Talk:Redwatch

Combat 18

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.

Combat 18? If illegal para-military groups had websites then they wouldn't last long (the group and the site). Removing all mention of Combat 18 running this site. Jackliddle 23:15, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Lots of para-military groups have websites. FARC in Colombia is the first that springs to mind, but there are many more.

POV dispute

I have added the POV dispute tag for the following reasons:

• Excessive quoting from Redwatch's own justification of themselves;
• Little mention of any opposition to Redwatch but particularly from the TU and anti-fascist movements (Redwatch has been condemned by the TUC congress and the conferences of the teaching unions in particular);
• No discussion of violent reprisals against people following their being listed on Redwatch (eg. the firebombing of a Leeds teacher's car).

Some discussion of "Noncewatch" (a subsection of Redwatch) would also not be amiss. 213.120.56.33 22:02, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Accuracy dispute 2005-08-02

As per the following history record:

• 07:19, 2 August 2005 85.138.0.224 (highly slanted, biased, politicaly motivated, at least have the decency to note its disputed (highly))

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)

POV=

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))

Neutrality

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)

You aren't allowed to include original research on Wikipedia. The above statement, presumably written by you, violates Wikipedia standards.JettaMann (talk) 23:19, 18 August 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)

Heh, if you want proof, just look at the picture they posted of some poor bugger wearing a Communist Party t-shirt. Humour (as well the most cursory understanding of, well, anything) never was the Nazis strongpoint.FrFintonStack (talk) 01:05, 12 December 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)

Uh, yeah, but the fact that an openly neo-Nazi website says something, particularly in an attempt to justify itself, doesn't make it true. As has been repetedly pointed out, Redwatch, and others making similar claims about Searchlight, never, ever, provide any actual examples of Searchlight having ever published any such information. It's a straightforward lie, as is almost everything else on their website. Go on, provide us with one single, solitary example of Searchlight having published the home address, telephone number, pictures or maps of the house, or car registration plate of a fascist activist, let alone an incitement to attack them. Go on. Just one.FrFintonStack (talk) 18:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Canadian Redwatch

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).

Project Judaism?

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.PiTalk - Contribs 19:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Grammar

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)

Legal

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)

hosting

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 extreme POV

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)

Redwatch may be about anti-communism and anti-leftism, but it's not about pædophiles. I've reverted your changes because you can't simply lump the two together; this smacks of trying to lay guilt by association and WP:POV-pushing. As to whether using the term "neo-Nazi" is appropriate to describe the site, that's a bit out of my area of expertise, so I'll leave it to others here to discuss. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't comment on the Redwatch site itself as no-one is permitted to access it without consenting to the statement - "By confirming this agreement and/or by looking at any of the information on this site you are agreeing that the material contained herein is not offensive in any way, nor could ever be construed to be so, nor could any material." - which clearly I'm unable to do. The "purported purpose" of the website is irrelevant anyway - what it says about itself is by definition POV. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Psychonaut, Noncewatch which is interconnected with Redwatch and authored by the same people (to the extent of being part of the same entity... its interlinked in the Redwatch website) is about anti-peadophilia. The peadophila part is in relation to that, not those exposed in the communist part. Ghmyrtle, if you're unable to view the website then I suggest you're not qualified to edit an article about the nature and focus of its content to begin with. - Yorkshirian (talk) 11:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Slight logic failure there on two counts, I suggest. Firstly, how can you agree that something is not offensive before you're allowed to see it? Secondly, WP deals in what reputable sources say about article subjects, not what those subjects say about themselves. Verifiability, not truth - as I'm quite sure you already know. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

If you're too offended to able research a topic, then obviously that would disqualify you from writing an encyclopedia article about it. While that certain is a loss for you and the POV position of your edit to this article, its not for those who can enter the site. In any case, you're been given an accurate desciption of the content above, which anybody else who is not afraid can verify. Redwatch is an anti-communist site, like it or not. That is the entire and sole purpose of its content, to expose information about what they claim are communists. No negation can be made. - Yorkshirian (talk) 12:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

So you say. And your source is.....?? Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems that while Noncewatch is "interconnected" and shares the same authors, it's clearly distinct from Redwatch—otherwise, why the separate names? You yourself say that the "entire and sole purpose" of Redwatch is "anti-communism", so this article needn't mention pædophilia at all. If Noncewatch is notable in its own right, then it should be made the subject of a separate article. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle, you can bypass the Redwatch usage agreement through this link: http://elvis.redwatch.org/index2.html I trust this will now allow you to browse the site in good conscience. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle doesn't seem to have followed it up, oh well. - Yorkshirian (talk) 11:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I did follow up the link, which confirmed the broad validity of the summary that was set out in the article before Yorkshirian's latest set of reversions to his/her POV, today. For example, we have the following statement by the site's spokesperson: "As a National Socialist I admit that when we take power anyone who is opposed to, or has actively worked against, our Race and Nation's survival will be punished accordingly. People who betray something are traitors. We consider Marxists and Capitalists as traitors and they will face the people's courts someday to pay for their crimes." That seems a bit stronger (and sillier) than simply "anti-communist", to the extent that such a description, as proposed by Yorkshirian, is clearly misleading. Yorkshirian has been around long enough to know that his/her edits will be reverted in due course so that WP presents a neutral POV - so why not do it yourself? Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

RedWatch do not "expose" capitalists on their website though do they? When they create a website called CapitalistWatch then we can take that into consideration. I don't have a personal POV in this area, as neither a Marxist internationalist nor an ethno-nationalist. My "POV" is that we must, without compromise, follow the rules and outlines of this project Wikipedia, right across the board with no exceptions—namely the WP:NPOV policy.

I'm not denying that National Socialists run this website, as the first post of this thread says. However anti-Communism, is the specific purpose of RedWatch in particular, not general National Socialism. What I am denying, is the attempts by people sympathetic to trade union leaders, Karl Marx and Leon Trotsky to mould articles to fall inline with their own ideological precepts and dogmatism, through Orwellian newspeak and emotional bias. Wikipedia is not pro-or-anti, it is not for us to state our opinion as to whether RedWatch's aims are a good thing or a bad thing. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an "anti" activist website. - Yorkshirian (talk) 17:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality

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)

Unfortunately, the above editor's changes are themselves clearly non-neutral, Any significant changes to the article should be discussed here, with a view to achieving consensus. I have reverted the changes made by Alexandre8. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Did some quick cleanup of statements that were pure opinion, unsubstantiated or simply false (Redwatch seems to be fairly regularly updated despite its design being stuck in the early 2000s so obviously the facts will change regarding what they do and do not link to or say). An Encyclopaedic article should not read like a political blog from either side of the argument, antifascist or neo-nazi. This page is hardly objective at best, libellous at worst. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.226.114 (talk) 19:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)