Talk:UK Uncut

Richard Seymour

Is the Richard Seymour article a big enough thing to be included in the Wikipedia page??? It seems to me like it is just one blogger writting one article so it should be deleted. What do people think?? Are there any guidelines on this sort of thing?? --Allie Cabab (talk) 11:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Probably not. Although we can use self published sources like blogs if the authors are an authority on the subject, as is the case here, if you read the posting it is actually not criticising UK Uncut per se e.g. "I think these protests have been wonderful." He's actually talking about a spokesman for the group and his views, which considering that UK Uncut has no central organisation, is obviously not a criticism of the group as a whole. Considering this, I think it should be removed and as you've already suggested it, I'll be bold and do it. SmartSE (talk) 11:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Balance?

This article seems rather unbalanced. I've seen countless criticism of this group in newspapers and the like. For example, they are very selective in terms of their targets - they'll pick on Boots and Barclays but not Premier League football or the Guardian. Or the fact that they focus their fire exclusively on businesses rather than on the politicians that created these tax loopholes in the first place. At the moment it reads like an SWP newsletter. MultipleTom (talk) 19:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

If there are sources then add them! I can't say I've seen them though tbh, but maybe I don't read the right things. SmartSE (talk) 19:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed - Clear to most of us in the UK that "Uncut" is a ragtag bunch of activists. The same rent-a-mob that protest globalisation, road building etc. Not worth the precious bytes of Wikipedia storage IMHO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.90.165 (talk) 23:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

uh oh looks like the "get a job" brigade are coming to wikipedia. If you've got references for your acusations add them, I know some of what your saying is complete rubbish, for example the SWP have nothing to do with UK Uncut, in fact they have been quite critical of it. Allie Cabab (talk) 02:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay... so maybe you could write about the SWP's criticism in the article as well? Or do you prefer to present the case in a totally one-sided fashion? MultipleTom (talk) 10:48, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Well I'm mostly talking about people I know in the SWP, I dont know of any articles where they have really critisised UK Uncut. If you look at the above article you can see one that is sort of criticism but it was decided that it wasn't really a criticism of the whole group so it was removed. If you know of references for criticism then please add it as it would be great if we could make this article better, its a bit bare at the moment. Allie Cabab (talk) 15:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Rupert Murdoch "pie" incident

There have been two attempts so far to add today's "pie" incident to this article. The attacker, or rather prankster, is said to be a member of UK Uncut, but he apparently acted off his own bat, and his actions have not been endorsed by UK Uncut, so as far as I am concerned an account of this episode does not belong in the article, not to mention it was a trivial incident and likely nothing more than a publicity stunt by an individual trying to make a name for himself. Dubmill (talk) 21:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Content removed

This information has been removed from the article:
Rupert Murdoch was targeted by a UK Uncut member on the 19th of July 2011 during a parliamentary select committee on culture, enquiring into the News of the World phone hacking scandal. In a 'custard pie' style prank involving shaving foam, the assailant launched the pie at Murdoch whilst he was being interrogated by a conservative select committee member. The UK Uncut Twitter account announced that it was not an official action, but that it was "rather funny".

The original wording is not mine, I restored it to add in a reference and information about UK Uncut distancing themselves from the events. That being said, UK Uncut are being linked to this online already, it appears that the guy who threw the pie is a prominent member. When the papers come out tomorrow (which are all going to link this to UK Uncut) people will come to this page for information. 132.206.157.47 (talk) 21:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, I think you have a point and I was too hasty. I have put a description of what happened back into the article but I have made it shorter, omitting trivial information or unnecessary detail. Dubmill (talk) 22:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Let's be clear - yes he is apparently an activist with UK Uncut, but that does not mean that Murdoch is a target of UK Uncut. As UK Uncut publicly states it was not a UK Uncut action. If this is mentioned elsewhere, then it might be appropriate to include a link to this article, mentioning he is an activist with UK Uncut, but I don't think it should be included here. Unless someone can come up with a more convincing reason to keep it in, I'll remove it soon. (I also merged the two sections that had been started on this above) SmartSE (talk) 15:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

And the perpetrator also said "For those of you in any doubt, yesterday had nothing to do with #UKUncut." SmartSE (talk) 15:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

So both the organization and the individual have stated that it's not an Uncut action. This fails both WP:RECENTISM and, most importantly, relevance. Re-removed. Rostz (talk) 00:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks SmartSE (talk) 11:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Controversies and criticisms section for UK Uncut

Given some of the criticisms and controversies (arrests of some of its members at Fortnum & Mason), this editor wishes to ask whether it is appropriate for this article to have a "criticisms and controversies" section.Galafax (talk) 00:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this article needs one, but please refer to WP:CRITS and WP:NOCRIT and describe why you think it does. Rostz (talk) 01:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)