Talk:Combat 18

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2019 and 21 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JohnnyBravo456.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:06, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposed merger with Racial Volunteer Force

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

I'm not seeing a strong consensus to merge here. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

---

I think that parts of the article Racial Volunteer Force should be merged into this article (In a section entitled 'Splinter groups' or somesuch), for the following reasons:

1) The RVF article is very short, barely above stub level, in fact. 2) The subjects featured in the articles are very similar (The RVF article defines by a pipe to C18 and an explanation that it is a splinter group!) 3) RVF article is very poorly written, unlikely to be expanded much and seems very overlooked by all, so quality of RVF information could benefit from being on the larger C18 page. 4) RVF requires knowledge of C18 to understand exactly what they want.

What do you think? 94.14.32.221 (talk) 21:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

1) True, but there are thousands (millions, possibly) of stub articles on Wikipedia. 2) The similarity of the articles point is also true although not a valid reason for merger. There are plenty of articles about similar topics that are kept separate. Being a splinter group of something does not automatically mean an article should be merged into the parent organisation's article either. See Loyalist Volunteer Force for an example of how a splinter group article can be brought up to a very high standard (a standard which I concede the RVF article is nowhere near) 3) "Very poorly written" is not only hyperbole (parts of it are ropey but there's a lot worse on here) but also easily fixed. "Unlikely to be expanded much" - how can you tell that? There's no way of knowing whether or not something will be expanded. And I can't really see how importing all that to another page will make any improvement in content. 4) Irrelevant. Barack Obama requires knowledge of President of the United States but you wouldn't seek to merge them. OK, that's an extreme example and clearly neither article approaches the quality of those but I'm just sing that as an extreme example to demonstrate why one article requiring knowledge of another is not in itself a valid reason for merger.

For my part I am not 100% opposed to merger in this case but none of the arguments advanced here are very convincing. Keresaspa (talk) 01:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Further to point three I have now made some expansions and cleaned up some of the grammar and spelling issues you mentioned. Now if you hadn't raised the issue I probably would not have bothered doing that so the system works! Keresaspa (talk) 02:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I perhaps ought to have combined points 1 and 3 into a more cohesive point in hindsight - It is a short article (although the sectioning seems to have done wonders, so that is perhaps just a false impression on my part.) and by 'unlikely to be expanded' I mean within a reasonable amount of time - apart from your edit the last edit was in March 2011! I will argue that the similarity, in this case, is a cause for merging - there is a significant overlap the way I see it. The RVF group literally defines itself by Combat 18 on the page! Of course, this adds to my fourth point, which is the context of the article. Barack Obama does not really need prior knowledge of the presidency, but RVF most certainly does need background material and context from Combat 18 in order to fully understand exactly what they are. My arguments come from the 'several good reasons' list on the Rationale section of WP:MERGE, so I am not sure that I am totally wrong here. 94.14.58.87 (talk) 23:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I think we can drop the context one, it seems alright now.94.14.58.87 (talk) 23:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think your totally wrong here either and I think you make some valid points, particularly the point about their website linking them directly to Combat 18. But as long as the two articles link to each other the fact that you need to understand one to grasp the other doesn't matter IMHO as you can click on the link. Admittedly having them on one page might be convenient but it might also give the false impression that they are identical. They are both fairly esoteric topics but similar closeness of articles exists elsewhere e.g People's National Party (Russia) and Aleksandr Ivanov-Sukharevsky would probably have to be read together, ditto Loyalist Volunteer Force, UVF Mid-Ulster Brigade and Billy Wright (loyalist). In both of these cases reading one without the other(s) might diminish your understanding but it doesn't preclude their separate existence. You also made a valid point about a lack of activity on the page but in part I put that down to it being a niche area of expertise. Outside of the British National Party and its current leaders, the English Defence League and possibly the National Front (UK) editing on most British far right articles is sporadic at best and tends to be done by me and two or three others, as well as the odd vandal. However this exchange of ideas has led me to return to the article and I'll keep looking to expand it. On that basis, merger or not, this has been a worthwhile exercise. And one other point, your abilities to argue your point of view whilst listening to opposing views and to keep a cool head throughout are commendable virtues in a Wikipedia editor and personally I would be happy if you chose to register as a user and become a regular contributors. People with valuable contributions to make are always needed round here and I reckon you are one. Keresaspa (talk) 02:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Hear, hear Emeraude (talk) 10:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Please don't merge

As I see it, Combat 18 and Racial Volunteer Force are separate, though closely related articles. Therefore, there is no reason for merging. Quoting from Merging information page, Rationale section:

Merging should be avoided if [...] The separate topics could be expanded into longer standalone (but cross linked) articles.

I would like to close the merging discussion, but User 94.14.58.87 has not contributed since November 16, 2011, so I don't know if he/she will ever have a chance to comment on this...

Sapere aude22 (talk) 16:10, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:37, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

C18 membership and police/prison service

Combat 18 members are barred from joining the British Prison Service and police.

Is the converse true? That is, are serving members of the Prison Service and Police banned from joining C18? Do these bans apply to all British police forces? Centrepull (talk) 22:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The ban is on all prison and police officers being a member of C18, and certain other groups. So, C18 members will be barred from joining the police, and serving police officers cannot join C18, or they will be dismissed. It applies to all UK police forces. Emeraude (talk) 16:38, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

If I can clarify the situation, prison and police officers are prohibited by their own organisations from joining C18. C18 itself does not prohibit its own members from joining either force.

Nuttyskin (talk) 02:12, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

BNP? Plastering tools?

It says a little ways into the article that he "split decisively with the BNP...". I've looked all though the article and I don't find anything that might give me a hint as to what "BNP" means. Is that just something that everyone is supposed to know automatically? Is it "British Native Party"? "British National Party"? "Bashing Negros Party"? "British National Petroleum"? I have no idea. I find by googling that there is indeed such a thing as the "British National Party", and so I'm going to guess that that's what it means, but somehow it doesn't seem like I ought to have to rely on Google to understand the contents of a Wikipedia page..45Colt 21:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I see it does actually mention the British National Party about halfway down the page. But it seems like perhaps the first use of the term ought to be spelled out, and the second one written in short, not vice versa.

Also, what is with "return his plastering tools"?

  "The rival faction, led by Wilf "The Beast" Browning, wanted Sargent to return the C18 membership list, in exchange for the return of his plastering tools and £1,000."

I thought at first it said he wanted him to return TO the membership list, and that made me even more baffled. Now I see that it says "return the membership list". Is this saying that Browning was holding Sargents plastering tools hostage and was offering him 1,000 pounds cash in exchange for the list back, because he was worried it'd pall into police hands? If so, it seems like it could be written better; took me a minute to figure out what it was saying. You have to infer a lot from a single sentence, and it would be better if it first stated that one held the membership list, and the the other held his plastering tools, etc, and then stated that they worked out a deal for exchange, instead of just jumping right past all that..45Colt 21:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Copyright claim

Deletion of Illustration on all combat 18 articles in different languages, advice to the claim of any ideological attack, this will be directed on all social media if needed, the issue will be disputed in court, or any measure needed to revert this misunderstanding on the same perpetual legal grounds that this construct of ideological attacks are based, per country, Norway, Netherlands, United States, France.

(fyi the logo of the Rote Armee Fraction was not deleted, indication of selective vandalism.

To the editor (?) that asked for uploading the original images, I will do so before 28th of march 2017.

Aan JCB, dhr J. Bos

De illustratie die bij dit artikel hoort, Combat 18, is copyright, zonder toestemming van ontwerper (EJ Vening) is de illustratie verwijderd- verwijt ideologische vandalisme - juridische grondslag mist, extern beoordeeld. EJVening eist correctie met terugwerkende kracht. Wilt dhr J. Bos contact met mijn advocaat in Nederland, of de oprichter van Wikipedia een schrijven van mijn advocaat in Frankrijk, ik verwijt selectieve ideologische vandalisme, evident opgezet om fracties te verstoren. Alle illustraties Combat 18 RVF zijn eigendom van onafhankelijke participant.

March 26-2017

Please avoid any misunderstanding about this issue, obvious deletion is a selective ideological attack and copyright nfringement. The claim about copyright violation is false, which I can prove. I claim copyright of all (4) illustrations related to the article. JCB is in violation with national law in the Netherlands, however, I do not only dispute the deletion in the Netherlands, I delegate the issue on all social media, if JCB decides to negate this vandalism which is a construct of hosting iomags that are ruled out on ideological grounds, moreover, selective ideological ,

This is unjustified, indirect vandalism, which I take personally for the claim of copyright infringement, I do not advocate any ideology per se.

If my claim is proved true, that the construct of this ideological attack is true, external picture databases that not only claim copyright on copyrighted illustrations but also "validate" images, without any proof, missing any juridical correspondence where or when these images were disputed in court.

JCB for Mr. Johan Bos, please elaborate on which grounds your (wikipedia external hosts) hold these images, if you want.

Signed,

EJVening.

The Combat 18 fraction logo.

"Here be dragons" , a White dragon. This is for RVF readers that understand the obvious mistake about this illustration, is known. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rijndaal (talk • contribs) 12:44, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

You can claim copyright all you want, that's all the more reason why we can't use it. If you are the copyright holder, then you have a conflict of interest with this article's subject and should not be editing it. Wikipedia does not tolerate legal threats. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:53, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Illustrations done by me are released under Creative Commons, however I do claim an ideological attack, Sir, I am Dutch with this -do not be mistaken- understand what is taken for ideological attack as vandalism with this external "imagehost" construct, is not about raising the issue in any court, which is beyond Wikipedia, but on the same a priori premises of selective vandalism, up to me to raise the issue to any measure needed, in any country. It's "more reason" than you will understand what and who involved with this will be accused of ideological attack and advocating this, in the Netherlands.

"Here be dragons". A White dragon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rijndaal (talk • contribs) 13:10, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Could you try to be clearer? In attempting to sound formal and haughty, you've come across as very unclear. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

why does "Charlie Sargent" redirect here

Is there a reason why "Charlie Sargent" redirects to Combat 18? Was there a (presumably poorly written) WP about him previously? and then what- why was it redirected ?

Does anyone know?--Wuerzele (talk) 21:07, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Assault on Owen Jones and subsequent sentencing of Combat 18-related attackera

Perhaps the exposure of these villains will illustrate the continuing danger. James Healy, 40, from Portsmouth, had extensive Combat 18 "memorabilia" and other evidence of involvement. Liam Tracey, 35, from Camden, London, and Charlie Ambrose, 31, from Brighton, were also sentenced for their part in the assault. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jul/24/chelsea-fan-jailed-for-attack-on-guardian-journalist-owen-jones?fbclid=IwAR27z_3wcDl3a2Fjm1suS2VbRkNb3cIwpYVGBtWtuJOpKq_3OeIAuLqr0dQ 2.31.162.38 (talk) 07:17, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Actually, according to the report, he had one badge and a card with a C18 slogan, among other slogans. Neither confirm him as a C18 member, and the article does not say he is either. You might as well damn all Chelsea supporters on the same basis. Emeraude (talk) 07:30, 25 July 2020 (UTC)