Talk:True Blue Crew

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

supporters have been linked to Right-wing terrorism[edit]

@95.143.14.167: supporters have been linked to Right-wing terrorism: "Investigators say Galea has been linked to far-right groups Reclaim Australia, United Patriots Front, Patriots Defence League Australia, the True Blue Crew and also a “neo-Nazi, self-confessed militant group” called Combat 18."

That is a tiny sample of news articles that back the assertion, I could add dozens more, if you are not satisfied. a member has been linked to Right-wing terrorism...it's been widely reported and the man was charged and convicted, the assertion is not debatable. Don't remove it again. If you want to remove the details you've removed from the lede you will need to discuss changes here first. Bacondrum (talk) 22:43, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand what an encyclopedia article is. It's not a collection of - in this case, solely negative - news items and pasting them into the lede/introduction. The lede/introduction summarizes and introduces. Quite simple really. Obviously you feel very passionately and emotional about this, but step back a bit and think about it, the intro was cluttered, it needed some very basic editing. That's all. 95.143.14.167 (talk) 20:47, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Omitting that a group linked to terrorism has been linked to terrorism is not encyclopedic, it's deliberate obfuscation. Omitting that a White supremacist group is a White supremacist group is clear and deliberate obfuscation. You also removed verbatim quotes from the strongest citation provided, it appears to me as though you are trying to sanitise and obfuscate the true nature of this group. Stop reverting, your edits have been challenged several times now, you need to discuss your changes first. Bacondrum (talk) 00:27, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get some other editors opinions on these edits by 95.143.14.167? @Enthusiast01: @Laterthanyouthink: @Boscaswell: Bacondrum (talk) 00:32, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t see any reason to exclude what @Bacondrum: has included, but I thought that no matter how detestable they might be seen as being, how they see themselves deserves to be prioritised. As in, it should come before the negative statements. So I’ve reorganised phrases and sentences in the lede. (Also, to the anonymous editor critical of the negative info, why don’t you supply some positive stuff? Also, why hide behind anonymity?) In my edit I also added a [who?] to “Academics...” as I feel that this needs to be clarified somewhat. Hope OK. Boscaswell talk 06:12, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Let's all just refresh our memories about WP:LEAD, including that it should be a "concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies". I don't think that it's quite there yet but I have just done a change which reorganised the info on the rest of the page, hopefully in a way which will make it easier to improve the lead. Citations are not necessary in the lead except where controversy exists, and I don't think that there's anything controversial in a statement along the lines of "members have been linked to violent and terrorist offences", or something along those lines. These can be explained and annotated in the new section I've created.
I also think it needs something in the body of the article which includes some of what Boscaswell has put in the lead about their beliefs and aims. I haven't yet read all of those sources re academics, but it probably doesn't need the [who?] if they are cited in the sources (unless there's a particular prominent one who exists on WP, in which case mention them) - but that sentence and citations can go in the body as expansion and supporting evidence for the "beliefs and aims" or whatever else it's called (there may be a better heading). Oh, and I noticed that some of the article citations are not dated - this can be useful info and needs to be included. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:32, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and I agree with all changed suggested, the page needs improving. 95.143.14.167 seemed intent on removing anything to do with Philip Galea's attempted terrorist attacks from the lede, despite those events being the one thing that has garnered the group the most notoriety/notability. I'm glad we could put that debate to bed. Bacondrum (talk) 00:15, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. So The Precarious Generation mentions True Blue Crew only once as part of a "medley" of neo-Nazi and far-right groups. Accomodating Muslim... doesn't appear to mention the group at all. It seems transparently obvious that this is associated with neo-Nazism, but these are not ideal sources. I have removed the latter, since it doesn't mention this topic, and I am hoping we can find a better replacement for the former.
So with that in mind, who, exactly is saying that the group sees themselves this way, and in what context? Ideally this would be summarized in an article on the larger movement, such as White nationalism in Australia or similar, and then linked there for more context. Lacking that, this should be contextualized as part of a larger pattern rather than specific to this one group. Otherwise this is mildly misrepresenting the source. Grayfell (talk) 21:53, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I removed the assertion. It's a good source for a broader article though, I agree. Bacondrum (talk) 22:31, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"White Supremacist"[edit]

Needs a better source, obviously. 95.143.7.58 (talk) 12:10, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How so? You claim it's an op ed when it is not, it was part of a series of rolling election analysis by respected journalists in a respected paper that is considered a reliable source. The same with the Age. The citation is rock solid. You claim they are left and partisan, but they are both deemed to be high quality, reliable and accurate news outlets - you think they are left partisan, that's entirely your opinion, I think the Guardian is a world renowned center-left news outlet, you may think they are communists, I don't know. The Age is center-right IMO, but that's why it doesn't matter what you and I think, because it's merely a matter of opinion. Wikipedia deems both to be high quality and accurate. Bacondrum (talk) 22:07, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at your edits at the Syrian National Socialist Party, it appears as though you are here to obfuscate and present neo-fascist ideology in the most favorable light, not build an encyclopedia. Bacondrum (talk) 22:14, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of your personal view, anonymous IP person, The Guardian is a highly respected newspaper with a long history, and regarded as a reliable source by Wikipedia, so this one stands as per WP:RS. Ben Smee is an experienced journalist who has written extensively on a wide range of topics. (You are arguing semantics in any case, as white supremacy is part and parcel of the neo-Nazi, anti-Islam, anti-multicultural platforms that groups such as these stand on. I don't know why you're wasting your time on this one. If you're interested in contributing constructively to Wikipedia, create an account and learn some more about the rules and guidlines.) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:07, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you guys seem wilfully ignorant of how sourcing works. All kinds of people get published in outlets like The Guardian or The Age, authoritative classifications of groups or political parties or other controversial organizations cannot be formed on the basis of a single author. Academic sources are preferred, and self-designations must at least be mentioned. I'm glad User:Bacondrum mentioned the SSNP (I'll ignore the ridiculous personal attacks) it presents a good example: the party presents itself as broadly left-wing nowadays, but has origins in pro-Nazi fascist ideologues... academic sources never fail to mention is fascist and supremacist origins, while individual authors in random news outlets are often blissfully unaware.

The very first line of "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources" reads: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered". Under "Statements of Opinion" the first line reads: "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. For example, an inline qualifier might say "[Author XYZ] says....". Such inline qualifiers appear to be de rigueur in particularly contentious Wikipedia articles, as well as particular well composed ones. 95.143.7.58 (talk) 06:11, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact." That applies to op eds not election analysis about politics. There are many other articles that describe them as such, but I chose the strongest - quality election analysis from a respected journalist and editor in a respected news outlet. I have articles with photos of their members giving roman salutes FFS! One member famously attempted to bomb Barricade Books, an anarchist bookshop directly opposite a school, FFS! They are white supremacists, stop trying to game wikipediaBacondrum (talk) 07:26, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If they are - and I don't doubt it - then you should have no problem finding better source/s. Preferably scholarly. (Incidentally, you have a strange notion of causality: "Someone attempted to bomb an anarchist bookstore, therefore they are white supremacists". Very odd reasoning) 95.143.7.58 (talk) 11:39, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not assuming good faith, we get a lot of IP users here vandalising and trying to sanitise these kinds of groups, as I'm sure you can imagine. Almost everything written about them is analysis or op-ed. I'll have a look for more scholarly articles and rephrase the first sentence appropriately. Cheers Bacondrum (talk) 23:39, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hinduphobia and anti-Semitism[edit]

Listing Hinduphobia and anti-Semitism as specific ideologies seems like it might be an over extrapolations? A general dislike of all other cultures is covered by "anti-immigration" and. "anti-multiculturalism". The citations in text don't seem to support adding any specific groups other than Muslims? BottleOfSoup (talk) 17:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with the over extrapolations as far as Hinduphobia goes, however these blokes were definitely antisemitic in particular. This can be demonstrated by their members and which organisations they are part of now (Nationalist Socialist Network). Are there sources? I don't know. TarnishedPathtalk 02:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:True_Blue_Crew&oldid=1218158976"