Talk:Reclaim Australia

Untitled

I'm not sure why you don't find it helpful to include information on what the group actually believes in. I would think this would be the point of such an article. Otherwise the page is merely reporting the opinions of journalists who have been too lazy to actually do any research or speak to any group members. It's not outside the bounds of wiki editing rules to occasionally use information that is sourced from the author, especially in a case like this where it is essentially a quote. Your reversal of my edits was not helpful. --Mekinna1 (talk) 18:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Right wing?

I've added a 'By whom?' tag to the paragraph which states that the group's goals aren't right wing. I realise that the definition of right-wing politics used in the paragraph is taken from the Wikipedia page on that topic. But the same Wikipedia page also goes on to say 'The term "right wing" has been used to refer to a number of different political positions through history' which I feel would easily include The Australian Oxford Dictionary (2nd ed., 2004) definition of right wing as being, 'The conservative or reactionary section of society, a political party, etc.'. I'd argue that the stated goals of Reclaim Australia are clearly conservative (goals 16 and 24, for instance) although I'd agree they don't seem to be right-wing in the neoliberal sense. I'm not trying to shut down this aspect of the debate but wonder whether citations could be added please? Has anyone found a reliable source discussing such things? Meticulo (talk) 03:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• Ignore the above - it's redundant since the paragraph in question was deleted by another user on 12 October 2015. Meticulo (talk) 01:08, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Nationalist?

I've also removed the phrase '...who assumes that Reclaim Australia is a nationalist group...' which had been added to the paragraph of analysis from Whitford. I don't want to spark an edit war but think - from the group's stated goals alone - that it's fair to describe it as nationalist. Also, the fact that Whitford is assuming this is implicit in his analysis, and spelling it out in this way smacks of editorialising. Meticulo (talk) 01:03, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 06:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Anarchists

Um, 195.16.77.115, I'm unsure why you've removed anarchists from the counter-protesters paragraph. I agree it's a good idea to add the other types of activists (anti-racist and human rights) who aren't necessarily either anarchists or members of the Socialist Alliance but I think 'anarchists' should remain. Your edit summary says you decided to 'remove subjective terms'. However, the term anarchists isn't always subjective, or pejorative - some groups and individuals proudly refer to themselves as such. There is a reliable source - the Vedalago and Gough article from The Age - which states that anarchists were present:

"Right-wing group Reclaim Australia had only just begun its rally at 11am when counter-demonstrators from anti-racism groups and anarchists attempted to breach police lines on Spring Street."

Is this reasonable? What do others think? (I haven't added it back in yet.) Meticulo (talk) 02:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• No response, so I've reinserted 'anarchists'. Meticulo (talk) 11:55, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it isn't reasonable. Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 06:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality

I have restored the article to a previous neutral version after many POV edits that painted the organisation in a rather neo-Nazi light. It seemed to be relying on this Triple J article, but I don't see that article giving a basis for the recent edits anyway. StAnselm (talk) 14:03, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

@Bacondrum: you mention grammatical problems in the current version - obviously, I'm very happy for these to be fixed. What did you have in mind? StAnselm (talk) 22:18, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, firstly I'd like to say thanks for correcting me on the Australian Conservatives page regarding the use of original research and reliable sources. You helped me improve and understand contributing to wikipedia.

Regarding Reclaim Australia. All change I made were well referenced and done in good faith, the first reference you questioned was one of many used throughout the page that refer to RA as far-right. I'm happy to provide dozens more, but I think the National Broadcaster and two renowned and credible journalists is more than sufficient, but as I said - I can provide dozens of others, why not just ask for a better source? (TripleJ Hack is an ABC news service, the journo's are all credible and respected, it is not a music show or the hottest 100, it is a news service provided by the most respected broadcaster in Australia) You have reverted a large edit arbitrarily. I sat there for hours checking my references and fixing grammatical mistakes, you should have at least read carefully and compared versions before reverting all of that work. All claims are referenced and I can provide hundreds of newspaper articles that refer to them as far right and note that neo Nazis attend and are part of reclaim Australia. If you've got good faith edits to make then do so, But I've been diligent and fair in my editing. Please don't revert again or I will report you for edit warring (I don't want to report you, so please don't force me). The version you've reverted also included unreliable sources which I took a significant amount time fixing. If there is a problem with my references then please let me know (I've provided a short list of credible news sources that refer to them as "far-right" below), I've been sincere in my efforts and I'm willing to work to improve the page.

It is not neutral to ignore widely reported extremist elements within the movement. To ignore the fact that nearly every single article on the subject refers to them as "far-right" and "extreme" and almost all refer to the presence of neo Nazis at RA rallies would demonstrate a cognitive bias. Here are Links to just a small selection (I've come across at least twenty more) of articles that make it clear that Reclaim Australia is a far right hate group associated with neo Nazism:

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2016/election-2016-how-farright-politics-crashed-and-burned-in-australia-20160603-gpan6l.html

https://app.secure.griffith.edu.au/news/2016/11/25/far-right-extremist-groups-alive-and-well-in-australia/

http://www.news.com.au/news/the-antimuslim-rally-by-farright-group-reclaim-australia-was-a-fizzer-with-more-police-and-media-turning-up-than-protesters/news-story/ed41b1d49adeaa7451a8781568c2e867

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/20/anne-aly-reclaim-australia-is-the-product-of-rising-right-wing-extremism

http://www.news.com.au/national/crime/antiislam-antiracism-protesters-clash-at-violent-melton-rallies/news-story/8fa80333c646863c14eb2c8ffcc164fc

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/truck-driver-who-abused-cyclist-identifed-as-neonazi-connected-to-united-patriots-front-20160830-gr4h9f.html

http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/reclaim-upf-rallies/6995292

http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/the-rise-of-the-far-right/7858282

https://www.northernstar.com.au/news/opinion-lets-reclaim-aust-from-reclaim-aust/2599841/

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/far-right-nationalism-in-australia-is-just-as-dangerous-as-muslim-extremism/news-story/7623c2f913ea9a2899e8a14eb67e4855

https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/tensions-threaten-to-boil-over-at-brisbane-reclaim-australia-rally-20150404-1mekmb.html

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/oct/19/reclaim-australia-in-asios-sights-intelligence-chief-tells-senators

https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/law-crime/2015/07/25/inside-the-strange-dynamic-reclaim-australias-rallies/14377464002169

http://www.smh.com.au/national/blair-cottrell-leader-of-aussie-patriots-upf-wanted-hitler-in-the-classroom-20151016-gkbbvz.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3036447/The-moment-brave-man-stands-neo-Nazi-SWASTIKA-tattoo-head-Melbourne-protest-against-Islamisation-turns-violent.html

Thank you. Best regards.

Bacondrum (talk) 23:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

OK, let's go from the top. I'll grant you "far right". I won't grant you "which draws support from numerous nationalist and neo-Nazi hate groups". That's not in the Triple J article and that's the only one that references the claim. I'm not going to go through all the other articles you've listed above - if there is one that references the claim just tell me what it is. Next thing - you've not a sneaky WP:EASTEREGG link with "opposes Islam" linking to Islamophobia in Australia. If the consensus among neutral, reliable sources is that they're Islamophobic, then we just say that. You see what I mean about non-neutral edits? StAnselm (talk) 23:28, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Almost all of those articles discuss links to nationalist and neo-Nazi hate groups, some in the headlines. You still deleted arbitrarily. Again, I'm editing in good faith and have provided credible sources, unlike the version you reverted to.

Thanks for filling me in on WP:EASTEREGG I did not know about or understand how that worked, I'm still learning. Won't happen again, I appreciate the info. Will go and fix that now.

Best regards Bacondrum (talk) 23:42, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Woah - hang on! Only two of the links mention nazis: one of them refer to just a single man, the other says the "Reclaim Australia event was "crashed by neo-nazis". It's hard to go from there to "draws support from numerous nationalist and neo-Nazi hate groups" and even then - it does not appear that RA is encouraging/condoning neo-nazism. And yet that's exactly what your edits are suggesting, what with the sidebars, see also links, etc. You may have spent a long time on your edits, but overall they've made the article worse. StAnselm (talk) 02:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Well now you're just being obnoxious, they almost all mention connections with neo Nazi's, did you read them? I doubt it very much. I just had a quick check and found 9 instances clearly stating a connection between RA and neo nazism, not to mention the 12 mentions of far right and hate groups attending - that was a brief glance, 2 make the connection in their headlines.

I'm fine with the removal of the sidebars. If you have reasonable critiques to make I'm all ears, I'm still learning.

As for your rude insults, anyone with even the most basic grasp of English can see I've improved the article, the article you reverted to had incoherent sentences, poor grammar, shockingly bad references including one from Brietbart and another completely self serving one from RA's own website - appalling by any standard. I now doubt very much that I can take you on good faith. I must assume you are a supporter of RA if you are not then why not help and be constructive, why not suggest improvements rather than reverting without justification to a far worse version? Why be nasty, unless you are personally invested in RA?

I've provided references for all my assertions, if you don't think they cut the mustard then let me know, I will find better ones or remove them.

poor form mate Bacondrum (talk) 04:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually, you're jumping to conclusions and your strong feelings suggest that you're not in a position to edit the article neutrally. Anyway, specific claims need specific references: giving a whole lot of citations and saying, "the all support the connection" isn't good enough. The two I pointed out above suggest a much weaker connection than what you are arguing. StAnselm (talk) 04:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

What the bloody hell is wrong with the "See also" links? Just admit you are a supporter of RA vandalising content you don't agree with, no need to be insincere.

Bacondrum (talk) 04:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

If you feel like this, it might be right to step away from this article. In any case, as WP:SEEALSO explains, those links are only those that "would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic". There is no way in the world that such an article would mention Romper Stomper, for example. StAnselm (talk) 04:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I have no feeling either way about Reclaim Australia. You're deliberately ignoring poorly evidenced assertions in the version you reverted to and ignoring evidence in others. Your cognitive bias is obvious. The director of romper stomper has made it clear that his new series is based to a significant extent on RA and UPF.

I stand by all assertions made, if you can provide evidence that any reference is not credible or does not relates I'll find better sources, but the breadth of reporting on RA's far right and neo-Nazi associations is astounding. Hundreds of credible journos have drawn the connection. I'm acting in good faith, your rude tone and insults are shameful and strongly suggestive of bias.

Bacondrum (talk)

See, once again you fail to understand the need for reliable sourcing. You say "The director of romper stomper has made it clear" but you have not provided a source. It isn't even in the Romper Stomper (TV series) article. And that wouldn't explain why the Romper Stomper film article would be included. StAnselm (talk) 12:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

See also section doesn't need references. Why are you so desperate to play down the far-right and neo-Nazi connections. I could provide hundreds of articles, but I'm certain it would have no effect on you.

From wikipedia: "The links in the "See also" section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics."

Romper Stomper (both the movie and the series) explore far right subculture in Australia. Far right subcultures, especially those with demonstrable connections to neo-Nazis, are related as far they should be in regard to the see also section.

Most sources above are different to those referenced on the page. They were given to demonstrate the breadth of reporting that refers to them as far-right and draw connections to Neo-Nazism. RA spplinter group United Patriots front is discussed - this is a far-right group whose leader has called for Hitlers portrait to be hung in all classrooms. I've provided the sources and you belligerently ignore them, because you are unhappy about the Nazi connection for some reason. To ignore the extensive reporting on Nazi attendance would be clear bias. You can't just question neutrality because you don't agree. Again, poor form - Your cognitive bias is plain to see.

Until someone acting in good faith without the kind of cognitive biased displayed by your reverting to a poorly written, self serving version without attempting to reword or act in good faith questions the neutrality, I'm afraid I'm going to have to ignore your clearly desperate and bias attempts to deny demonstrable truths. As for your claims of POV...they are ridiculous, my interest stems from my Honours studies - I was appalled to see the self serving page on Reclaim Australia that existed when I looked them up. That is my only motivation, that they be presented accurately, not some sanitized PR piece by their supporters.

Also, you should not have just reverted without attempting to help improve first. From wikipedia: "If you see a good-faith edit which you feel does not improve the article, make a good faith effort to reword instead of reverting it." You failed to do this, suggesting you didn't care to, you were not acting in good faith from the outset. You're just vandalising a page you don't agree with. I've provided a new reference (one of hundreds that contain similar claims, which you either ignor or don't bother reading) And I've removed your neutrality bar. If a non biased editor comes along and makes the same claims about neutrality I'll respect it 100%, however you've not been acting in good faith and are clearly biased, you're just being petty really. The previous source was just as strong, but I realised The Australian has a paywall, so not all could read and verify claims. The new source is from the Fairfax publication "The Age" one of Australia's most respected news outlets and includes this quote among others that draw the neo-Nazi connection: "Funded by volunteers and organised largely via Facebook, the first and largest such group, Reclaim Australia, attracted large crowds to its early rallies - which included ordinary, worried Australians, but also attracted groups of neo-Nazis and significant counter-protests from the left"

That's a rock solid reference by any standard and I have heaps more that draw the same connection. If you have any more issues then call in a third party, I don't trust you.

Bacondrum (talk) 23:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

You are flagrantly breaking numerous policies and guidelines - please read them when I link to them. MOS:NOTSEEALSO says not to include links in the "see also" section when they are already in the article; MOS:OVERLINK says not to link to words like "Australia", etc. And you've still made assertions about the Q Society without providing a reference in the article. StAnselm (talk) 01:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: Posted at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. StAnselm (talk) 01:13, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I've read them and I'm not breaking the guideline, read them again. Please do not add maintenance templates without satisfactory explanation - references have been provided and you have not demonstrated how they are inadequate. The vexatious addition of POV tags may be considered disruptive editing

You are being vexatious in your editing. I am reporting you for edit warring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bacondrum (talk • contribs) 01:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

References

Opening line

I gather this has been discussed before, but the opening line currently reads "... which draws support from numerous nationalist and neo-Nazi hate groups". Checking the source, the relevant quite apperas to be:

"The medley of loosely associated ultra right-wing Nationalists and neo-Nazi groups include Reclaim Australia, The Patriotic Youth League ..." [1]

My concern is whether or not it is accurate to interpret "loosely associated" as "drawing support from". That seems a bit more than what the source is saying. Am I missing something? - Bilby (talk) 22:50, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Pls read the article and it's sources as a whole.....remember sources are not needed in the lead if its covers and is sourced in the article. Think of the lead source as a courtesy.--Moxy (talk) 00:37, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

If we're going to provide a source in the lead, it really should support the statement it is sourcing. If there are other sources that support the claim then that is good - but this is a simple case of either properly sourcing claims in the lead, or directing the reader to the body. Inaccurate or partial sources don't help. - Bilby (talk) 01:33, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

The English I speak and read makes it clear to me. What is it your looking for?--Moxy (talk) 02:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm looking for whether or not "drawing support from" is really synonymous to "loosely associated with". It seems to me that you can be associated with an organisation without being supported by it. - Bilby (talk) 02:51, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources for lead characterization

Overview of sources

I've gone through a number of newspaper, book, and journal articles to see how they characterize Reclaim Australia, and present those sources and associated text below. I don't pretend this is a comprehensive list; in particular I have only looked at a small fraction of media sources. Nevertheless there are common trends that emerge, particularly in book and journal article sources.

Reclaim Australia is frequently described as far- (or extreme-) right and anti-Muslim, and frequently compared with its more radical offshoot and ally, the United Patriot's Front. Both movements are described by one book as neo-Nazi, while other sources describe neo-Nazis following the movement or attending Reclaim rallies. Reclaim Australia is described as attempting to use minority faces, including Aboriginal members and symbols, to distance itself from charges of racism. The leadership of Reclaim Australia vigorously denies all charges of racism and have made public statements condemning racism.

A number of Australian newspaper sources, not linked here, provide no phrase (e.g. right, far-right) describing Reclaim's politics at all.

Media

• Sydney Morning Herald — [2] — A man who was briefly leader of Australia's most vocal anti-Islam street movement, the United Patriots Front, has a history online of supporting far-right causes, including wanting to hang a picture of Adolf Hitler in every Australian classroom… This is another example of the fracturing of the far-right — the United Patriots Front itself was an offshoot of Reclaim Australia. Mr Cottrell has created a strong personal brand with his fiery speeches at a number of Reclaim Australia rallies. He also led a recent mock beheading outside the Bendigo council offices to protest against the building of a mosque. Like others in the United Patriots Front and Reclaim Australia, he has tried publicly to distance himself from neo-Nazism... In one video Mr Cottrell explains the power and importance of propaganda using concepts and even words from Hitler's self-serving autobiography, Mein Kampf. In another video, Mr Cottrell's analysis of society and the need for force echo closely the "three pillars" sentiments expressed in Hitler's writing. Mr Cottrell became the leader of the United Patriot's Front – an offshoot of Reclaim Australia – this week.

• The Saturday Paper — [3] — The national Reclaim rallies of Easter were putatively led by Shermon Burgess, also known as “The Great Aussie Patriot”, who then split from the group in May after organisational disorder. His obnoxiousness and extremism, I am told, led to his alienation, and soon he was forming the United Patriots Front and taking the most militant with him. The two groups now have an uneasy alliance, the public enmity between Reclaim Australia and the UPF was expunged from Facebook. Burgess has begun describing his new group’s involvement diplomatically – his new group is no longer a challenge to the poseurs of Reclaim, it is part of a proud alliance... I have spoken to Reclaim protesters who deny the presence of neo-Nazis, suggesting they are a mischievous fiction of the left. But the entire movement – if you can call it that, its numbers so infinitesimal – involves an unholy alliance of extremists, neo-Nazis and crooks.

• The Guardian — [4] — Reclaim Australia has struggled to distance itself from the UPF, whose earlier formation represented the first split in a movement barely months old. It is led by Reclaim’s onetime chief social media promoter, the Canberra truck driver, neo-Nazi metal band member and self-proclaimed “Great Aussie Patriot”, Sherman Burgess... Oliver says Reclaim had earlier ejected Anderson and fellow neo-Nazi Ross May from their “patriot bus” which took protesters from Sydney to Melbourne... “Because that’s not who we are, we’ve done a lot of work to separate ourselves form them. That’s how the UPF was born. They were the hardliners who we didn’t want to be associated with a bunch of mum and dads like myself. We split them off; we got rid of the Nazi element real early.”

• International Business Times — [5] — The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) has said that radical right-wing organisations are a threat to the country's security. The intelligence's Director-general Duncan Lewis has mentioned ASIO is keeping an eye on such groups, particularly on Reclaim Australia – a body which holds rallies in cities across the country to protest against Islam. Lewis said that the group has "offered violence" in the past and will probably continue to do so when they confront pro-Islamic bodies. Officials had charged a member of the right-wing group under commonwealth terror laws in August for allegedly collecting or making documents to plan for terrorist acts.

• The Herald Sun — [6] — Rosaline Crestani, a representative of nationalist group Rise Up Australia, addressed right wing Reclaim Australia protesters stating if you’re a racist or a nazi to go home.

Books

• The Precarious Generation: A Political Economy of Young People, by Judith Bessant, Rys Farthing, Rob Watts. Routledge, 2017 — [7] — Alongside a growth of left-wing or progressive youth politics, is a growing network of young, radical ultra-right and ‘patriotic’ movements. Australia is one of many countries now home to an assemblage of far-right, paramilitary, ultra-nationalist, anti-semitic, anti-islamic, neo-Nazi movements, which are attractive to young activists (Liddington 2015). The medley of loosely associated ultra-right wing nationalists and neo-Nazi groups include Reclaim Australia, the Patriotic Youth League, the Australian Defense League, True Blew Crew…

• Tomorrow Belongs to Us: The British Far Right since 1967, by Nigel Copsey, Matthew Worley. Routledge, 2017 — [8] — The Australian far right still looks to Britain, as well as to the United States and continental Europe, for inspiration, with the latest incarnation, Reclaim Australia and the United Patriots Front, inspired by the English Defense League (EDL) and other anti-Islam social movements.

• Islamophobia and Everyday Multiculturalism in Australia, by Randa Abdel-Fattah. Routledge, 2017 — [9] — Early in 2015, a new far-right anti-Islam group emerged, Reclaim Australia, holding nationwide rallies against ‘halal tax, sharia law and Islamization.’ A splinter, even more extreme far-right group, the United Patriot’s Front, formed in early 2015, some of its key players having neo-Nazi connections. Both groups represent the most extreme anti-Muslim groups operating in Australia.

Journal articles

• Amanda Wise (2017) The Long Reach of the Riots: Denying Racism, Forgetting Cronulla, Journal of Intercultural Studies, 38:3, 255-270, DOI: 10.1080/07256868.2017.1314255 — [10] — The second mode of disavowal relates to the ways in which the ‘spectacular’ imagery of the riots and more recently protests by far-right group Reclaim Australia have captured and diverted attention away from more prosaic Islamophobic and anti-Arab racism... Instead, as we know, these views exist on a spectrum. Reclaim and rioters are certainly at the pointy end of this spectrum, but many of the underlying views exist in more subtle forms across a whole section of the population...

• Amelia Johns (2017) Flagging White Nationalism ‘After Cronulla’: From the Beach to the Net, Journal of Intercultural Studies, 38:3, 349-364, DOI: 10.1080/07256868.2017.1314259 — [11] — At the same time, Reclaim Australia and other white nationalist groups that have organised and grown their membership online in Australia, are enjoying unprecedented support from elected members of mainstream political parties, including the incumbent government. Reclaim Australia has been more successful in its communications strategy, staging numerous high publicity rallies in capital cities and regional centres around the country, with members attending draped in the Australian flag (some worn as face masks, in anticipation of police action) and with placards articulating anti-Islamic messages, in mimicry of the styles of self-representation seen in the Cronulla riots (Rocca 2015). An offshoot of the movement, the United Patriot’s Front, has also enjoyed mainstream exposure, being linked with the Bendigo anti-mosque demonstrations (Morris 2015). These events are largely organised through Facebook and other social media channels, with counter-protests by anti-racists providing enough potential of a spectacle of violent clashes to generate mainstream media publicity and to grow the online membership of these groups. Nonetheless, the communication strategies of these organisations do reveal internal contestation and ambivalence about what the groups represent. For example, in terms of the online identity it seeks to maintain, Reclaim Australia has tried to generate a larger supporter base by distancing itself from what it regards as the more ‘extreme’ white supremacist messaging of ADL and UPF. Although Shermon Burgess, a former member of ADL who also has a personal YouTube channel where he represents himself as ‘The Great Aussie Patriot’ was the most prominent figure in Reclaim Australia, and the visible face of the movement at a number of rallies, in 2015 he parted ways with the group, claiming: ‘attempts of political infiltrators trying to hijack Reclaim for their own agenda and a severe syndrome of too many chiefs and not enough Indians’ (News.com.au, 4 Aug 2015). In response, John Oliver, a committee member of Reclaim Australia told reporters that it was Burgess’ affiliation with ADL that was sullying the image of Reclaim Australia: ‘We basically said we don’t want to be affiliated with any groups that have any ties to extremists because they’re the people we are trying to fight. We don’t want to be seen as extremists ourselves’.

• Geoff Dean, Peter Bell & Zarina Vakhitova (2016) Right-wing extremism in Australia: the rise of the new radical right, Journal of Policing, Intelligence and Counter Terrorism, 11:2, 121-142, DOI: 10.1080/18335330.2016.1231414 — [12] — Recent anti-Muslim, anti-immigration rallies organised by a right-wing group known as Reclaim Australia attracted intense media attention on the phenomenon of right-wing extremism (RWE) in Australia (Baxendale, 2015): "The right-wing nationalist group Reclaim Australia held rallies in 18 different towns and cities over two days…The president of the Anti-Discrimination Board of New South Wales says racial cohesion in Australia is facing its greatest threat in 30 years…, after a weekend of racially charged anti-Islamist rallies around the country. (Lavoipierre, 2015, ABC News)" Researchers and media commentators point to what they see as a significant shift in the Right-Wing movement in Australia towards a more extreme far-right ideology: "Over the last decade Australia has seen a sharp increase in the emergence and visibility of far-right extremism, from pseudo political parties to organised groups to mobilising campaigns like Reclaim Australia. The ideological roots of extreme racist groups are no longer confined to men who hide behind white hoods or angry youths with shaved heads and swastika tattoos. Nor are their campaigns reserved for Africans, Jews and minority races. They now form the core system of an emerging extremist movement in Australia that targets Muslims and Islam under a thinly veiled guise of protecting Australia. (Aly, 2015, para. 5)"... When NRR groups capitalise on the politics of manipulating public fear with their contemporary anti-Islam and anti-immigration rhetoric designed to cloak their new far-right extremism persona in the language of concerned citizens and not racist ideologues, then community fragmentation becomes a real issue. This is the most challenging aspect of the NRR movement – under the guise of the narrative theme of protecting Western values, they are attempting to re-frame the view of respecting cultural differences and ethnic diversity through a policy of ethnopluralism that allows the NRR to claim they are not racist but in fact are anti-racism. The problem with this claim by the NRR is that their version of not being racist only extends to their country’ borders. NRR groups have demonstrated zero tolerance for intercultural exchange and dialogue other than to argue against it. that allows the NRR to claim they are not racist but in fact are anti-racism. The problem with this claim by the NRR is that their version of not being racist only extends to their country’ borders. NRR groups have demonstrated zero tolerance for intercultural exchange and dialogue other than to argue against it.

• Shakira Hussein & Scott Poynting (2017) ‘We’re Not Multicultural, but… ’, Journal of Intercultural Studies, 38:3, 333-348, DOI: 10.1080/07256868.2017.1314254 — [13] — …the populist anti-Muslim campaigning organisation, Reclaim Australia, formed in 2015... Visibly non-white faces (Aboriginal and Asian faces in particular) are given prominent positions at Reclaim Australia rallies, despite the presence of white supremacists. Islamophobia has become what Ghassan Hage (1998) refers to as a means of acquiring whiteness for those of racialised migrant background. These non-white supporters are cited as evidence that the movement is not racist, with Nalliah telling Reclaim Australia supporters ‘They call it a racist rally and here I stand, guest speaker and the official speaker – I’m not a white man, I’m black’ (Lavoipierre 2015). One highly visible innovation in the spectacle of racism since the Cronulla riot has been the prominent display of the Aboriginal flag at Reclaim Australia rallies. As the flag’s designer Harold Thomas told New Matilda, ‘[t]hey didn’t use the Aboriginal flag in Cronulla’ (New Matilda 2015). Along with this flag-waving, the patriots highlight the tiny but much vaunted number of Aboriginal Reclaim supporters at rallies in Victoria (who seem to be Christians associated with Danny Nalliah’s church) supposedly attending these events as a means to assert sovereignty as well as faith in the face of an Islamic ‘invasion’. Aboriginality functions here as a symbol of Australian authenticity and permanence in the face of Muslim immigration and disruption.

Discussion

I have to run but will return to this shortly. I welcome any and all discussion here. -Darouet (talk) 01:15, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

To follow up, I believe that based on the sources above, the status quo lead [14] is fairly accurate.

The sources indicate that Reclaim Australia has strenuously denied charges of racism, and made public statements denouncing racism / prohibiting racist language and imagery at their rallies. Sources also state that these statements, and use of aboriginal people / images in their rallies, are used by Reclaim Australia to protect themselves against charges of racism. There are however links between neo-Nazi and racist groups and individuals and Reclaim Australia, and sources present Reclaim's anti-racist statements more or less as tactical ploys. Anyway the article doesn't mention any of this and it should be included. -Darouet (talk) 18:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Add Islamophobia sidebar template

I think it's fairly obvious that they are Islamophobic and the article asserts as much: "Reclaim Australia primarily opposes Islam in Australia and is considered Islamophobic" and this has also been asserted in almost all the reference material, with many making some mention of the groups objections regarding Islam and Muslims for example:

• Sydney Morning Herald — [15] — A man who was briefly leader of Australia's most vocal anti-Islam street movement, the United Patriots Front, has a history online of supporting far-right causes, including wanting to hang a picture of Adolf Hitler in every Australian classroom… This is another example of the fracturing of the far-right — the United Patriots Front itself was an offshoot of Reclaim Australia. Mr Cottrell has created a strong personal brand with his fiery speeches at a number of Reclaim Australia rallies. He also led a recent mock beheading outside the Bendigo council offices to protest against the building of a mosque. Like others in the United Patriots Front and Reclaim Australia, he has tried publicly to distance himself from neo-Nazism... In one video Mr Cottrell explains the power and importance of propaganda using concepts and even words from Hitler's self-serving autobiography, Mein Kampf. In another video, Mr Cottrell's analysis of society and the need for force echo closely the "three pillars" sentiments expressed in Hitler's writing. Mr Cottrell became the leader of the United Patriot's Front – an offshoot of Reclaim Australia – this week.
• International Business Times — [16] — The intelligence's Director-general Duncan Lewis has mentioned ASIO is keeping an eye on such groups, particularly on Reclaim Australia – a body which holds rallies in cities across the country to protest against Islam.

So, what do you all think? Islamophobia side bar justified? Need more examples/evidence? Bacondrum (talk) 03:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

No, the article does not assert RA is Islamaphobic - it asserts that it is considered Islamophobic. There's a big difference. For that reason we normally avoid negative categories for organisations. This is made explicit in Category:Antisemitism ("It must not include articles about individuals, groups or media that are allegedly anti-semitic") but I think it applies to Category:Islamophobia as well. The same applies to sidebars, with the added point that sidebars are generally only included if they link to the article in question. StAnselm (talk) 04:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Anyway, any thoughts about adding the Islamophobia category and sidebar from other contributors? @Darouet: @Moxy: Bacondrum (talk) 23:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

By the way, the relevant guideline is WP:NAVBOX, especially WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. StAnselm (talk) 18:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't have any major objections to the term 'Anti-Islam' which currently appears in the sidebar. It's a fair description of Reclaim Australia on the basis of many statements reported by reliable sources to have been made at its rallies. However, perhaps it should link to the article Criticism of Islam rather than to Islamophobia?

Ethnic nationalism is a description I'm more dubious about, due to the variety of ethnicities seen at the rallies. If it were wholly up to me, I'd remove it from the sidebar.

Also, to add to the excerpts helpfully provided by Darouet, here's a couple that may be of interest, from the John Safran book Depends What You Mean by Extremist (2017):

p.4 - Someone who seems to be a United Patriots Front leader tries to settle the angry young man down. He doesn't want his group to be seen as neo-Nazis. Earlier, a tubby man with a swastika tattooed on his head (a different skinhead to the one in the photo) was chased off. Now this UPF leader climbs onto the ute and stands next to Pastor Daniel. He tells us his name is Blair Cottrell and gives a rousing speech about the dangers of Islam, punching his Popeye arms into the air. He says he's fed up with multiculturalism too. I look around to see if anyone else thinks it's odd he's sharing a ute with a Sri Lankan immigrant. Seems not.

Later in the book, Safran attends a negotiation between Mel Gregson, of No Room for Racism, and 'Barbara, a founder of Reclaim Australia'.

p.146 - Barbara explains that Reclaim Australia has gotten out of hand. That when it began it was meant 'to provide a space where people could air their concerns' about all sorts of issues, like ice in the community, and public housing waiting lists. 'It was never meant to be anything bad,' she claims.

Mel looks sceptical. She's previously told me she 'grew up bogan', so doesn't buy that class backs you into a corner where you have no choice but to lash out at Muslims.

Barbara says that after the Lindt Café siege some people in the group started talking about Islam. That's when the blokes from the UPF latched onto Reclaim Australia. She says she tried to keep them out but, as she found out later, a certain Reclaim attendee was a mole. That attendee was Pastor Daniel.

'We would have meetings and nut things out, organisational-wise, and he would send that straight over to the UPF.'

I decided against adding details from the latter excerpt into the article, due to multiple concerns, namely: these claims were made by a single person whose surname is not given; they differ from those of the founders already quoted in the article; and they were made in the context of a bid to avert violent clashes with counter-protesters at a forthcoming rally.Meticulo (talk) 16:52, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@Bacondrum: I do believe that adding an Islamophobia sidebar template is justified, since it would seem that Reclaim is the largest and most prominent example of this movement in Australia. -Darouet (talk) 18:22, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@Darouet and Meticulo: So do we have a consensus on that? Remove Ethnic nationalism and add Islamophobia side bar? I agree that Ethnic Nationalism is questionable, they do appear to be multi ethnic ie: "I look around to see if anyone else thinks it's odd he's sharing a ute with a Sri Lankan immigrant. Seems not."... Seeing how aggravated and unreasonable the "criticism of Islam" is in regard to this group I strongly believe the term Islamophobia is the correct term, they demonstrably go well beyond genuine or reasonable criticism, with speakers at rallies making declarations like "insult and vilify Islam five times a day if you want to." Bacondrum (talk) 01:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Yep, I reckon we're close enough to consensus to justify adding Islamophobia to the side bar. I won't oppose it. Meticulo (talk) 06:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@Meticulo: I think we might be talking about different things. You seem to be talking about adding "Islamophobia" to the infobox rather than adding Template:Islamophobia to the article. StAnselm (talk) 19:09, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@StAnselm: I stand corrected. Ta for clearing that up. I wouldn't oppose such a template being added, particularly if it's necessary to add Reclaim Australia to the list of Organisations therein (I'm unclear on the technicalities). Meticulo (talk) 17:45, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I think there would need to be a discussion at Template talk:Islamophobia regarding it's inclusion there. But I do (currently) oppose the inclusion of the template since it doesn't appear that it is widely accepted that the group is Islamophobic. At the moment the article says it is "considered Islamophobic" - i.e. we are not stating it in WP voice. StAnselm (talk) 19:21, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@Bacondrum: I don't think you got the consensus you were after on the template talk page; why did you add it back in? StAnselm (talk) 19:34, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@StAnselm:Notice that no other pages mentioned in the series are mentioned on the talk page? That's because no one sort consensus, because they don't need to. You are so full of it. Bacondrum (talk) 21:50, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Can we try to keep this discussion civil, please? As per Wikipedia:Civility. Thanks. - Meticulo (talk) 00:19, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

@StAnselm: Fine, you can have that one. You are wrong though, these people are Islamophobes and neo-Nazis - I've seen them on the streets, swastika tattoos and racist chanting and the works. If you want to pass them off as "concerned citizens" that's on you. Bacondrum (talk) 22:29, 4 April 2018 (UTC)