Talk:UK Life League

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Dowson material

On second glance, the material I removed is better sourced than I originally thought; the weapons conviction is indeed mention in The Scotsman article; I just didn't see it in my first read-through.

That said, the material is still problematic. The entire section reads very much like an ad hominem attack on the organisation, leader, or both. We seem to have rather carefully sought out every incriminating thing said about this person and then inserted it into the article about this organisation. This is clearly giving undue weight to these aspects of this person's life, and we seem to be suggesting by their inclusion that the reader should come to some conclusion about the organisation, the actual subject of this article, based on this laundry list we've gotten from various sources. I'm unclear on whether or not Dowson meets our inclusion guidelines, but we shouldn't be inserting a hit-piece biography of a living person stub into the article about the organisation, which is effectively what has happened here. Jkelly 21:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I don't really think the breach of the peace needs to go in as there's no context as to what his actual offence was. Arguing with a policeman can get you arrested for breach of the peace, as can having an argument with someone in the street. So it is a relatively minor offence that doesn't really mean much. I do think some mention of Dowson's past is merited, given that two independent sources have made mention of it in relation to the UK Life League. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I find the statement "two newspapers articles have explicitly mentioned Dowson's criminal record in relation to this organisation" very compelling; or, to put it differently, it does indicate that we're not off in the wilds of original research here. That said, the paragraph, tellingly included under the terribly-named "Controversies" section heading, really was laying it on thick. It's not immediately obvious to me how to fix this however; for one thing, the article is too short to integrate what we know about the organisation's leadership into it elegantly. Jkelly 21:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The main problem with the organisation is that every time it gets mainstream publicity it's generally of a negative nature. For example - [1] [2] [3]. If you read the full story in the Telegraph Dowson says "Paedophiles are outed, why shouldn't those involved in abortion be, too? After all, they are murderers. A child may survive a paedophile. No child survives an abortion clinic." Any article on this group is almost bound to focus on their controversies, as other than that they seemingly get no publicity. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, do you have any suggestions on how we can move forward, so that we are presenting the mainstream view of the subject of our article while also not making it sound like we've decided to write a hit piece on them? I'd suggest looking to see if we can find some, um, boring information about the group on their website, for instance, to expand the article with so that it is not dominated by the conflict-oriented reporting. Jkelly 21:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really sure. I don't actually have that much interest in the article or group, I just watchlisted it after making this pair of edits in my early days, thinking it's the type of article that someone needs to keep an eye on. Can an article which meets WP:NPOV be written? More than likely, but it's also likely members of the organisation would regard it as a "hit piece" nonetheless. Possibly a brief history of UKLL would balance it out more? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] spamming

I am an American who is being spammed by them. A Google search shows that I am not alone, and that they are harvesting addresses from web pages. ----