Talk:2014 Rochester and Strood by-election: Difference between revisions
→Britain First: Ad hominem insults ruin your point Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Senotshtooms (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
[[User:Senotshtooms|Senotshtooms]] ([[User talk:Senotshtooms|talk]]) 09:24, 5 November 2014 (UTC) |
[[User:Senotshtooms|Senotshtooms]] ([[User talk:Senotshtooms|talk]]) 09:24, 5 November 2014 (UTC) |
||
:Details about Britain First and their actions should go in the [[Britain First]] article; I haven't checked that article, but I hope it covers such behaviour. I would suggest material should only be included in this article if it is directly about this by-election. [[User:Bondegezou|Bondegezou]] ([[User talk:Bondegezou|talk]]) 10:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC) |
:Details about Britain First and their actions should go in the [[Britain First]] article; I haven't checked that article, but I hope it covers such behaviour. I would suggest material should only be included in this article if it is directly about this by-election. [[User:Bondegezou|Bondegezou]] ([[User talk:Bondegezou|talk]]) 10:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC) |
||
::I see what you mean about keeping the material relevant to this by-election. It would be worrying for users to come here and not realise that what they were seeing was in fact a political party that supports violent methods. To be honest, I'm not sure as to what type of source would be acceptable to Wikipedia for proving that Britain First is a thuggish/uncivilised political party. It's beyond my ability and I don't want to start an edit war so I'll just hold back here, despite my own personal feelings on the matter. |
Revision as of 15:21, 5 November 2014
Politics of the United Kingdom Start‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Kent Start‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||||||||
|
Elections and Referendums Start‑class | |||||||
|
Medway news poll
This article says that it had taken a larger poll than the Survation one and found UKIP on over 75%. Should this go in the polling box? '''tAD''' (talk) 00:05, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- It sounds like an unscientific voodoo poll. The Survation poll's respondents would be weighted to reflect the electorate. This newspaper poll sounds like an open access poll on its website and therefore unreliable.--Britannicus (talk) 00:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed. Bondegezou (talk) 06:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Jools Holland?
Is it really relevant that Jools Holland lives in R&S, and who is wife is? Perhaps I'm missing something.Frinton100 (talk) 20:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Britain First
Now I don't think there's anything wrong with patriotism or supporting your own country but this party violently enters places of religious worship to disturb prayer. Britain First is a violent party. I don't think it would be breaking the NPOV policy to point out that Britain first eagerly supports violence. I wouldn't say that the evidence against them is some kind of stitch up either. They can clearly be seen on video storming into places of religious worship.
Here are some links to support my claims:
http://www.channel4.com/news/britain-first-far-right-anti-muslim-extremists-mosques http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-kent-29858335 http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/hate-groups/bf/ http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.com/2014/06/12-things-britain-first.html http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/09/21/britain-first-_n_5857250.html http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/05/first-tackling-menace-far-right--20145261213161811.html
Such a violent political party doesn't deserve to be described as anything other than violent. I deplore such violence. So I admit my bias here against this cretinous party. But I don't think that the matter should be left there. Consensus?
Senotshtooms (talk) 09:24, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- Details about Britain First and their actions should go in the Britain First article; I haven't checked that article, but I hope it covers such behaviour. I would suggest material should only be included in this article if it is directly about this by-election. Bondegezou (talk) 10:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- I see what you mean about keeping the material relevant to this by-election. It would be worrying for users to come here and not realise that what they were seeing was in fact a political party that supports violent methods. To be honest, I'm not sure as to what type of source would be acceptable to Wikipedia for proving that Britain First is a thuggish/uncivilised political party. It's beyond my ability and I don't want to start an edit war so I'll just hold back here, despite my own personal feelings on the matter.