Talk:Red Action: Difference between revisions

Uncited claims

Someone added the comment that Red Action usually lost their fights with right-wingers. This is certainly not what I've heard, nor what they say. Unless someone has substantial new information, I'm changing this page back.--XmarkX 04:35, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• • They most certainly did not ; ) Plutonium27 04:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• I deleted the uncited claim that a Red Action member was convicted as an IRA bomber. Something that serious needs a reliable source to back it up. Spylab 22:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure claim is correct (can't remember details) but not sure it is important to the article. More good editing Spylab! BobFromBrockley 17:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• See the link on the page to the Independent On Sunday article. The conviction was for stealing explosives not actual bombing. Plutonium27 04:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Socialist Federation

Didn't some of this group's founders come from the Socialist Federation? --Duncan 07:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard that, but certainly they moved in the same circles - both left the SWP and developed libertarian critiques of SWP-style vanguard parties. I googled a bit, and only thing I came up with was this: [1] BobFromBrockley 10:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Discrepancy with Militant anti-fascism

Nothing major just...

From Red Action "They earned notoriety for ... their support of Anti-Fascist Action." From Militant anti-fascism "In 1985, Red Action and the anarcho-syndicalist Direct Action Movement launched Anti-Fascist Action (AFA)"

This might need just a change of wording in the Red Action article or a correction in the Militant anti-fascism article. --Aimaz 13:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I changed the sentence in Militant anti-fascism to say "In 1985, some members of Red Action..." because from my understanding, there was some crossover in membership, but the two organizations remained separate entities. Spylab 12:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

They remained seperate orgs, and RA preceded AFA, but RA "noteriety" (if that's the right word) did come from AFA activities. BobFromBrockley 10:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Red Action Anti Fascist?

While I appreciate that they have fought the far right in physical confrontation in the past since 2002 at least most of the articles on their website have been attacking non whites (blaming them for everything from race hate crimes (Something that going by Red Actions website is a crime that doesnt exist unless it is commited against a white person) almost every form of crime you can think of, attacks on white males (While almost condoning brutal beatings of sudanese immigrants) even blaming non whites for 'impregnating white girls'!!!

It would seem Red Action are now buisy trying to "Out BNP the BNP" as their political ideology (Aside from Red Actions support for the IRA and Republican movement who seem to be excluded from their attacks on ethnic minorities in the UK) Seems to be one and the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.204.191.158 (talk) 00:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• Examples and references please. They post a lot of articles there, including articles and editorials that other people have written about them.Spylab 18:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I thought I was providing examples (The one about blaming refugess for "Impregnating teenage white girls" in a North East town for example is taken directly from their website) All of these articles can be found under their section on "Race and Class" On their official website. The one I quoted from was written by Red Action and was concerning racism in a town in the North of the UK. When I have more time I will link them to the specific webpage if you like (Asuming they dont remove it sharpish)

I find it odd that Red Action seem determinied to carry out endless attacks on their website against non whites, refugess etc under the asumption that they are "Speaking for the (white) working class" (Even though the vast majority of the (white) working class vote for neither they or the BNP so they obviously do not) We can also assume from the Red Action website that non whites are not included amongst the working class as they (judging by Red Action websites comments) are some kind of 'alien group within Britian' pandered to by a mysterious 'liberal left' and the 'politically correct' While there is not one word of criticism for the Republican movement, the IRA or Red Actions encouragement of sectarianism amongst for example Celtic fans through its afiliated fanzine in Glasgow.

I could also point to affiliated groups like Merseysides Kirkby times who advertise and support the BNP under the guise of "We are not racist in Kirkby, we all know at least one black person who lives in the area!" (See their website regarding local council elections where they invited BNP candidates to speak on what they can offer to the area) (Realy? I seriously doubt it and I seriously doubt they are happy with your support for the BNP) I assume this is the 2007 version of "What me racist? Some of my best friends are......" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.204.191.251 (talk) 13:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, please provide direct quotes (in context) and links to where those quotes appear. We don't all have time to scour the Red Action website to verify that what you are saying is an accurate portrayal of the group's views.Spylab 18:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• One of the articles has since been deleated (supprise supprise) But see the article "A return to winning ways" In the section "Race and Class" As it would be utterly pointless to "quote in context" As you would need to reproduce the entire article to provide context. The websites overwealming gushing support for the IRA is all too obvious even to the article criticizing Celtic football club for opposing its Pro IRA fanzine as it was spreading sectarianism (which is defined as a form of racism by the way)

Maybe you cannot "Find time to scour Red Actions website" To verify what I am saying (Even though I have provided clearly what page you need look on. But I would suggest you do so rather than post snide remarks otherwise the entire Red Action article on this website needs to be removed (Unless of course you can verify every word that is written on it is true. I would like full references to every word an links (Seeing as I also "Dont have time to scour the Red Action webiste to verify that anything posted here is true")

Or how about this for its utter belitlement of racism (Direct quote you might like this one seeing as you are "Far too buisy" To check facts but just love to leave any old unverified rubbish up, fail to check a single fact but expect the opposite from everyone else)

"Meanwhile in a genuinely witless Panorama programme on the same subject, the commentators seem to hint that "No Surrender to the IRA", was somehow as offensive as "I'd rather be a Paki than Turk". While the latter ditty offends two nations, the former has as I understand it been policy for successive British governments since sometime in 1916 and generally has offended only one." (Red Action "news June 2000")

Now how about you "Verify" The entire Red Action article or are you "Far too buisy"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.29.203 (talk) 04:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• I didn't write the entire Red Action article, so it is not my personal responsibility to back the whole thing up with references. However, if you are going to make vague insinuations and accusations on this talk page, you should back them up with direct evidence, instead of expecting readers (not just me) to do that work for you. I will read the rest of your post later and check those specific quotes to see if they somehow disprove that Red Action is an anti-facsist group.Spylab 15:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

P.S. You still haven't provided direct links to the appropriate text. Please paste the URLs to those pages so all readers can see exactly what you are talking about.Spylab 15:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Anonymous IP user, I just read your examples listed above and saw nothing to discredit the fact that Red Action is an anti-fascist group. Supporting the IRA and allegedly promoting sectarianism — while certainly controversial and offensive to many — does not mean they are not anti-fascist. Also, sectarianism, in the context of Ireland and the UK is not a form of racism, since neither side of the conflict is considered a race. The "Panorama" quote you pasted above, also does nothing to support your argument that Red Action is somehow not really opposed to fascism.Spylab 20:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous: I searched the Red Action website for several variations on "impregnating" shortly after spylab posted his first reply, and found nothing, so it seems to me unlikely that some assidous Red Action webmaster was scouring wikipedia's talk pages and was so intimidated by your comments as to remove the page immediately. I knew many Red Action members for many years, and never heard phrases like that. Their critiques of multiculturalism is controversial (I for one oppose it), but it is not in any sense an attack on non-white people. Similarly, their support for Irish Republicanism is also controversial (and again I oppose it), but they have been very clear about opposing sectarianism. Their Celtic fanzine is very much anti-sectarian, not pro-sectarian. As Spylab says, these positions cannot be seen as undermining the claim that RA are anti-fascist, by any sensible definition of fascism and anti-fascism. Please doo insert referenced, encyclopedically-worded statements about the contentiousness of Red Action's positions on multiculturalism, race attacks and Republicanism. Please don't add vague unsubstantiated slurs. BobFromBrockley 14:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know how to contact Red Action? I'm interested in some of their viewpoints and want to enter into a conversation with them. I tried their website. Any member of them will do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.91.184.187 (talk) 18:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Connection to Harrods bombing

I note a para has been added regarding a connection to the Harrods bombing. The only cited source does not apepar to me to be reliable, and the link to an outsider appears tenuous (it is not clear that the convicted person's membership of Red Action was current, nor that Red Action were directly involved in the bombing). Do other editors have views on this? hamiltonstone (talk) 03:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

A fellow traveller removed the original references which are from two published books.[2] In both books, the connection to political activism in regards to this organisation is mentioned as relevent. This organisation is strongly in favour of republicanism in Ireland (Grand Orientism), its one of the most notable parts of their ideology. The Red Action members who did it were not actually members of the IRA, they just planted the bomb for them. Republicans (and disapora parodies) have since tried to blank this information for reasons political expediency. - Yorkshirian (talk) 18:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I see. i think a case potentially (see following argument) could be made for a section to be included (though not as detailed as the one to which you provided the link), and which relies on the Geraghty and Mickolus, but which avoids any reliance on the searchlight webpage. As I see it, the problem here is that the only reference connecting the bombers to Red Action is the unreliable source (at least, that's the only source cited for this fact in the old version to which you linked). If either Geraghty or Mickolus state that the bombers were Red Action members, then I would support inclusion of a version of this text. If not, then I think it must be deleted from this article, and be confined to articles where the link is clear (eg PIRA). Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 23:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Neither book deals with Red Action (or AFA), and even if they did it would still be undue weight to include information about the actions of individual members in a short article about an organisation. In addition, the Searchlight link is fake and not a reliable source at all.

The "fellow traveller" (sic) remark, by the way, is inappropriate. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Both book mentions Red Action explicity. If the article is short, it is up to other people to expand, not remove information they happen to find inconvinent. There is no Wikipedia policy which says such a thing is acceptable. This organisation, as one of its main ideological precepts supports Republicanism in Ireland, two of its members set off a bomb in 1993 for the PIRA. That is incredibly notable and citation for it is given from reliable, academic books. What next, are people going to suggest "removing" 9/11 from Al-Qaeda article? - Yorkshirian (talk) 00:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)