Talk:Redwatch

message: 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)
thread_title: POV dispute

message: 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)
thread_title: Accuracy dispute 2005-08-02

message: 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)
thread_title: POV=

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Neutrality

message: 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)
thread_title:  Canadian Redwatch 

message: 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)
thread_title: Project Judaism?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Grammar 

message: 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)
thread_title: Legal

message: 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)
thread_title:  hosting 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Neutrality