This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Sorry to anyone who is annoyed at how bad I do the proper formatting and Thank YOU so much to anyone who has time and energy to improve that. Rusl ( talk) 02:24, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
I think the details of the vigil and the appeal are definitely notable but I'm not convinced the organization itself is outside of these actions. So I guess I'm in favour of merging this into Murder_of_Sarah_Everard#Vigils. Talpedia ( talk) 18:22, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Tagishsimon (1) gal-dem was a magazine, not a news publication.
(2)
WP:RSOPINION says Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact.
and Otherwise reliable news sources—for example, the website of a major news organization—that publish in a blog-style format for some or all of their content may be as reliable as if published in standard news article format.
gal-dem is not an ‘otherwise reliable news source’ – there is no reason whatever to believe that it was reliable as a news publication. The general practice on Wikipedia is not to use opinion pieces as sources for facts.
(3) Your edit misrepresents what the piece in gal-dem says about use of funds. The opinion piece says: The money, which was gathered to cover Reclaim These Street original vigil’s legal costs, will now be going towards supporting (unspecified) women’s causes around the country instead, alongside cash raised in a separate charitable fundraiser. With appeals by Sisters Uncut for a commitment to share the money met by silence from Reclaim These Streets, it seems that they only regard covering the legal costs of women targeted by police as a worthy cause when it’s members of their own (hastily assembled) coalition. Solidarity indeed.
and At the time of writing, not only have they not publicly recognised the work of Sisters, but they’ve also failed to respond to multiple requests for clarification on whether those fined and arrested at Saturday’s vigil will have access to the half a million pounds raised by Reclaim These Streets to cover legal costs.
The writer is complaining that Reclaim These Streets is not funding Sisters Uncut (!)
Your edit says: raised more than £0.5 million in respect of the event, but have been evasive and unaccountable about the disbursement of this money; and have refused to allocate any of the money raised to support people arrested at the protest
which is not justified by the source. The suggestion in your edit that Reclaim These Streets is misusing funds could be interpreted as defamatory of the organisers of Reclaim These Streets, and is a breach of
WP:BLP.
(4) Diyora Shadijanova is not a notable person, so her opinion has no significance in its own right, so including it is WP:UNDUE.
(5) See
WP:ONUS The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content
I am making some amendments to the material you have added, but the material should be deleted entirely.
Sweet6970 (
talk) 11:46, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
trying to get away with an entirely bogus pair of reasons for removing the entire criticism section’ , and wikilawyering using green ink, is not a substitute for a serious discussion of why this section should or should not be in the article. You should know better than to engage in personal attacks. You also should know that, since I had challenged your addition by reverting it, you should have started a discussion on this Talk page, instead of reverting me.
This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Sorry to anyone who is annoyed at how bad I do the proper formatting and Thank YOU so much to anyone who has time and energy to improve that. Rusl ( talk) 02:24, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
I think the details of the vigil and the appeal are definitely notable but I'm not convinced the organization itself is outside of these actions. So I guess I'm in favour of merging this into Murder_of_Sarah_Everard#Vigils. Talpedia ( talk) 18:22, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Tagishsimon (1) gal-dem was a magazine, not a news publication.
(2)
WP:RSOPINION says Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact.
and Otherwise reliable news sources—for example, the website of a major news organization—that publish in a blog-style format for some or all of their content may be as reliable as if published in standard news article format.
gal-dem is not an ‘otherwise reliable news source’ – there is no reason whatever to believe that it was reliable as a news publication. The general practice on Wikipedia is not to use opinion pieces as sources for facts.
(3) Your edit misrepresents what the piece in gal-dem says about use of funds. The opinion piece says: The money, which was gathered to cover Reclaim These Street original vigil’s legal costs, will now be going towards supporting (unspecified) women’s causes around the country instead, alongside cash raised in a separate charitable fundraiser. With appeals by Sisters Uncut for a commitment to share the money met by silence from Reclaim These Streets, it seems that they only regard covering the legal costs of women targeted by police as a worthy cause when it’s members of their own (hastily assembled) coalition. Solidarity indeed.
and At the time of writing, not only have they not publicly recognised the work of Sisters, but they’ve also failed to respond to multiple requests for clarification on whether those fined and arrested at Saturday’s vigil will have access to the half a million pounds raised by Reclaim These Streets to cover legal costs.
The writer is complaining that Reclaim These Streets is not funding Sisters Uncut (!)
Your edit says: raised more than £0.5 million in respect of the event, but have been evasive and unaccountable about the disbursement of this money; and have refused to allocate any of the money raised to support people arrested at the protest
which is not justified by the source. The suggestion in your edit that Reclaim These Streets is misusing funds could be interpreted as defamatory of the organisers of Reclaim These Streets, and is a breach of
WP:BLP.
(4) Diyora Shadijanova is not a notable person, so her opinion has no significance in its own right, so including it is WP:UNDUE.
(5) See
WP:ONUS The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content
I am making some amendments to the material you have added, but the material should be deleted entirely.
Sweet6970 (
talk) 11:46, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
trying to get away with an entirely bogus pair of reasons for removing the entire criticism section’ , and wikilawyering using green ink, is not a substitute for a serious discussion of why this section should or should not be in the article. You should know better than to engage in personal attacks. You also should know that, since I had challenged your addition by reverting it, you should have started a discussion on this Talk page, instead of reverting me.