Talk:Runnymede Trust
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. | |
| This article falls within the scope of the Interfaith work group. If you are interested in Interfaith-related topics, please visit the project page to see how you can help. If you have any comments regarding the appropriateness or positioning of this template, please let us know at our talk page
|
||
Contents |
[edit] Left-wing?
I removed "left-wing" from the definition of the RT from the starting paragraph. What evidence is there that RT is a left-wing think tank? A quick google test for RT and left-wing turns up only 100 or so hits[1] whilst a search for RT and right-wing, for example, turns up 200 hits[2]. Some citation in this area might be needed. Axon 11:34, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
- The Runnymede Trust advocates views, like multiculturism and the rewriting of history and which are generally considered to be politically correct, leftist ideals. --Germen 12:29, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Are they? I'm not convinced that is true in all cases. I think some conservatives would be highly distressed to hear that people thought they were in favor of uni-culturalism or racism. Please provide citation to back your thesis that the RT is left-wing as I asked above. Please also note the google test above. Axon (talk|contribs) 12:44, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- Nazis and the Ku-Klux-Klan who oppose multiculturalism were are rather right wing, aren't they? So people who support multiculturalism are rather left-wing. Logical, isn't it? --82.101.232.100 (talk) 17:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Monoculturalism cannot be classified as racism, because a culture is not a race. Multiculturalism implies that in a given cultural domain separate sets of rules, e.g. secular law and shari'ah law, exist and have equal validity. Monoculturalism does not reject other cultures, but does acknowledge that in a given territory there must be an unambiguous set of rules which has precedence, like Wikipedia:policy here. See also Afshin Ellian, an Iranian refugee and law scientist who has elaborated this thesis. --Germen (Talk | Contribs
) 14:24, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- I disagree, monoculuralism can surely be racist, but your point is irrelevant: the Runnymede Trust is opposed to racism and that was what I was alluding to above. Once again, however, you have side-stepped my request you provide proper citation. I ask again, whate evidence do you have of the above? Axon (talk|contribs) 15:29, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Monoculturalism can occur together with racism (as in Nazi Germany), but is not equal to racism. A communist or shariah state, e.g. is monocultural but not racist (however, I would not recommend to live there). A multicultural society can be racist, like South Africa during the Apartheid years. The Runnymede Trust advocates cultural equality and a multicultural society. This equals to the post-modernist moral equivalence, a leftist spearpoint. On their website there are several links to known leftist-activist organisations, like the Social Platform of Europe while links to conservative organisations are missing. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 11:40, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- Monoculturalism can occur together with racism (as in Nazi Germany), but is not equal to racism. A communist or shariah state, e.g. is monocultural but not racist (however, I would not recommend to live there). A multicultural society can be racist, like South Africa during the Apartheid years. The Runnymede Trust advocates cultural equality and a multicultural society. This equals to the post-modernist moral equivalence, a leftist spearpoint. On their website there are several links to known leftist-activist organisations, like the Social Platform of Europe while links to conservative organisations are missing. --Germen (Talk | Contribs
- Sigh I'm not going to get into another long and pointless discussion with you. If you want to argue the above I suggest you go to some other on-line forum and argue to your hearts content there. Do you have any evidence the RT is left-wing? Axon (talk|contribs) 07:51, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
- The burden of proof is on you here, not I. You have not demonstrated any of the above with actually evidence. Axon (talk|contribs) 08:32, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
- I am afraid you are mistaken Axon. I have provided proof that the Runnymede Trust qualifies as a lobby group. You state that the Runnymede Trust is a think tank, without even making an attempt to prove that. I would like to remind you that information about the value of an organisation from an organisation itself is not reliable. Only stated politics etcetera of the organisation are a valid reference form. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 16:23, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
- I am afraid you are mistaken Axon. I have provided proof that the Runnymede Trust qualifies as a lobby group. You state that the Runnymede Trust is a think tank, without even making an attempt to prove that. I would like to remind you that information about the value of an organisation from an organisation itself is not reliable. Only stated politics etcetera of the organisation are a valid reference form. --Germen (Talk | Contribs
- I disagree, monoculuralism can surely be racist, but your point is irrelevant: the Runnymede Trust is opposed to racism and that was what I was alluding to above. Once again, however, you have side-stepped my request you provide proper citation. I ask again, whate evidence do you have of the above? Axon (talk|contribs) 15:29, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Monoculturalism cannot be classified as racism, because a culture is not a race. Multiculturalism implies that in a given cultural domain separate sets of rules, e.g. secular law and shari'ah law, exist and have equal validity. Monoculturalism does not reject other cultures, but does acknowledge that in a given territory there must be an unambiguous set of rules which has precedence, like Wikipedia:policy here. See also Afshin Ellian, an Iranian refugee and law scientist who has elaborated this thesis. --Germen (Talk | Contribs
-
[edit] Error: no proof of government funding found
The Runnymede Trust receives money from several major charities. No confirmation of government grants to the Runnymede Trust found. Corrected. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 20:24, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] POV tag
Added POV tag because of the portraying of a leftist organisation as independant and neutral. --Germen 12:32, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Totally disputed? Seems a bit strong for what is, essentially, just a stub. As for portraying RT as neutral, I don't see anything in the page that makes that claim. It merely describes the RT and what they advocate. As for independence, I see no reason to question that they aren't independent unless you have some citation or evidence to the contrary. Again, see my call for evidence above. Axon (talk|contribs) 13:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Axon, justice as served. Check the Wikipedia articles on lobby group, think tank and decide yourself in which category the Runnymede Trust fits best. You are intelligent enough, so this should not be a major problem. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 14:34, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- Which justice are you referring to? Once again, you have not actually provided any evidence for your changes. The Runnymede Trust describes it self as a think tank. If you have any evidence it acually lobbies please provide it, otherwise I will remove the reference to lobby groups. I think you certainly misunderstand the English definition of a think tank and how they operate. Axon (talk|contribs) 15:31, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- The Runnymede Trust tries to influence the lawmaking process and politics, see the stub. This is exactly the definition of a lobby group: a group which seeks to influence politics. As I said, it doesn't matter how people or groups call themselves (Saddam called himself a nationalistic socialist, as did Herr Adolf) and the former East Bloc dictatorships referred to themselves as democratic people's republics, it matters what they are in real. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 11:44, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- The Runnymede Trust tries to influence the lawmaking process and politics, see the stub. This is exactly the definition of a lobby group: a group which seeks to influence politics. As I said, it doesn't matter how people or groups call themselves (Saddam called himself a nationalistic socialist, as did Herr Adolf) and the former East Bloc dictatorships referred to themselves as democratic people's republics, it matters what they are in real. --Germen (Talk | Contribs
- Does it? I think there is both more and less to a lobby group than that. RT is a think tank and, unless you can supply actual evidence it isn't (and a Wikipedia article is itself not evidence of this) there is nothing more to say on the matter. Axon (talk|contribs) 07:53, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
- See the discussion at "think tank". I am not going to repeat the definition of think tank again. If you don't have the elementary courtesy to consider my sources I think you obstruct any discussion effectively.--Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 08:32, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
- You do not seem to have actually read the article: there is more than one definition of a think tank. Until you provide actual direct evidence of your reverts (i.e. an article or somesuch demonstrating the RT is a lobby group or left-wing) there is nothing to discuss: WP:NOR applies here as much as anywher else. Axon (talk|contribs) 08:34, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
- You seem to confuse proof with statement. You have no proof that the RT is a think tank, apart from its own designation as such. I followed the encyclopedic method: check sources, check definitions and classify. It is not encyclopedic to believe on face value. If I say that I am the king of Britain, do you believe me? RT lies about their independence, as I proved with links, do you think they don't lie about being a think tank rather than a cunningly operating lobby group? Besides, I did not revert, I added my own information. Reverting is your style. I am not lazy, I try to incorporate information from others in order to improve quality of the article. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 08:51, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
- You seem to confuse proof with statement. You have no proof that the RT is a think tank, apart from its own designation as such. I followed the encyclopedic method: check sources, check definitions and classify. It is not encyclopedic to believe on face value. If I say that I am the king of Britain, do you believe me? RT lies about their independence, as I proved with links, do you think they don't lie about being a think tank rather than a cunningly operating lobby group? Besides, I did not revert, I added my own information. Reverting is your style. I am not lazy, I try to incorporate information from others in order to improve quality of the article. --Germen (Talk | Contribs
- You do not seem to have actually read the article: there is more than one definition of a think tank. Until you provide actual direct evidence of your reverts (i.e. an article or somesuch demonstrating the RT is a lobby group or left-wing) there is nothing to discuss: WP:NOR applies here as much as anywher else. Axon (talk|contribs) 08:34, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
- See the discussion at "think tank". I am not going to repeat the definition of think tank again. If you don't have the elementary courtesy to consider my sources I think you obstruct any discussion effectively.--Germen (Talk | Contribs
- Which justice are you referring to? Once again, you have not actually provided any evidence for your changes. The Runnymede Trust describes it self as a think tank. If you have any evidence it acually lobbies please provide it, otherwise I will remove the reference to lobby groups. I think you certainly misunderstand the English definition of a think tank and how they operate. Axon (talk|contribs) 15:31, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
-
[edit] Factual inaccurate
The Runnymede Trust is portrayed as a think tank. Think tanks do not evangelize of advocate views. This is the work of action committees. --Germen 12:31, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Again, on what evidence do you base the above? In my mind think tanks do indeed advocate views: in this sense, they advise politicians on policy. They also self-describe themselves as a think tank. Axon (talk|contribs) 12:46, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- How people or institutions describe themselves is irrelevant. I would like to quote the example of Kim Jong Il. A think tank has the primary task to think and subsequently publish their views. The Runnymede Trust has the stated objective to influence laws (as written in this stub) and as such do qualify like a lobby group rather than a think tank. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 14:28, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Is it: the most useful source of information about an organisation is the organisation itself. Again, if you dispute the description please provide relevant sources? Also, political think tanks influence law all the time in that they advise politicians who make laws. Axon (talk|contribs) 15:32, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- How people or institutions describe themselves is irrelevant. I would like to quote the example of Kim Jong Il. A think tank has the primary task to think and subsequently publish their views. The Runnymede Trust has the stated objective to influence laws (as written in this stub) and as such do qualify like a lobby group rather than a think tank. --Germen (Talk | Contribs
To summarise and resolve the conflict:
- Indepedant != neutral. Independant as it is used here does not imply neutral, but in the snse here means financially independant. In this case, the RT is a charity with no ties to any larger organisations. Obviously, the RT has biases in favor of multi-culturalism which are made clear in the defintion.
- I have found evidence of substantial funding by the (left) Labour UK government. Link added. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 12:05, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- I have found evidence of substantial funding by the (left) Labour UK government. Link added. --Germen (Talk | Contribs
- Political think tanks are an American invention that are becomming quite popular in the UK and probably Europe. They carry out political research into new policies and as such are considered, in English speaking countries, to have biases (in this case, pro-multiculturalism and anti-racist) and its use here is not meant to imply the scientific definition of think tank. Perhaps we should ammend the descriptive to "political think tank". Axon (talk|contribs) 16:21, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Agreed that a think tank can have a certain political bias, I did not dispute this. However, the stated Runnymede goals of influencing lawmaking and political decision processes are the core activities of lobby groups, hence the Runnymede Trust fits the definition of lobby group.--Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 12:06, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, that would precisely fit the definition of a think tank. A lobby group is substantially different. Please familiarise yourself with the differences. Axon (talk|contribs) 07:58, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
- Nowhere in the definition of think tank the objective of influencing legislation is stated so I do not see how this is corroborating with the definition. Please familiarize yourself with the differences between a lobby group and a think tank. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 13:07, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
- Runnymede claims to be a "trust," a "think-tank," a "registered limited liability company," a "registered charity," and "a bridge-builder between various minority ethnic communities and policy makers" (i.e. some sort of lobbying consultancy, specializing in the concerns of ethnic and religious minorities). Obviously, one or some Islamic organizations or communities have donated a large sum of money to the Runnymede charity. In return, Runnymede is trying to lobby British policy makers on behalf of these Muslims. As part of this transaction, Runnymede has issued their ridiculous defintion of "Islamaphobia." I think it's obvious that a professional lobbying front for British Muslims is a far cry from NPOV. The activities of this organization can clearly be described as POV-driven - in this case, they represent the political interests of Muslims and their political allies on the left. Runnymede is MUCH more than a "think-tank" (how many "think-tanks" accept charitable, tax-detuctable dontions?). The purpose of this "think-tank" is clearly not limited to defining and studying Islamaphobia or Islam. Runnymede claims, for example, that there is nothing sexist about Islam. What academic qualifications in religon and sociology does the Runnymede "think-tank" have to make such an assertion in an objective way? --Zeno of Elea 23:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
- Zeno, these are harsh accusations, and I have no idea it they are true. Certainly you do not expect people to take your word for it? Like everywhere else on WP, it is possible to forward any sort of criticism, only that nobody is interested in criticism by Wikipedia editors. Your job as an editor is to find notable publications making such statements, and refer to them in the article text. "The Runnymede Trust is an independent charitable organisation." (I suppose, officially recognized). I also think it is safe to say that it is isn't extremely right-wing or fascist. Beyond that, i.e. is it rather left-center, conservative-center, or left-wing, you will have to cite people's judgement. So much trouble could be avoided on WP if people would just stick to this simple maxim. So we can cite the RT as saying "there is nothing sexist about Islam"? Ok. Now who do we cite as saying that the RT does not have the academic qualifications to make such a statement? I'm sure there are notable conservative pundits happy to make that statement. Unfortunately "Zeno of Elea" isn't quite what we're looking for. Just try to quote somebody, ok? dab (ᛏ) 17:28, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- Once again, dab, I am in agreement with you. Much of the above is just talk page opinions. The article as it stands[3] seems no better to the original version here [4] and I would recommend reverting to the older version until such time as proper citation on the RT can be found. For example, why must we use "describes itself as" in the introduction! Axon (talk|contribs) 11:52, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
- Axon, the original article is repeating the claims of the Runnymede Trust about itself without critical judgment of the claims. To call the Runnymede Trust independant and an think tank, among others, infers an opinion. Many organisations like to call themselves think tank, because it gives them status. If you think the RT is independent or a think tank, cite your sources. I did. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 18:26, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
- Axon, the original article is repeating the claims of the Runnymede Trust about itself without critical judgment of the claims. To call the Runnymede Trust independant and an think tank, among others, infers an opinion. Many organisations like to call themselves think tank, because it gives them status. If you think the RT is independent or a think tank, cite your sources. I did. --Germen (Talk | Contribs
- I would refer you to dab and my comments about notability of a position and WP:NOR. What applies of Islamophobia applies here. You have not provided direct evidence that we should doubt the RT claims. We are not about accomadating all opininions, but only all siginifcant opinions (see WP:NPOV) which does not include talk page opinion. Axon (talk|contribs) 09:40, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
- Runnymede claims to be a "trust," a "think-tank," a "registered limited liability company," a "registered charity," and "a bridge-builder between various minority ethnic communities and policy makers" (i.e. some sort of lobbying consultancy, specializing in the concerns of ethnic and religious minorities). Obviously, one or some Islamic organizations or communities have donated a large sum of money to the Runnymede charity. In return, Runnymede is trying to lobby British policy makers on behalf of these Muslims. As part of this transaction, Runnymede has issued their ridiculous defintion of "Islamaphobia." I think it's obvious that a professional lobbying front for British Muslims is a far cry from NPOV. The activities of this organization can clearly be described as POV-driven - in this case, they represent the political interests of Muslims and their political allies on the left. Runnymede is MUCH more than a "think-tank" (how many "think-tanks" accept charitable, tax-detuctable dontions?). The purpose of this "think-tank" is clearly not limited to defining and studying Islamaphobia or Islam. Runnymede claims, for example, that there is nothing sexist about Islam. What academic qualifications in religon and sociology does the Runnymede "think-tank" have to make such an assertion in an objective way? --Zeno of Elea 23:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
- Nowhere in the definition of think tank the objective of influencing legislation is stated so I do not see how this is corroborating with the definition. Please familiarize yourself with the differences between a lobby group and a think tank. --Germen (Talk | Contribs
- Actually, that would precisely fit the definition of a think tank. A lobby group is substantially different. Please familiarise yourself with the differences. Axon (talk|contribs) 07:58, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
- Agreed that a think tank can have a certain political bias, I did not dispute this. However, the stated Runnymede goals of influencing lawmaking and political decision processes are the core activities of lobby groups, hence the Runnymede Trust fits the definition of lobby group.--Germen (Talk | Contribs
[edit] Removal of the POV tag
Children have been concieved, gestated and born since this discussion died. Without a discussion, there is no dispute. Hence, I will remove the pov tag. Veej 00:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] need further information about a reference.
Runnymede Trust's report is widely acknowledged by the media to have been Islamophobic - what does this reference actually say on pg 185? --Fredrick day (talk) 19:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
