:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC).
Why is this in Project Judaism? Of course, I know that neo-Nazis normally target Jews, but RedWatch is really to do with Communists and left-wingers rather than Jews. Does it post addresses of Jews online? If not, I think that this page should be removed from the category. Epa101 ( talk) 22:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Little of the content of Redwatch is directed against Jews, unless they are active anti-fascists. Bizarrely there are photographs of groups of unnamed anti-Zionist demonstrators even where the fascists have supported the demonstration. - Streona
This is realy an issue for the members of the wikiproject to decide, It they feel it relevant they should tag it. Pi Talk - Contribs 19:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
According to Searchlight Magazine, a Leeds teacher who complained about a notorious far right activist from Leeds called Tony White leafleting his school took his details and listed them on Redwatch, allegedly after the jailing of Tony White other far right supporters decided to firebomb his car as a reprisal.
I would just like to point out this sentence, which makes absolutely no sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.50.41 ( talk) 23:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
In January 2004, questions concerning the legality of the Redwatch website were raised in the House of Lords. Legal recourse against the website is limited because the site is hosted in the United States, where the site is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
But that wouldn't to prevent the prosecution in the UK of any UK-based individual administering or adding material to the site. That defense has previously failed in both the UK and the US: see the recent Simon Sheppard (far-right activist) case. 86.1.196.156 ( talk) 01:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
If this were a book would we list its publisher? If so, we should mention the hosting service. -- Heysan ( talk) 04:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Ghmyrtle is trying to cover up that the purported purpose of this website is anti-communism, and its linked site NonceWatch is about anti-peadophilia. Instead Ghmyrtle is insiting on Frankfurt School/Adorno-Marcuse/Orwellian newspeak that it is a "neo-Nazi" site. While the creators of the website are evidently connected to National Socialist groups, just as Searchlight are associated with Marxist groups, the actual content of this website, Redwatch, is specifically about anti-communism. Hence the name, Redwatch. All of the content and pages of this website focus on posting details and images of people associated with communist organisations, not a presentation of national socialism. Mention the British Peoples Party and Combat 18 connection, but until Searchlight article reads "neo-Bolshevik", we're going to have some neutrality here. - Yorkshirian ( talk) 11:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I have had to edit a lot of this article since the agenda was clearly not objective. A lot of unrelated information was included which appeared to attack members of the far right. As the goals of Wikipedia are to report factual information with neutral agendas I feel this article was severely lacking. I felt the need to remove these unwanted slants, and the article may be expanded again but only with relevant information of neutrality. Criticism is of course allowed to feature in articles, but it should be clearly titled as such, and thoroughly referenced. I experienced far too much of the personal views of the writer and so have thus had to edit it. Alexandre8 ( talk) 23:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Redwatch is a magazine and website produced by the British based Neo-Nazi group Combat 18 that displays photographs and information of its political opponents.
I have added the POV dispute tag for the following reasons:
Some discussion of "Noncewatch" (a subsection of Redwatch) would also not be amiss. 213.120.56.33 22:02, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
As per the following history record:
The above reason cited by the above user is far too general. Looking at the page, it would appear that the information is adequately referenced. For these reasons I am removing the 'disputed' tag.
If "85.138.0.224" or anyone else wants to restore the disputed status, please provide specific reasons for doing so, in line with Wikipedia custom and practice and this page. 62.7.143.154 20:03, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
deleted the following for contravention of NPOV:
, there is no way for them to enforce the ban because Redwatch do not disclose names of informers
then obviously this would apply to any organisation or political party, not just the BNP.
( Redzen 17:14, 13 October 2005 (UTC))
This part in particular isn't very neutral:
Noncewatch has largely backfired, with its mendacity bringing doubts about the accuracy of information on the rest of Redwatch and spawning its own nemesis Gomechewatch.
The page could do with a going through with an NPOV comb though :) - FrancisTyers 11:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
It is objectively true that much of the information on Redwatch is inaccurate and has even led to attacks against random individuals. Much of the information is incredibly poorly sourced and vague. It would be POV to assert otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Streona ( talk • contribs) 23:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
This is a talk page. My source for saying that Redwatch is vague and inaccurate is Redwatch itself. Such items such as a photo of scruffy looking people carrying an SWP banner in Trafalgar Square several years ago with no notion of who any of them are is typical of the quality of information on Redwatch-- Streona ( talk) 12:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
"However, Redwatch have been unable to provide details of any such websites or magazines." Redwatch was formed as a direct response to the details of "fascists" being published in searchlight magazine. This is stated several times on the website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.17.126.221 ( talk) 00:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
There is what now seems to be a Canadian Redwatch as well. Hosted on Blogger.
www.canadianredwatch.blogspot.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.139.34.47 ( talk) 18:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC).
Why is this in Project Judaism? Of course, I know that neo-Nazis normally target Jews, but RedWatch is really to do with Communists and left-wingers rather than Jews. Does it post addresses of Jews online? If not, I think that this page should be removed from the category. Epa101 ( talk) 22:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Little of the content of Redwatch is directed against Jews, unless they are active anti-fascists. Bizarrely there are photographs of groups of unnamed anti-Zionist demonstrators even where the fascists have supported the demonstration. - Streona
This is realy an issue for the members of the wikiproject to decide, It they feel it relevant they should tag it. Pi Talk - Contribs 19:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
According to Searchlight Magazine, a Leeds teacher who complained about a notorious far right activist from Leeds called Tony White leafleting his school took his details and listed them on Redwatch, allegedly after the jailing of Tony White other far right supporters decided to firebomb his car as a reprisal.
I would just like to point out this sentence, which makes absolutely no sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.50.41 ( talk) 23:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
In January 2004, questions concerning the legality of the Redwatch website were raised in the House of Lords. Legal recourse against the website is limited because the site is hosted in the United States, where the site is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
But that wouldn't to prevent the prosecution in the UK of any UK-based individual administering or adding material to the site. That defense has previously failed in both the UK and the US: see the recent Simon Sheppard (far-right activist) case. 86.1.196.156 ( talk) 01:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
If this were a book would we list its publisher? If so, we should mention the hosting service. -- Heysan ( talk) 04:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Ghmyrtle is trying to cover up that the purported purpose of this website is anti-communism, and its linked site NonceWatch is about anti-peadophilia. Instead Ghmyrtle is insiting on Frankfurt School/Adorno-Marcuse/Orwellian newspeak that it is a "neo-Nazi" site. While the creators of the website are evidently connected to National Socialist groups, just as Searchlight are associated with Marxist groups, the actual content of this website, Redwatch, is specifically about anti-communism. Hence the name, Redwatch. All of the content and pages of this website focus on posting details and images of people associated with communist organisations, not a presentation of national socialism. Mention the British Peoples Party and Combat 18 connection, but until Searchlight article reads "neo-Bolshevik", we're going to have some neutrality here. - Yorkshirian ( talk) 11:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I have had to edit a lot of this article since the agenda was clearly not objective. A lot of unrelated information was included which appeared to attack members of the far right. As the goals of Wikipedia are to report factual information with neutral agendas I feel this article was severely lacking. I felt the need to remove these unwanted slants, and the article may be expanded again but only with relevant information of neutrality. Criticism is of course allowed to feature in articles, but it should be clearly titled as such, and thoroughly referenced. I experienced far too much of the personal views of the writer and so have thus had to edit it. Alexandre8 ( talk) 23:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)