Talk:People's Justice Party (UK)

message: :Image:People's Justice Party 1.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 15:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:People's Justice Party 1.gif

message: Kautilya3, I read all three sources, I could see no mention of the two people being members of the group being blamed, nor I think of them being 'militants', hence the "not in cit tag"'
A political party cannot exist before it exists, it can however 'arise out of' something else, such as a campaign or movement. Besides which one 'book' source makes it a clear that the campaign led to, (or somesuch phrasing) the other organisations, eventually becoming a political party, but it was other things before it became a political party.
The phrasing is also pretty PoV, can you not see the difference between "he was campaigning to get IRA bombers and murderers released from prison" and "he was campaigning because he believed they were wrongly imprisoned", again, the same book source makes it clear that they believed the two had been convicted on poor evidence. I've no idea whether the two were guilty or not, but the phrasing looks to me like attempting to 'sling-mud' by 'cherry-picking', not neutrally expressing what the balance of sources say.
I'm not going to edit war about this, I know very little (and care very little) about either PJP or Birmingham/Kashmiri politics, but I do know fairly well when text is poorly phrased and when it 'reads as' a PoV hatchet job. Pincrete (talk) 15:07, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I am pretty sure that you didn't see the second source, which has it in black and white: . And, the page 119 of the book tells you that the FRAQ campaign itself contested elections and later renamed itself Justice for Kashmir or whatever. I admit that these source are cursory. If you want more depth, please feel free to find the sources for it. The present content is a fully accurate summary of the sources given. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:28, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

text: And the Guardian source, which has been visible to you from the beginning, says  Activist movements often use multitudes of names and spin-offs in order to obfuscate things and enable deniability. The perceptive observers can see through them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:41, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsourced and unclear