![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Collect has brought the "left-wing" issue to the RS noticeboard. [1] TFD ( talk) 03:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
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)
An editor has changed the term "protesters" to "a few protesters" and added the unsourced statement that UAF has no position on "Islamic Fascism". [2] Unless sources and agreement is found, these statements should not be included. TFD ( talk) 00:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
'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 [4]
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)
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 compliance Cptnono ( talk) 03:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC))
UAF kicking a woman on the ground: youtube.com/watch?v=V4KdhFkr1Ns (broke link to be in compliance Cptnono ( 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 vio Cptnono ( 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)
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 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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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.
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
[11] 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
[12] 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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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. --
ElHef (
Meep?)
03:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
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. [20]
Opinion pieces are not reliable sources. ISJ is not a reliable source. Even if it were, it is an opinion that lacks notability. [21] 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)
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)
@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. Wikipedia:I just don't like it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.173.55 ( talk) 11:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
http://www.brightonandhovenews.org/2013/06/03/hundreds-turn-out-in-hove-to-hear-ukip-leader/21702
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoJLi5NyQQ8
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 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)
February 2012 (UTC)
Here is what had been removed in the past for no really good reasons:
Hope this clears the air. Collect ( talk) 13:18, 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)
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 [25], Killing British soldiers [26], 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)
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)
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)
− 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)
-- 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)
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)
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)
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)
[27] 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. [28] 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)
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)
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: [29]. -- Lokalkosmopolit ( talk) 19:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lokalkosmopolit. Put up more flags! was editing this article recently. Dougweller ( talk) 13:56, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Collect has brought the "left-wing" issue to the RS noticeboard. [1] TFD ( talk) 03:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
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)
An editor has changed the term "protesters" to "a few protesters" and added the unsourced statement that UAF has no position on "Islamic Fascism". [2] Unless sources and agreement is found, these statements should not be included. TFD ( talk) 00:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
'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 [4]
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)
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 compliance Cptnono ( talk) 03:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC))
UAF kicking a woman on the ground: youtube.com/watch?v=V4KdhFkr1Ns (broke link to be in compliance Cptnono ( 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 vio Cptnono ( 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)
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 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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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.
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
[11] 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
[12] 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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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. --
ElHef (
Meep?)
03:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
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. [20]
Opinion pieces are not reliable sources. ISJ is not a reliable source. Even if it were, it is an opinion that lacks notability. [21] 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)
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)
@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. Wikipedia:I just don't like it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.173.55 ( talk) 11:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
http://www.brightonandhovenews.org/2013/06/03/hundreds-turn-out-in-hove-to-hear-ukip-leader/21702
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoJLi5NyQQ8
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 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)
February 2012 (UTC)
Here is what had been removed in the past for no really good reasons:
Hope this clears the air. Collect ( talk) 13:18, 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)
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 [25], Killing British soldiers [26], 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)
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)
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)
− 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)
-- 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)
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)
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)
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)
[27] 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. [28] 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)
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)
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: [29]. -- Lokalkosmopolit ( talk) 19:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lokalkosmopolit. Put up more flags! was editing this article recently. Dougweller ( talk) 13:56, 4 June 2014 (UTC)