Talk:English Defence League/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Making a mockery of Wikipedia

I have just discovered that for over 24 hours now, the opening passage of the article has contained the following unsourced assertion: "The EDL is opposed to racism and says that it is "keen to draw its support from people of all races, all faiths, all political persuasions, and all lifestyle choices". As far as I can tell, this pure pro-EDL POV was added with no debate at all on this discussion page. The EDL is opposed to racism? Are you joking? What on earth will the average reader think of this on-line encylopedia when they see nonsense like that? I will now delete the offending sentence, and if it reappears I will simply change the phrase "opposed to racism" so it reads "supports racism". Multiculturalist (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Leave out this rubbish please. It's not about what you say, but how you say it (talk) 09:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Its valid for it to be there as a claim, but not in the lede so I have moved it. It needs referencing, and ideally one of the sources which says it is racist should be summarised and put there for balance. Both of you need to calm down and stop provoking each other - please .... --Snowded ^TALK 09:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Ideology

I've removed both 'racist' (sic!) and 'far-right' as supposed ideologies, as - after a quick look - they definitely weren't supported by 2 out of the 3 sources given for the intro, namely Timesonline.co.uk and Guardian.co.uk (I was not going to watch the video clip also linked there).
Let us state plainly, that it's a single-issue anti-Islam(ist) movement. There are further sections below for controversy. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 23:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Clear academic and broadsheet references. Some of those appear to have gone "missing" over recent edits so we need to be more alert here. I haven't time to go back over the history at the moment to see what that happened. --Snowded ^TALK 06:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

As far as you have none (and I actually wonder, if we've really got scholarly sources already, too, that yu promised), you shouldn't include this. As for newspapers, we have to use them (as long as we've got not better ones), with the preference for more recent issues (some seem to be from summer, last year). Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 11:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

There are a couple of sources that look scholerly for this claim. Plus multiple media referances. If you have any counter referance could you provide them?Slatersteven (talk) 11:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed Miacek seems to be making a statement without any substance. --Snowded ^TALK 11:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the issue has been adequately addressed already, cf. Talk:English_Defence_League#Far-Right, Talk:English_Defence_League#Far Right - it seems the same users facing each other still hold the same views with no real consensus yet. As for 'counter-reference', I don't know what you mean by that but some users indeed have tried to advance the thesis, too, that sources that do not qualify the EDL as 'far-right', but simply qualify it as 'right-wing' would add support to the idea, that the present qualification does not reflect a societal consensus. There was this link, too, offered by someone above. So at least yesterday I was quite unsure, whether there's a consensus in mainstream media. On the other hand, it is true that a very recent piece of the centre-left Guardian talks about both “Thousands of far-right activists from the English Defence League” and “Members of the right-wing EDL listen[ing] to the group's founder”.
I agree that cleaning up the references (incl. regional newspapers) is a step forwards. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 12:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeh, check the archives; start here Talk:English_Defence_League/Archive_4#Straw_Poll_issue_1 and work down. This has been hashed out for several months and consensus was to describe them as far-right based on sources. --Errant ^(chat!) 12:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

the info box picture

The info box picture doesn't appear to broadly represent this group , has this been discussed before,let me know if there are links - it justs looks like some strange person in a mask with a policeman - I don't think that is a decent picture to represent this group, are there not more pictures more representative of the group as a whole? Or do all the group wear this mask? Off2riorob (talk) 06:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

It has been briefly discussed. Given that they actively sell the masks and seem proud of them it does seem representative --Snowded ^TALK 06:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, snowded, have you got links and cites to your claims,? That the group actively sells these masks in the picture and a cite that this group are proud of this infobox mask and a link to the previous discussion if you have them , please. Is the mask in the infobox representative of the group, is there a citation that says, the group all wear these masks?Off2riorob (talk) 06:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

check their site, last time I looked at it they were selling them. Otherwise I look forward to your finding a photograph with a rs citation that says it is representative.--Snowded ^TALK 07:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Can't see what the problem is. The photo is taken from one of their own rallies and features a masked supporter and a copper. (The masks are common features at their rallies). What should we do to make the photo "fair" to the EDL? Superimpose a halo above the bloke's head, perhaps? Maybe add some garlands of flowers to him so everyone can see how much the ethnic minorities appreciate what a lovely bunch of people the EDL are? Multiculturalist (talk) 10:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Will your for one second M, stop focusing your effort on makeing the EDL look as bad as possible, and just try and make a decent article. It's exhausting having to read that rubbish. I never write anything praising the EDL, but you always seem to write things attacking it. As for the matter at hand, I've said that I think a bigger picture would be better. Here is just one guy and there ought to be a bigger representative of what they do. I.E street march. Let's find a photo where they're marching, if they're wearing the masks then that in itself backs up the point made by snowed. If theyr'e not, theyre obviously not very popular. Let's be pragmatic about this people. It's not about what you say, but how you say it 13:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The picture id clearly not representative of the group and is a negative reflection of the group as a whole - we have other pictures and a simple shot of the group marching, which is what they do should be more NPOV and a more honest reflection of the group as a whole in the infobox. Off2riorob 13:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Seems a perfectly reasonable picture to use as far as I'm concerned. Absolutely and clearly representative of the group, showing one of their members wearing their logo'd merchandise. Emeraude 13:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I mwill ask again why is the idea of showing a demo as the picture so wrong (as opposed to a phtot of one person (who is this poerson are they a notable member?)?Slatersteven (talk) 16:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Picture changed, more inclusive, should suit everyone. Good job Snowed, thankyou. It's not about what you say, but how you say it (talk) 17:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Presumably if someone comes up with a picture of them rioting, you won't like it. The 'orderly' march is not a true reflection of the group - it is a lie - just like the claim that they oppose racism which I had to delete from the opening sentence. Multiculturalist (talk) 18:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

So a picture showing one man standing about is not a lie, but showing a lot of them doing it is?Slatersteven (talk) 18:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree the current picture is an improvement rather than a "lie". Multiculturalist, if you worried that the pic shows the EDL as uncharacteristically peaceful, you could propose inserting another picture elsewhere in the article. --Pontificalibus (talk) 19:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Good idead. Done. Emeraude (talk) 19:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I may be missing something, but at no stage above to I see any agreement to change the picture. We have three editors happy with the original and three who want to change it that is not a consensus for change. Alexandre's revert breaks WP:BRD and has a very misleading edit summary. Why he says "Good job Snowed" I have no idea. Neither can I see what a picture of a line of police dogs has in any picture gallery. However in the spirt of compromise I am happy to leave the new photo in the lede, but will place the original in the body. If people are not happy with that then we go back to yesterday's long standing position and discuss changes. --Snowded ^TALK 21:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the supporters of the EDL will "discuss changes" and then when they cannot get the consensus they need they will change the article in the way they want anyway. Multiculturalist (talk) 01:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Shutup Multi, we're not supporters. Stop attacking us. WE're not doing it to you. I'm fed up with your chickenshit It's not about what you say, but how you say it (talk) 06:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I will ask once more to stop PA's and AGF.Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

unnecessary large template

What is going on with this large unnecessary template at the top of the talkpage and the article announcing sockpuppets and banned users ? The article is semi protected, it just needs a padlock is plenty. Off2riorob 13:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

be aware that Wikipedia is upgrading (!!) its software today. Look at the article - layout has changed beyond all recogintion without a single edit. Emeraude 14:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, right, I thought that was how the opponents of the group liked it. Thia article is a shame on the project. And contributors that are unable to help create a decent NPOV article should walk away from it and leave neutral people to write something worthwhile. Off2riorob 14:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

good idea Rob but you will be missed. :-). --Snowded ^TALK 14:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Not, really, it is quite clear to me and I am quite sure to a fair few others that this article is being controlled by a group of editors that are strongly opposed to the group and imo from what I have seen that group unable to edit the artcle in a NPOV manner, and you can make your jokes hoho, but the article and the group that are controlling it are the joke. Off2riorob 14:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

But let's not mention those editors who are supporters and apologists, shall we. Emeraude 14:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

OK lets stop the PA and ABF and why not just change the picture if its not important? Lets have a picture of an actual demo.Slatersteven (talk) 14:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The template is a standard template explaining the reason for the protection. Off2riorob, are you aware of the problems last month? Dougweller (talk) 14:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the problem here is that anyone who wants to make the group look bad can't believe for a second that anyone couldn't give a rats arse about the group, but just wants to make the article decent. Perhaps they're right. Sure I have nothing in common with the EDL apart from disliking sharia law. I would like to think I'm slightly more on the ball and educated than most of it's members. What I can't stand is seeing these sorts of controversial articles ruined by highly critical POV. Sure the facts you find can be sourced, but pretty much anything can be these days. If you look hard enough you could make Chaiman Mao look like a hero. It's not about what you say, but how you say it (talk) 16:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Which should not be surprising, because to a great many people Chairman Mao is a hero. Emeraude (talk) 19:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Hitler is also inspiring to some ;) don't play that card. It's not about what you say, but how you say it (talk) 19:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

We work from reliable sources and have to maintain a NPOV pay attention to weight etc. etc.. At the moment you seem to making a series of general POV accusations without being specific and claiming some special status for your position. That is disruptive, either reference the material you find difficult and make your case or leave it out. Why have you changed your signature by the way - its overlong and makes your contributions more difficult to follow. --Snowded ^TALK 06:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

It serves as a casual reminder as to waht is possible in an "encyclopaedia" if people just use the right words. It's not about what you say, but how you say it (talk) 06:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

No, you are making unspecified accusations, either raise them properly or stop throwing them out --Snowded ^TALK 07:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Attack on Hindu Temple by EDL thugs

Can someone please explain why this appears to have been removed from the table? I do not have the time to try and identify at what stage it was removed (or by whom) by it was there only a week or so ago and was properly sourced. Or do some simply regard such factual content as too embarrassing for the EDL, thus justifying its removal from the article? Multiculturalist (talk) 01:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

If I remember it the sources do not explicitly link the EDL to the attack they only imply it --Snowded ^TALK 05:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

New photograph

I'm rather impartial to the photograph to be honest, and I know it wasn't me who changed it, but I guess I can see where he's coming from. Just showing one man on the front cover doesn't really give a great insight into what they do. I think the second picture shows their boisterous nature and street march antics more clearly. What do we think ? Alexandre8 (talk) 21:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

More the mask than the man, and its image they actively promote, including selling the masks --Snowded ^TALK 21:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't understood, could you try and help my tired mind and say that again somehow. :( Alexandre8 (talk) 21:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The picture is less one man and more one mask. Its an image that IDL actively promote. They sell the masks so they obviously think its an image which summarises their identity. --Snowded ^TALK 21:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

But their marches aren't in the picture at all. How about a picture of a masked march ;)? Alexandre8 (talk) 22:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

possible, happy to look at options --Snowded ^TALK 22:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the two images used in the article as well as this one [1] are all equally illustrative of the topic. I think the one we are currently using in the infobox is a particularly good example of a user-created image, though. I think it does give a good insight, because it shows off their merchandise. It doesn't show lots of demonstrators, but it is clear that it was taken during a demonstration, so it is still a good illustration of their main activity. Crowd pictures are all well-and-good, but the detail gets lots when the image is shrunk to fit the infobox. --FormerIP (talk) 22:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Would it not make far more sense to obtain or create an identical image of the EDL logo and then move the picture currently being used into the section -Protest- or -Association with violence and anti-social behaviour - Johnsy88 (talk) 22:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Think that was discussed before, but it was not clear that they actually have a consistently-used logo. The main image on their website where you might expect a logo is actually similar to the one we are using in the infobox currently. --FormerIP (talk) 22:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah actually i think you right, looking at there shop and website it appears they vary the image slightly and it does seem inconsistent.Johnsy88 (talk) 22:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

regarding photo of masked march - http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_XLxL5xIl-m8/TQWPDYHIqkI/AAAAAAAADZg/iUuw4DIZiaU/s1600/article-1338080-0C75B4CD000005DC-505_634x420.jpg Johnsy88 (talk) 23:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

That would be a great image to use, but we need images that are copyright free or Creative Commons licenced for commercial use. --FormerIP (talk) 23:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree it's a good photo - although I think it should be cropped to exclude the flags of the Star of David. Some Jewish people would be deeply offended that that bunch of neo-Nazi holocaust deniers are defiling their symbol, and it is surely not for Wikipedia to promote the EDL's lie that they care about Israel. Regarding the other suggested photo - I think it might have been proposed by Alexandre8 - this seems to me to be too much like the image which the EDL want to promote of themselves (i.e. a seemingly orderly march - something they're not reputed for - and lots of flags of St George). The caption on the foremost flag - "North East England Infidels" - is just a piece of implied Islamophobia masquerading as a slogan. Personally, I prefer the original pic of one masked EDL thug and one police officer. Multiculturalist (talk) 00:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow, if I look at [2] bottom/right, it looks like the EDL yellow jacket is the same as the police yellow jacket. How can they get away with that? --Whaledad (talk) 01:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't be fooled. That's written on the back of all police yellow jackets... --FormerIP (talk) 02:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)#

Where did you get that? I can't find any confirmation of that. [3]. --Whaledad (talk) 02:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)]

May I please ask that you tone down your language Multiculturalist, it's really not very nice to eye to read, and remember you're here to further the article ect ect. Alexandre8 (talk) 06:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

THere is no personal attack there. The phrase " bunch of neo-Nazi holocaust deniers" could not be put into the article as its not sourced, but its within reasonable bounds for a talk page comment --Snowded ^TALK 07:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

But it wasn't suggested as an addition, it was directly calling them all neo nazi holocaust deniers. I'm sorry but that seems to me as an unacceptable tone to be taking to impartial editing. It's not attacking me, no, but I can't help but think those comments are not helping anyone or the furthering of any argument. So I'll ask politely again to refrain from using them without good reason. Thank you. Alexandre8 (talk) 12:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you need to be a little less sensitive if you want to edit the very political pages. --Snowded ^TALK 14:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

At the end of the day, each is entitled to say what he likes, but I'm just failing to see the point of using this kinda language. Alexandre8 (talk) 19:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Whaledad, there's nothing to "get away with". Both the Police and the EDL stewards are wearing the UK standard pattern high-visibility jacket, the same thing that get's worn by construction workers, ravers, etc. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

That the EDL are neo-Nazi holocaust deniers is a simple statement of fact. Various sources have revealed that they use Nazi salutes at their rallies. They have close links with the BNP whose leader, Nick Griffin, has a long history of holocaust denial. It is entirely appropriate to point out these facts on the discussion page, because it has been proposed that we choose a photograph which has them carrying the Star of David on their demonstrations. Most Jewish people would regard this not only as highly insincere but as a tacky stunt on the part of the EDL. Others would go further and contend that it is nothing less than the defilement of the flag of Israel. By choosing such a photo, we would be portraying the EDL in the way they want us to, rather than in a factual and accurate manner. I am curious as to why Alexandre8 seems to be so offended whenever the EDL is discussed in anything other than positive terms. Multiculturalist (talk) 00:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

This page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for discussing the EDL. If you have any sources that associate the EDL with anti-Semitism, then please provide them. However presenting your personal views, whether or not they are correct, is not helpful. TFD (talk) 00:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you looking for things like this? [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], well, you get the drift. Sure, I know, this first 2 minute round up mostly doesn't qualify as good references for a Wiki article, but they should convice you that indeed the EDL is anti everything that isn't purely British. This includes blacks, Muslims, Jews, and whatever else is strange and scary. --Whaledad (talk) 02:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

While you have provided evidence that they are anti-Semitic, we would need a reliable source that says they are anti-Semitic, otherwise it is original research. TFD (talk) 02:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the point Whaledad is trying to make is that it's not unreasonable to bring up non-RS stuff on the talkpage whilst there are editors arguing over wording and sources as if this type of negative information about the EDL were somehow controversial.

All the same, I think it would be helpful if we don't stray too far from discussion of content. --FormerIP (talk) 03:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I was pretty polite in expressing my dislike for the comments. I imagine what you;re trying to get at is that the EDL are my love pride and joy and I'm here to defend them. No not at all. I'm simply here to ensure that information about these sensitive topics is displayed factually and without POV, which evidently from your comments you yourself are not after. This is not a propagando page for the EDL, nor a moral condemnation. It is an encyclopaedia. Remember that. It is a fact that the majority of the EDL supporters are not Nazi's, not anti-semitic, and not Holocaust deniers. Simpley disaffected working class people with a grudge. Sure there may be some, but those very sad people are luckily few in number. Alexandre8 (talk) 06:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree lets try and discuse ways of improving the artciel and not use talk space as speakers corner, you want to soapbox go there.Slatersteven (talk) 12:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

ANYWAY...haha. is there really any point in changing the photo then? if they dont have an official logo there seems no need to make a change. Johnsy88 (talk) 08:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeh I think the point being raised was that the current one doesn't really indicate the activities of the EDL very well. It was suggested that we could find possibly a picture of a march or something that would be better. Alexandre8 (talk) 12:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree. I think the current photo is simple and effective. The single masked EDL member portrays perfectly the sinister image they have chosen to convey. Multiculturalist (talk) 17:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's the best available image and there's no reason to change it. --FormerIP (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Best to leave it in that case. If its not broken don't fix it. Multiculturalist, Please dont take this the wrong way but can you please tone down your POV when making comments as this will enable us all to get things done a lot easier on WP in general. Johnsy88 (talk) 20:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Suzanne Moore in The Guardian

I have included a brief quote and summary from this article in the "Views and Reactions" section. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/feb/05/suzanne-moore-english-defence-league It provides a more balanced and nuanced perspective of the EDL and the challenge it presents to progressive thought. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 03:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I balanced it off a bit and reduced the amount of quotes. I'm not 100% sure of this one however, its an opinion column in the Guardian so its value depends on the notability of Suzanne Moore who is a known contrarian/controversialist. --Snowded ^TALK 05:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Your balancing is fine by me. The recent Newsnight package on the EDL, which Moore mentions in the article, was also somewhat nuanced. And Stephen Lennon did hold his own with Paxman. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 06:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

That artcile can hardly be used in an Encyclopaedia? I mean she's nothing more than a blogger with a wild flare for making controversial points of view, which are probably mainstream anyway. It's not about what you say, but how you say it (talk) 06:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, the section is entitled "Views and Reactions". Moore's view provides some (necessary) balance. And if her point of view is as you suggest mainstream, well, you wouldn't know it by reading this Wikipedia article. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 06:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

It's sorta fun to read, but I think she's just trying to have a laugh more than give a critical reaction. Surely a different point of view that's a little more serious could be used? It's not about what you say, but how you say it (talk) 06:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The Guardian is not known for its sense of humour. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 06:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

It was a balancing act, but I am still very dubious about the authority of these comments. As I said I think its a contrarian opinion piece and somewhat pretentious in its language. Its not a leader comment, or a researched article. 50/50 call but I would remove it. --Snowded ^TALK 07:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's a point of view, in a section entitled "Views and Reactions". (And pretentious language is hardly a disqualifier for inclusion in Wikipedia!) Ivor Stoughton (talk) 07:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Views and reactions still have to be authoritative/notable. Maybe you would address that --Snowded ^TALK 07:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Ugh, at the very least scrub the quotes and summarise; the whole article is very pretentious and "postmodern". We can probably use it but direct quotation is giving her wordiness undue weight. --Errant ^(chat!) 07:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I dont see how any of that article can be used considering it is clearly written in blog form?? i would refer people who wish to include content from the above link to WP:RS - Statements of opinion Johnsy88 (talk) 08:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Having now read the source I agree it is unsuitable --Errant ^(chat!) 08:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

"she's nothing more than a blogger" and "I dont see how any of that article can be used considering it is clearly written in blog form." What are you people on about? This was an article that appeared in a daily newspaper, not a blog. It's a considered piece from a professional writer. It's hard copy guys, not digital; it's still sitting in my bin! Moore is a highly respected columnist of many years standing, in several quality papers. There is no way this source can be rejected as a "blog". That's not to say it is of any use to this Wikipedia article, but let's keep a sense of proportion, and decency, here. Emeraude (talk) 10:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

My concern is not related to "blog" suggestions (it is the Guardian "commentisfree" section, which is fine IMO). Ultimately it is just not a very good piece; or, rather, it is pretty vague and hard to summarize in any meaningful way. Perhaps if someone could propose a decent sentence for us to consider? --Errant ^(chat!) 10:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, John Cruddas says something quite similar to Moore, but in much less pretentious language. And he is also so much more authoritative and notable. I've added a link and quotes from his article in The Guardian to the View and Reactions section. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 20:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Table again

Can I refer editors to the discussion that started earlier but stalled on the table of demonstrations in the article (see Talk:English Defence League#Table above). I suggested, and other editors seemed to agree in whole or in part, that the table should go. What do others think? Emeraude (talk) 10:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

This seems to be the best approach. Delete the table, note anything really notable. Dougweller (talk) 12:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

(Comment moved down from above.) I would say a new page should be created as the list in the article makes it look rather out of place. just make a new page and transfer the list directly and link it in the main EDL article.Johnsy88 (talk) 19:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you're on the right track. Just to bring attention to your proposal, even though you know my opinion, I'll say "do it". It's not about what you say, but how you say it (talk) 19:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Doug, I don't see any notability is a page which lists demonstrations --Snowded ^TALK 11:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Why does the table exist in the first place? it doesn't really seem relevant in the article? Johnsy88 (talk) 16:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I imagine the article created as a stub and there wasn't much to say about the group so people added stats instead, perfectly normal, but it's got out of hand now. I think only marches like last weekend should be noted from now on. Alexandre8 (talk) 16:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

ok then lets trim it down Johnsy88 (talk) 20:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Guramit Singh

I think it's fairly clear that he's a main key player, especially in promoting the desired diversity of the group. We should not judge on the morality of this decision, but the decision itself.

Link 1 http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/may/28/english-defence-league-guardian-investigation ""EDL spokesman Guramit Singh says its Bradford demonstration "will be huge""

Link 2 http://wn.com/Guramit_Singh_English_Defence_League_Spokesman_Arrested "Guramit Singh English Defence League Spokesman Arrested"

Link 3 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1304139/Police-halt-English-Defence-League-march-riot-fears.html#ixzz1DlebSKDg "The EDL's spokesman, Guramit Singh, denied the organisation intended violence. He said: 'We don't want ugly scenes at all"
Link 4 http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/local/police_arrest_edl_protest_s_leader_1_2200521 EDL Leader arrested - Guramit Singh"

I think that's fairly conclusive. He's a spokesman, accepted by the papers, and I think we need to move forward. If you feel this really needs to be discussed again, then by all means revert and we'll chat this one out. Alexandre8 (talk) 17:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see what's new since the last discussion. He's been in the media and he's certainly notable for inclusion in the article. But there is no evidence that he has sufficient status to be included in the infobox as one of the chiefs of the organisation. Clearly, the EDL would like him to be mentioned as prominently as possible so as to prove that they are not Nazis, but that isn't our job. --FormerIP (talk) 20:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree, a spokeman is not a major posiiton within any organisation. We would need a source that says he is a major figure.Slatersteven (talk) 20:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok how do you guys think he should be included in the article, where is a sensible place to put him, and in what way is it best to describe him? We can't just say "He's Asian to stop the tag of fascists being applied to the group", despite that quite possibly being the aim. Alexandre8 (talk) 21:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm with FormerIP and Slatersteven on this: Guramit Singh has no formal status in the EDL, and is being used as window dressing to try and persuade the population that they're not racists. It is not the job of Wikipedia to act as a propaganda tool for this or any other organisation. Having said that, if Singh's name ever is included in the box listing their "key people", then we must immediately insert the word "Islamophobic" in the opening sentence - for Singh's rhetoric is without doubt virulently Islamophobic (and if he is one of their key people then it necessarily follows that that term must also logically apply to the group as a whole). Multiculturalist (talk) 21:17, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Multi please read the discussion, I know it's long and boring, but it's important since we've moved on from the original point. We've accepted that he isn't fit for the key people box. If you'd like to suggest how to add him into the main body somewhere as a notable person, I'm open to sensible ideas. Please remember that it's not propaganda to list facts. Alexandre8 (talk) 21:29, 12 February 2011 (UTC) P.s yes, he was arrested for anti islamic sentiment. This will be included somewhere don't worry. Alexandre8 (talk) 21:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Organizations may have many spokesmen, we need a source that explains his position better to mention him in the infobox. TFD (talk) 21:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Ahh, people don't read discussions, just the first point lol! Alexandre8 (talk) 22:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Spokespeople are not prominent in any way. The other three are listed as co-leaders or funders in reliable sources. The only reference here is a provincial newspaper quoting him as a spokesperson. Its just not enough, he has no status given any reference or research report into EDL --Snowded ^TALK 14:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree I can't think of any other example of some one who is just a spokeprson (and has no apperent offical capactiy) is regarded as an offcier.Slatersteven (talk) 14:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Protest in Hinkley, Lesictershire

I don't know wether it should be added but they are protesting in Hinckley today. Just thought it needed to be added to the protests. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.30.115.137 (talk) 17:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Man banned from trains after racially abusing family on platform

A report of an EDL member with "33 previous convictions included other racially aggravated offending linked to his association with the EDL" appeared in The Sheffield Star, 11 March 2009. Does this deserve a place in the article. ? Emeraude (talk) 14:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Think your link has gone wrong: [10]. I think the fact that EDL membership seems to be categorisable as anti-social behaviour for the purposes of a CRASBO is significant for inclusion in the article. I'm unsure whether the details of this particular case are though. Has it received any other coverage?

PS, I think I'm right in saying that the Sheffield Star takes its content down quite quickly, so you may want to archive it before it disappears. --FormerIP (talk) 15:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I had mistyped the link; now corrected. Sheffield Star keeps its stories in archive, so it shouldn't disappear. I expect this will appear in other papers, including nationals. It's on The Star 's website because it today's news related to a local person in a local court; others will pick it up if they haven't already. Emeraude (talk) 16:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

In fact, they have already :

• BBC Lincs: Lincoln man banned from English Defence League meetings
• Newmarket Journal: Racist banned from EDL gatherings
• Lincoln Police Force Lincoln Man Given EDL CRASBO
• Lincolnshire Echo: English Defence League racist gets criminal Asbo after abusing Asian family

Many other local and evening papers are printing this as well. Should be more than enough to go on. Emeraude (talk) 16:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

No it does not, this is one member 9any evidacen hes a prominant member? I seem to recall that a similar incident in which the EDL member was threatend was blocked becaseu single incidents inviolving single mebers is not notable.Slatersteven (talk) 14:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree, I am sure members of the mainstream parties are also arrested from time to time. Its only notable if the person is a prominent member, or if a RS says that such behaviour is an inherent part of being a member of EDL, or that EDL members are constantly being arrested in such a manner. --Snowded ^TALK 17:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Sweden Democrats

Sweden Democrats are described as far-right in multiple news sources [11] and a Google Books search shows up similar descriptions, please stop removing this. Sweden Democrats avoids mentioning this, a pov problem there. --Dougweller (talk) 19:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, its also a very badly written article! --Snowded ^TALK 19:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Many sources also do NOT describe them as "Far Right" - probably because, conventionally speaking, they aren't! Look at the article on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden_Democrats It does not use the "Far Right" label, which is normally reserved for fascistic groups. AFolkSingersBeard (talk) 11:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The WP article does say things like "introduced a uniform ban in 1996", "in 1999 they rejected Nazism", "influenced by the French National Front", " Expressen ... retains the ban on Sweden Democrat advertising". This doesn't make them sound very MOR. Why their article isn't very clear about how they are viewed in terms of political position I wouldn't like to say, but Wikipedia is often not very accurate on these matters. --FormerIP (talk) 11:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

This is why I do not like non-slef applied lables. There seems to be a few sources that call the SD far right, but its not in the artilce and most sources seem to avoid callinig them anything they do not call themsleves. But i tink the SD artciel needs lookinig at.Slatersteven (talk) 12:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

We may call them far right if there is academic consensus to describe them that way. It is important to use good sources however, because the term far right can be used very loosely, for example to describe UKIP the the U.S. Tea Party. However I have not found any sources for this. It may be that they are too obscure. TFD (talk) 14:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Too obscure? they have more support then the BNP and EDl combined. How much less obsure do you want?Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit lost. Numerous sources describe the SD as far right. We can qualify and say 'described as far-right', but we certainly have the sources. Dougweller (talk) 14:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Well provide them then. The BNP got 563,000 votes in the 2010 election, compared with 339,000 for the Sweden Democrats and has a rich history which traces back to the NF and the BUF. Also, the Swedish may not gain the same attention in literature on right-wing politics. TFD (talk) 14:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Thye SD got 5.7% of the vote and 20 MPs, how many has the BNP got? I think thats my point. Its not that they are less far right then the BNP but that the BNP have been targeted for that accusation.Slatersteven (talk) 15:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

" merely put back in what your far-right ally 86.96.227.90 had taken out" This is completely unacceptable as an edit description Mutliculturalist. And you know it. Alexandre8 (talk) 19:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

While the article now says that the SD had "long-standing ties" with the NF, the source actually only says that the NF "was one of the larger sources of inspiration during the latter half of the 1980s" (before the SD rather became inspired by other parties such as the French NF from the 1990s). As the claim is not supported by the given source, I will remove it as I did with all the other ambigious information about this that is not really relevant to this particular article (nor uncontroversially correct). – Bellatores (t.) 11:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I deleted the whole thing. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the foundation of EDL, it might have a place in the Swedish article, it might have a place in the international section on this one although it seems to be very minor. --Snowded ^TALK 11:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Brown2695, 7 May 2011

The English Defence League is not a "Far Right" organisation, It is a Peacefull Peoples Movement

Brown2695 (talk) 20:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

 Not done 4 sources say it is. CTJF83 22:14, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I expect there are far more than four sources that prove it is far right! By the way, Brown2695, "Peaceful" only has one "l". Multiculturalist (talk) 14:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

And "People's" has an apostrophe. Emeraude (talk) 16:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Considering that an organizations place on the political spectrum is arbitrary, I doubt you could find a single article that "proves" anything of the sort. Wikipedia editors these days are really gotten to be sub par, pretentious and left leaning. Kinda annoying... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.101.176.143 (talk) 03:09, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Craig.w.mcg, 25 May 2011

EDL not Far-Right just right

Craig.w.mcg (talk) 10:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia relies on verifiable evidence. There are four reliable sources listed that describe the EDL as far right, more than sufficent for our purposes. There are many more sources for this. If you have reliable sources saying the EDL is not far right, please post them here. Emeraude (talk) 13:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 22:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

EDL far right?

I think the EDL should not be described as a far-right. Mostly because far-right groups care about race, the EDL do not. Also far-right groups do not welcome ethnic miniorities but the EDL do. If the EDL are far-right then can you explain why one of the leaders is an Indian man?

Far-right is not an accurate description to use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.190.52.90 (talk) 14:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The description is used because that is how reliable sources describe them. If you disagree with their judgment, then you must take it up with them. WP is supposed to report what sources say and cannot correct perceived errors. TFD (talk) 16:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Well said. Further more, it is not true to say that the EDL do not care about race. Why are their rallies dominated by BNP members and why did they attack a Hindu temple in Dudley last year? The claim that the EDL "welcome" ethnic minorities is laughable.Multiculturalist (talk) 14:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Why?Alexandre8 (talk) 15:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Errr... Because they don't. Multiculturalist (talk) 13:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I rewrote the lead to state they have been described as far right, which is obviously the neutral way to write this. The Four Deuces reverted my change saying there is a "consensus of opinion" now that is laughable. I should like for him to explain what that is. The Last Angry Man (talk) 07:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Pov

I have had to tag this article for neutrality due to two editors who seem to think that the lead ought not say "they have been described as right wing" which is the neutral way to write such a thing, especially as the EDL deny being right wing. I fail to see how my change was not in line with WP:NPOV and should like to hear from the two editors who have reverted my changes. The Last Angry Man (talk) 08:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Read the archives. We've already discussed this over and over. Jarkeld (talk) 08:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Which is entirely irrelevant to this discussion, consensus changes. Please tell me how you feel that what I wrote was not in line with wikipedia guidelines? Removing a POV tag before any sort of discussion has taken place is disruptive, please do not do so again. The Last Angry Man (talk) 08:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Its been discussed many many times and all the sources say they are right wing. Until you have reliable sources that support your view that position doesn't change and you should not tag something just because you don't like. Please either find some evidence or leave it alone, and in any event reach agreement here before editing the article on this issue. --Snowded ^TALK 09:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

No the sources describe them as right wing, hence my edit saying they have been described as right wing. Your removal of the tag without discussion is also disruptive, please abide by policy. The Last Angry Man (talk) 09:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

See previous discussions, if reliable sources say something is right wing then it is right wing. Unless you can provide some sources then insertion of that dubious tag is vandalism and an obvious ploy to avoid 3rr --Snowded ^TALK 09:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

You quote policy yet break it three times on this article, well done you. I fully intent to add the same tags again once time has expired, your removal of tags is a breach of policy. The group has been described as right wing, this does not make them right wing, there is a difference. Previous discussions have naught to do with this, consensus changes. The Last Angry Man (talk) 09:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia relies on reliable sources and those sources are not qualified. On the assumption that you are a new editor, you really need to read up on policy. By the way 3rr is not a right, so you can't simply wait a day then start over again that will get you blocked. Now please come up with some evidence to support your position or back off --Snowded ^TALK 10:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree w/ Snowded and Jarkeld. TLAM, if you can find reliable sources (academic publications, for example) that challenge the right-wing characterization, that would be something to include in the article. Without that, "has been described as" is certainly true, but also trite, irrelevant, and politically dubious; it is a common strategy of the contemporary extreme right to downplay their filiations and affinities in order to generate a more palatable public face. For an encyclopedia, giving the impression that a far-right group might just be far-right in some people's opinion would be misleading and irresponsible. Sindinero (talk) 11:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Just in light of the comment "wikipedia relies on reliable sources". Let me just bring a few interesting facts to your attention. "According to Quarkbase, The Guardian was the most cited UK newspaper on Wikipedia as of August 2009 with 106,424 citations. The Times was second with 52,457.[4]". London N1 9GU Circulation Of Guardian - 283,063[2]. Circulation of Daily mail 2,100,000. I doubt somewhat people would take the Daily mail to be a decent source, even though it is accepted here. But It never stands alone, it has to be backed up by other sources. Seeing that the guardian is read by under %2 of the population, has columnists in the likes of George Galloway, [deleted copyvio YouTub link]<-- see why he's not fit to write on anything but his own arrogance and misinformation, and party members of the Socialit Party of Britian. Question, why on earth is it the most cited paper on wikipedia. Because the editors read it. So regardless of what the archives say, there not worth A piss pott palace guard if the editors who discussed the changes all share the same opinion. Alexandre8 (talk) 11:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that reliability be determined by circulation? Have you got any reliable sources to back up your views? Do you intend to continue commenting on editors not on content? Maybe this is not the place for you? --Snowded ^TALK 12:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you've just ignored everything I just said. Very dangerous. Perhaps you might wish to consider a different pastime. Oh, the views are from wikipedia itself. Wouldn't wanna say that was unreliable now would we. Lastly, editors not content? what is that rubbish. Who writes the content? We're not at hogwarts. Man presses button on keyboard, makes a letter. Letters makes words. Words make content. Alexandre8 (talk) 12:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

And I will continue to ignore your unsupported opinions, this is not the place for them. --Snowded ^TALK 13:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

%2 of readership. Vast majority of supporting quotes. This paper is a liability to all politically based articles. Alexandre8 (talk) 14:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC) p.s how on earth is my "opinion" unsupported?. I've given you the facts. Waht more do you want? Alexandre8 (talk) 14:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

What more do we want? How about an ability to spell words like "what" and "2%" correctly before you put yourself forward as a Wikipedia editor? Based upon your logic we should be allowing The Sun Page 3 Girl to edit all of Wikipedia - after all, more people look at her each day than read the Guardian. Given the fact that that wretched newspaper (The Sun) supported the South African apartheid system I could well imagine who on this page would favour Wikipedia using them for its sources. Multiculturalist (talk) 13:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Articles in peer-reviewed academic journals categorize the EDL as part of the far right. Saying that they "describe" them as far right would cast doubt on their analysis. TFD (talk) 14:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually regardless of what is written it is fact that any article written about this group is a description. Neutrality would be to write it as such and as stated I fully intend to tag this article until such a time as policy is followed IE do dot remove the tag until such a time as the dispute is ended. The Last Angry Man (talk) 16:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be some methodological confusion here. If we're getting into tautologies and truisms, then any article on anything constitutes a "description," but we wouldn't write that "China is described as a country in Asia" or that "the Earth is described as round." Now obviously, a political assessment of a specific group is a different type of information than facts of geography or natural science, but if there is a scholarly consensus from reliable sources that a group is far-right, then for the reasons listed above it is misleading, misinformative, politically dubious, disingenuous, and unnecessary to use qualifying language such as "is described as." Is Nazism "described as" a far-right movement, or communism "described as" a far-left one? Sindinero (talk) 17:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see your point, all the sources used are written by people voicing their opinions, no more, no less. Given the EDL claim they are not right wing wackos then it ought be written in the neutral manner that they have been described as. The article remains POV and as such I shall tag it as such. The Last Angry Man (talk) 19:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Clearly you fail to see my point if you cannot even distinguish between opinions, research, facts, and scholarly consensus. The sources used generally have nothing to do with "opinions," but are rather based on analysis, interpretation, and reasoning. By your criteria, most if not all articles on wikipedia should be tagged as POV.

Granted, if the article stated that the EDL were "right wing wackos" then you'd have a case for tagging it as POV. But that's not the language used, and the claim that they are politically far right is backed by the sources. I think a more constructive approach than facile relativism ("everyone has an opinion, how do we decide between them?") would be to provide reliable sources that challenge the characterization of the EDL as right-wing. Just because you don't want them to be of the right doesn't mean they're not.

Rather than removing the POV tag, though, I'd like to hear what other editors think. Sindinero (talk) 19:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

And looking through the sources used I fail to see these peer reviewed articles which TFD mentioned, although there is one from what could only be described as a biased source.[12] and of course is just the opinion of that papers author. There is a link to what appears to be a primary source, the minutes from the HOC select committe meeting. The rest are just newspaper reports. The Last Angry Man (talk) 19:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

See, it would be most enlightening to hear why you think that the journal you mention is a "biased" source. The simple assertion of bias does not demonstrate bias, at least not in the way you intend. There is a difference between opinion and analysis. But besides these epistemological questions, the issue here is whether the sources supporting a label of the EDL as right-wing fulfill the criteria of WP:RS. They do. If you have other reliable sources that describe the EDL as left-wing, centrist, or transcendent of the entire political spectrum in their own special way, please provide them. Otherwise, the POV tag needs to go. Again, just because you don't like something doesn't mean it's not true. Sindinero (talk) 19:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

(ec)This source is of interest. It says that the far right label has been foisted on this group by those asshole fascists the UAF. I propose this source be used to help balance the lede. Race and Antiracism in Black British and British Asian Literature By Dave Gunning pp 151 152[13] The Last Angry Man (talk) 19:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you're misreading your own source, it says nothing of the sort. And by bizarrely labeling a group called "United against Fascism" "asshole fascists," you're sort of outing yourself, in a few ways, as a tendentious editor. I don't want to doubt your good intentions, but it's really hard to avoid the impression that by "balance" you mean about the same thing as Fox News does. Diluting a characterization based on good sources is not balance, but intellectual dishonesty and political trickery. Sindinero (talk) 19:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Just to add to that - even if the source were saying what you seem to think it's saying (and it's not), it's a literary study, and thus not really an appropriate rs for this article. Sindinero (talk) 20:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the POV tag there are enough reliable sources to back up the text and here we use verifiability not truth. Mo ainm~Talk 20:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Again, TLAM, you are making changes to the lead against consensus and without responding to any of the objections on the discussion page. Your recent addition of the sentence "The group says they are a peaceful protest group and that they are a multi ethnic and multi religious group," for "balance," is problematic for a number of reasons.

• Let's start with the source - the source you found on google books is a literary monograph of a number of novels in the context of antiracism, and not a study that attempts to politically evaluate the EDL. So yes, at a very trivial level, the source says more or less what you say it does: that the EDL describes itself as peaceful, and anti-racist. However, the context is a discussion of the photograph on the cover of the source, and not an in-depth discussion of the EDL. In the context of the conclusion, the author is doing this to show, I presume, the complexity of navigating and reshaping contemporary antiracist discourse in the UK. With all due respect, I suggest that you read enough of your source to know not just what they're saying on a literal level, but how it fits into the context of their argument, since this is the only way to actually know what they're actually claiming, and what they're not actually claiming.
• Second, the source you provide uses as its prime source for this second-hand claim the EDL's own website, which is decidedly not a reliable source. A common tactic of the extreme right these days is an appropriation of the rhetoric, symbols, and practices of the left; besides the EDL's putative antiracism, one could also point to neonazi use of the black bloc in Germany, the discursive popularity of relativism among "populist" conservatives in the US, or the anticapitalist stance of national anarchists. My point is that the EDL's self description as inclusive, peaceful, and antiracism decidedly does not make them so.
• About "balance," I can only repeat my previous, unanswered comment: "And by bizarrely labeling a group called "United against Fascism" "asshole fascists," you're sort of outing yourself, in a few ways, as a tendentious editor. I don't want to doubt your good intentions, but it's really hard to avoid the impression that by "balance" you mean about the same thing as Fox News does. Diluting a characterization based on good sources is not balance, but intellectual dishonesty and political trickery."

Ne'ertheless, you raise a good point. One interesting thing about the EDL is their inclusive, antiracist posturing, and perhaps this should be mentioned in the lead. I'll take a stab at it, and I'd like to hear what other editors think as well. TLAM, if you disagree, please use the talk page to work towards consensus rather than mechanically and tendentiously reverting. Sindinero (talk) 11:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Any group which uses violence to suppress free speech are fascist assholes, UAF do it on a regular basis. The source being from the academic press is I believe a good source, it does not matter who the author is quoting. A popular tactic of the left is of course the smearing of all who disagree as racist and right wing. For neutrality reasons the EDL`s opinion of themselves ought at least be mentioned, and also from the source the fact that UAF tend to cause the trouble at the rallys ought be mentioned as well. The Last Angry Man (talk) 12:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

See, now we're getting somewhere in figuring out the difference between opinions, analysis, and claims based on reliable sources. A statement like "any group which uses violence to suppress free speech are fascist assholes, UAF do it on a regular basis" is an opinion, a blanket claim, and something that can form no basis for editing wikipedia.

Yes, the source is from "the academic press" but so are books about butterflies. My point was not that the source was not a RS on anything, just that it's not an RS on the EDL, because it's a book about novels quoting from the EDL's own website. It actually does matter who the author is quoting. I've changed the lead to include the EDL's opinion of themselves, based on a substantial, focused discussion in the source I cite.

As to your last request, that the UAF should be mentioned, they are, and they are mentioned extensively in the article, especially in the 'protests' section. I don't think they're notable enough to mention in the lead, since they are counter-protesters of the EDL and not, as far as I can tell from the sources, in any way essential to our understanding of the EDL. Sindinero (talk) 12:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Probaby best to use a third party source such as this article that says "Unlike other far-right organisations, the EDL are proud of their diversity" (p. 227). TFD (talk) 15:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

That's basically what the source from Garland and Treadwell say, but they say it in more detail and depth, and go so far as to challenge the contention that the EDL is actually significantly diverse (p. 32). Sindinero (talk) 16:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Your last edit has made this article even less neutral than before, you have basically written that all EDL members are bigots, what a strange idea you have of neutrality. The Last Angry Man (talk) 16:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

And once again a fully justified tag has been removed, the source you have used to portray all EDL members as bigots is an opinion piece, never before have I seen so many "maybe" "perhaps" "could be" in a source, it is all speculation and conjecture. The page range is also a bit much for just a few sentences. The Last Angry Man (talk) 17:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Now you're just getting petulant. My last edit says nothing of the sort, and it's disingenuous of you to try to circumvent consensus by repeatedly using different means of alleging POV without addressing the basic issues on the talk page. I'm trying to work towards consensus by meeting you half-way: despite substantial, nearly endless discussion on this talk page (see also the archives) about this very issue, I think it would be fair to include some version of the EDL's self-characterization in the lead, since this seems notable and is clearly important to you.

However, wikipedia is not a soap-box, and we cannot simply copy promotional material from the EDL's website (which is essentially what a google-books cherry-picking of a claim from the EDL website via a literary study was). The article I linked to was hardly lopsided, it was from a publication called "Papers from the British Criminology Conference."

If you're not even willing to read the archive of exhaustive past discussions on this topic, wikipedia policy, or even your own sources carefully, then you're editing disruptively and wasting the time of others. I suggest you see WP:GEVAL to sharpen your understanding about what constitutes neutrality, and WP:RS on reliable sources.

Finally, I'll repeat what I said earlier - if you think the article has POV problems, find reliable sources that describe theEDL as left-wing, centrist, or transcendent of the entire political spectrum in their own special way, please provide them. Sindinero (talk) 17:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

(out)Now heres the thing, I do not actually care one way or the other about this group, personally I think they are morons. However neutrality is important, and everyone deserves to have their voice heard. I am glad you believe that some self characterization ought be in the lede, what would you suggest? The Last Angry Man (talk) 17:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest something like what I added. In any case, something that does not uncritically reproduce the EDL's own self-characterization, dilute the scholarly, critical consensus, or introduce a sense of unanchored relativism in the name of neutrality. Something that fulfills the criteria laid out at WP:LEAD, WP:RS, and WP:GEVAL.
Sindinero (talk) 17:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, TLAM, you should know that your idea that "everyone deserves to have their voice heard," while a nice sentiment, is emphatically not WP policy:

"While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship." --> WP:GEVAL

Sindinero (talk) 18:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Passamethod addition

"Tommy Robinson, the founder, has described sharia law as "barbaric", and has considered forming a political party." was added a couple of days ago in the lede. I trimmed it down to the political party element which I think is notable and suitable for the lede. The earlier statement that the founder condemned sharia law is not especially notable and is not linked to the political party element. YouTube is not really a reliable source either. My inclination is to return the simple referenced statement about the political party to the lede and remove the description element. If that isn't acceptable then I'll remove the whole paragraph per WP:BRD while we resolve it here. --Snowded ^TALK 10:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC) Aha. Agreed. Alexandre8 (talk) 18:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit by Cziltang mexico

I have reverted the mass removal of content by Cziltang mexico per Bold, Revert, Discuss. Mo ainm~Talk 21:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Strange wiki rules from Snowded

Since when were "regional newspaper not reliable" as you claimed in your edit summmary? Can you substantiate this claim? Dont revert until you give me a link please. Pass a Method talk 15:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The local paper says "up to 2000" while the BBC quotes the police figure of 1500. Seems 1500 seems a more reliable number. TFD (talk) 16:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Also passaMethod you need to read up on WP:BRD, if you make an edit and its disputed then you discuss it. You don't reinstate it and tell other people they can't revert --Snowded ^TALK 20:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity though, is it actually WP policy that local or regional newspapers aren't reliable? To me it seems like it would be good to give the reader the claims of both sources and let them evaluate. It is, after all, not unprecedented for police to give low estimates of protests and demonstrations - this was pretty consistent throughout the last decade for antiwar protests in the US, for example. If it's not actually WP policy that regional newspapers aren't RSs, I'd say we leave both estimates. Sindinero (talk) 20:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

If you look through WP:RS then sources like the BBC and the Broadsheet Newspapers (Times, Guardian, Independent & Telegraph) are generally held to be reliable sources as they validate their data etc. etc. Regional newspapers by their nature have lower standards. So in this case if the BBC reported say 10K, but the Police said 8K we would probably take the BBC report. --Snowded ^TALK 20:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree with you (although I would question the blanket claim that regional newspapers have lower standards - sometimes they can do fact-checking on local issues that larger outlets take at second-hand), but I don't see where you're getting this from. I didn't see either the BBC or the Guardian or others mentioned at WP:RS. Where specifically is the distinction between national and regional papers made? Again, I should emphasize that I'm not trying to nit-pick or stonewall, but I'd genuinely like to know what explicit WP policy on this, if such exists, is. It's something I've been wondering about in connection with other topics as well. Thanks! Sindinero (talk) 21:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The policy mentions "mainstream" news sources and if you check out the RS notice board discussions you will see that this is interpreted as broadsheet etc. Its come up on this page and the UAF one as well before and has been discussed at the notice board several times. Otherwise, on local issues where they do local fact checking then I agree with you. THat is not the case here. --Snowded ^TALK 21:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the clarification! Sindinero (talk) 21:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Introduction

The English Defence League (EDL) is a far-right[1][2][3][4][5] street protest movement which opposes what it sees as the spread of Islamism, Sharia law and Islamic extremism in England.[6][7][8][9] The EDL uses street-based marches against what it labels as Muslim extremism.[10][11]

Introduction reads so awfully. This whole business of "what it sees as the" and "what it labels as", just ruins the flow of the sentence. Anyway of making this more encyclopaedic? Alexandre8 (talk) 17:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

How about: The English Defence League (EDL) is a far-right[1][2][3][4][5] street protest movement which opposes what it sees as the spread of Islamism, Sharia law and Islamic extremism in England.[6][7][8][9]. The "what it sees" is necessary as there is no evidence that the claim has an substance --Snowded ^TALK 17:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not the sentiment I'm objected to, it's just how it flows. I think your suggestion is good. Alexandre8 (talk) 17:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

It's interesting: source 10 (The Guardian) just says "Islamic extremism". It does not say that it is the EDL that labels it as such. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 21:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no denying that Sharia law and Islamic extremism have a presence in the country, it's just the extent of their presence. There's a million sources on sharia law courts and islamic extremism in the country. I tried arguing this position last year, but it was rejected for some unknown reason. Alexandre8 (talk) 22:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of wikipedia is not to imply that extremist positions of any hue have validity. The "what it sees" applies to "the spread". We probably need to see more sources here. Many third party ones claim its purpose is wider than just opposing islamic extremism for example. --Snowded ^TALK 06:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of Wikipedia is to to work from reliable sources, surely? And the second sentence of the article - "The EDL uses street-based marches against what it labels as Muslim extremism" - is cited to sources that simply do not say that. Both The Guardian and The Birmingham Post simply say "Islamic extremism". I will change the sentence to reflect the cited sources. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 17:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Far right (again)?

Currently, the first line of the wiki is "The English Defence League (EDL) is a far-right...". Contrast this with the page for Unite Against Fascism which says "Unite Against Fascism is an anti-fascist pressure group...". How come the UAF are allowed to describe what they are but the EDL aren't? Is there one rule for 'far right groups' and another for 'far left groups'? I suggest that the description for the EDL should be like that for the UAF in that the EDL gets to describe what they themselves are, then any differing views can be cited in sections below as is already the case. Therefore, the opening line should read something like "The English Defence League are a human rights, single issue group...". Let's do away with politically correct nincompoops running the show and get some balance and accuracy in here instead. Chooonz (talk) 12:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Two words for you Reliable Sources. Mo ainm~Talk 12:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Like I said, whether or not they are far right can be discussed with sources in sections below. If the EDL describes itself as a human rights organisation then that's what they'll be introduced as, then later discussion can allow the reader to decide for themselves what's what. Chooonz (talk) 12:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure Hitler also thought he was a nice man but it's not what the sources say about it. Mo ainm~Talk 13:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

That is the point. We don't let leads be determined by what an organisation or person says about themselves. Dougweller (talk) 13:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

That is why we use the phrase "...describes itself as...". Therefore we give the organisation in question a chance to define themselves, and whether that definition is true can then be discussed in depth in the article, allowing the reader to make up his or her own mind.Chooonz (talk) 13:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

It makes you guys' blood boil that someone is trying to inject a little fairness into the article, but it's important that Wikipedia is honest as it can be and is not just a platform for politically correct nincompoops.Chooonz (talk) 13:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Have a read of Neutral point of view as you obviously don't understand the concept. Mo ainm~Talk 13:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

It's amusing and ironic that you are talking about 'neutral point of view', Mo ainm. Anyway, the current edit "The English Defence League (EDL) describes itself as a human rights[1] organisation, but is a regarded as far-right[2][3][4][5][6] By [sic] most political commentators and politicians" is agreeable. It raises the interesting point that a majority can be wrong about something, and it's a nice feeling to know that common 'men on the street' can be more intelligent than political commentators and politicians.Chooonz (talk) 13:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

We describe groups the way reliable sources do which in this case is "far right". TFD (talk) 13:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources being the ones who reflect your worldview of course! Wikipedia isn't here to spout politically correct drivel. Let's instead focus on facts. Let's try and have more accuracy please.Chooonz (talk) 13:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Find some reliable sources that reflect yours and we can look at them. --Snowded ^TALK 13:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Look at them, and then reject them! It's been a battle even to get the opening line to change. Here's a hint though: if a journalist writes "the EDL is a far right group", it does not necessarily make it so.Chooonz (talk) 13:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Time to stop feeding Mo ainm~Talk 13:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

And in your case, stop vandalising.Chooonz (talk) 14:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

By repeatedly calling other editors "politically correct nincompoops" you show you are unfit to edit this article. Try telling the patrons of Dudley's Hindu temple - which was attacked by EDL thugs - that the EDL is a 'human rights group'. As for "Unite Against Fascism", the reason they are not described as 'far left' is because they are supported by all normal people - including Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron. Disagreeing with Nazis does not make a person left wing.Multiculturalist (talk) 14:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Yawn. will you say somehting constuctive for once. Alexandre8 (talk) 14:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

And what's your definition of being 'constructive'? Supporting the EDL, perhaps? By the way - do me a favour and stop vandalising my Talk Page. You can edit your own (so as to hide away the many warnings you've had) as much as you like, but I'd prefer it if you didn't keep altering mine. P.S.:- "Constuctive" is supposed to have an "r". Multiculturalist (talk) 14:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out my typo. If this were the main page, I'm sure you would have almost managed to do something constructive. Oh and do you know what "vandalise means"? Perhaps you like the media idea of twisting words for self gratification. Nice to see you said it here, and not on my Talk page. I wonder what you're trying to achieve. NON POV? POV NPOV aaaaaaaaah it#s all becoming too much for my brain. I don't think you've ever made an edit to an article without writing "BLATANT POV". very helpful indeed мальчик.Alexandre8 (talk) 15:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

List of marches

This is becoming excessive. The options seem to me to be:

1. Write a summary that says there have been marches from X to the current date, several have involved violence, clashes with UAF etc. etc.
2. Move the list to a new page and link it
3. A combination of these

Thoughts? --Snowded ^TALK 06:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree the list is a bit big now. Problom with the EDL is that its essentialy a marchiing society. I suspect that any section about marches and clashes would become another POV battleground. As such I would of for a spin off list.Slatersteven (talk) 09:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Last chance to object - otherwise I will move the table to a new page --Snowded ^TALK 14:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

We've been talking about this since January as I recall and I am not aware that anyone has raised serious objections. In the nature of things, the information in the table is never going to be accurate - the numbers particularly - so it is of dubious encyclopedic value. Do it. Emeraude (talk) 15:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Norway mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik's connection to EDL in his own words

Ban the EDL before it is too late! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.4.135 (talk) 19:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

"I used to have more than 600 EDL members as Facebook friends and have spoken with tens of EDL members and leaders. In fact; I was one of the individuals who supplied them with processed ideological material (including rhetorical strategies) in the very beginning." From Breivik's ebook - http://www.kevinislaughter.com/wp-content/uploads/2083+-+A+European+Declaration+of+Independence.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.127.64.60 (talk) 00:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Relevant to his article I am less sure here. At the moment its a claim by a madman --Snowded ^TALK 06:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Snowded. TFD (talk) 07:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I am a bit iffy about this too. Any nutter can claim they know someone, it does not mean there is a real link.Slatersteven (talk) 10:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

How many other groups does he mentioned he talked to, what influence does he say he has with them? How are the media reacting to it. If it looks like he's only used the EDL as his inspiration and the media are up on that then it may be relevent for inclusion, but if he lists many contacts as influences then perhaps just keep the EDL reference to his page if anywhere at all. Alexandre8 (talk) 15:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Removing the referance as we appear to have a clear consensus.Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

No we don't. I've heard news reports which link him to the EDL, and such claims should be included in this article. Multiculturalist (talk) 08:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

This reference links the EDL with Breivik irrespective of his sanity. JRPG (talk) 16:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Does it really constitute a link? Anyone can post on Facebook, and in a BBC 2 Newsnight interview on 25/07/2011, the leader of the EDL absolutely denied any other form of link apart from these unsolicited Facebook postings. Furthermore, he absolutely condemned the murders, and all other forms of violence,and quoted from the 15,000 page 'manifesto' of the psychopathic murderer, who appears to have stated that he did not feel allied to the EDL in any way at all, as they believed in using democratic processes to address their perceived 'islamic problem'. Is this convincing evidence that extablishes a link? Most tellingly, the quote , in context, states his reason for divorcing himself from groups who use democratic processes - note he said ' used to have' friends in the EDL - 79.70.229.131 (talk) 22:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)twl79.70.229.131 (talk) 22:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Breivik had 300 EDL friends on Pagebook. If that's not a link, I don't know what is. He also reportedly went on an EDL demo last year. The mindless EDL cretin who appeared on Newsnight threatened that the atrocity would happen again if EDL policies were not implemented (and the word 'threat' was Jeremy Paxman's interpretation of what he said, not mine). Allegations of links are being made in various media outlets: these should be included in the article, but based on past experience I doubt they will be. Incidentally, was the EDL attack on Dudley's Hindu temple an example of what you mean by them 'using democratic processes'? Multiculturalist (talk) 13:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Obviously this is a highly sensitive issue as no one likes to be linked with a mass murderer, but let's keep up with the media reports. If they continue to shed light on his links with the EDL then some sort of comment ought to be made here, but if they cease to say any more on the matter I think it's better to leave it out. Alexandre8 (talk) 22:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Having 300 freinds in face book is not a link to the organisation, just that he liked talkiing to right wingers. Was he in definate contaqct with the EDl leadership over a period period, was there co-ordiantion of action?Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I think some differentiation is needed here, since people seem to be talking about two separate things. On the one hand, there's the question of an organizational link: did he have contacts, connections, "friends" within the EDL? On the other hand, there's the question of an ideological link (or connection, influence, or affiliation): was there ideological and/or strategic influence or resonance between Breivik and the EDL? The sources that I've seen, including an article by the Guardian and one by the Independent emphasize that this was in fact the case. If we decide that this ideological connection is notable to the EDL's article (personally I think that it is) we can include that without having to demonstrate that there was a personal or organizational connection, since the one can exist without the other. I think this ideological connection is relevant to this article - both Breivik and the EDL, for example, are characterized by a particular blend of anti-Marxism and Islamophobia, a fact the Guardian article highlights in a quote by Breivik. Sindinero (talk) 17:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Are the edl anti-Marxist? also i believe that Breivik criticised the EDL for it policies (calling them "naive fools... that still believe the democratic system can solve Britain's problems".Slatersteven (talk) 17:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, good question. I retract that for now, since what the Guardian quote says is merely that Breivik makes this link, not that's it's reflective of the EDL's ideology. I think I've seen this somewhere, but can't find the source at the moment. But the particular breed of Islamophobia couched as a concern for "Western culture" is common to both. Sindinero (talk) 19:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The actual link (very OR here) is that Breivik wanted to become a leading figure in Europes far right, and they all appear to have rejected him (and in that sense they are responsible for his actions, he wanted to be a 'name' in the far right and now he is).Slatersteven (talk) 19:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The distinction I made above between organizational links and ideological links still holds. The sources are speaking of the possibility of the former, and the existence of the latter. That's pretty clear. Sindinero (talk) 19:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Yesterday, one media outlet (I think it was Channel 4 News) said he had "exchanged messages of support with EDL members on internet discussion forums".Multiculturalist (talk) 10:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

(O am not aying this is the same) but I would point out so are we, does this mean you support my opinions?Slatersteven (talk) 11:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

?? Sindinero (talk) 12:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

To be significant enough links to mention here (remeberundue) it has to be more then some one turning up at forums (under an assumed name I seem to recall) and engaging in discusion (rememer too that he did not in fact agree with mush of the EDL's policies). We need evidacen if significant contact, not the kind of activities that any one could do.Slatersteven (talk) 12:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The papers are still talking about it in quite a bit of detail, but since this is a current event, as per wiki rules we should wait until it has passed to include it in the article. There are claims all over the place and anything we write in this article to do with this conection is likely to be a guestimate. Let's wait till the news are sure of what they're writing. Alexandre8 (talk) 09:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Difference from other far-right groups?

Looking at the literature on the EDL, their inclusive, multi-ethnic posturing seems to be a salient difference from previous far-right groups, and is perhaps worthy of its own section. Following discussion above, some text to this effect was included in the lead. I think it was a good decision to subsequently delete it from the lead since it's a topic not included in the article. I've therefore moved the deleted text:

While the group differs from other British far-right groups such as the British National Party or the National Front by publicly promoting an image of multi-ethnicity, inclusion, and liberal values of tolerance, its affinities with other right-wing groups, its Islamophobia, and the outspoken racism of its membership tend to belie this image. (From Garland, Jon; Treadwell, James (2010). "'No Surrender to the Taliban': Football Hooliganism,Islamophobia and the Rise of the English Defence League". Papers from the British Criminology Conference 10: 19–35. Retrieved 8 June 2011.)

to the section Academic analysis, but this is probably a point that should be expanded. The Garland and Treadwell article might be useful in this respect, as well as the one from the journal of politics and religion. What do others think? Sindinero (talk) 23:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

There's been a lot of debate about this in the past here over the inclusion of an indian "leader" being added to the "leaders" page. Ultimately it was rejected because people couldn't bear to see his name on the page. Since no one else has replied here since you posted it, a month ago, you can go ahead and make the inclusion I would have said. It's definitely significant. Alexandre8 (talk) 17:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Infobox, logo

I just have a very simple question; why is there a random picture in the infobox, rather than the group's logo? As far as I am aware, it is always the logo of a given group that is reserved for the infobox, not pictures. – Bellatores (t.) 16:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Assuming its stabilised on the shield on their web site I see no objection - assuming you can get a public use version. The photograph could then go into the main body of the article. --Snowded ^TALK 16:43, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The group's logo is not registered and probably cannot be. I would object to showing it. TFD (talk) 17:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

OK add "legal" to "public use" in my comment above --Snowded ^TALK 17:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Why is there an objection to showing it if its their logo? is there a valid policy objection to its use?Slatersteven (talk) 19:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

If there is no legitimate reason for not using the logo, I assume that I (or anyone else) am free to copy their logo and use it on this article under regular logo fair use arrangements. – Bellatores (t.) 01:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The conditions for use of logo under that policy are fairly strict and I think you need to find out if the EDL have registered it or not --Snowded ^TALK 07:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, apologies for placing the logo to the article without discussing it here first -- I didn't notice this discussion. The logo should be in the article's infobox. It can be included under a fair use provision, so concerns about it being either a copyrighted image or a registered trademark do not matter. The version I uploaded is quite clearly the logo of the EDL, since a very similar version of the logo is used prominently on their website. The way I used it seems to be consistent with the guidelines at Wikipedia:Logos. I'm not sure what is meant by the above comments about the logo needing to be registered -- the guidelines only say that 'Reasonable diligence should be taken to ensure that the logo is accurate'. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 18:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Do we have any evidence other than the web site of EDL? --Snowded ^TALK 15:01, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

What that it's their logo? It's a logo, where else do we get evidence? Alexandre8 (talk) 16:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I can't think of any other possible sources of evidence. Surely the website is sufficient? It's used fairly prominently there, and a logo is not the sort of thing likely to generate much coverage in reliable sources. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 18:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Spread of Islam, Islamism and Sharia law courts

If it's actually happening, can it be "perceived"?

Well let's find some evidence it's happening and we'll get the unnecessary words removed.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1535478/Sharia-law-is-spreading-as-authority-wanes.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196165/Britain-85-sharia-courts-The-astonishing-spread-Islamic-justice-closed-doors.html

http://my.telegraph.co.uk/riteman/riteway/16308971/stop-the-spread-of-sharia-law/

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/renouncing-islamism-to-the-brink-and-back-again-1821215.html - spread mentioned twice in article.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-515248/New-sharia-row-Chancellors-plans-Islamic-bonds.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/jan/08/islam-uk-growth-muslims - even the guardian admits a growth rate of a minimum of 2.5%

Ok, so we can all read that Islam is not a stagnant force in the UK. Are we still "perceiving" the change, or are we acknowledging it. Or are we going to rubbish the sources because we don't like its content? Big question. Remember by stating facts we are not condoning the behaviour of the EDL. Alexandre8 (talk) 16:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I went through them and I don't see anything that supports the EDL's policy stance. Remember that is the context of the phrase. I'd get rid of the blog from the list anyway. The independent is a very complex article which makes a of points and does not support the statement. Others have bits and pieces that you can't put together to validate an EDL claim --Snowded ^TALK 16:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

What is the EDL claim? There doesn't have to be a direct link in the articles to the EDL. The EDL opposes the spread of, Islam itself, Islamism, and Sharia Law. All three are supported to be existent in the country. Doesn't this mean that they are not perceiving an existence so much as seeing and reacting to an existence? Which bits and pieces do you think don't support this general statement. Sharia courts torigraph and dailymail deal with, general growth of islam the guardian and daily mail attest too, and islamism is mentioned in some of them, and july 7 bombing are evidence of it. Alexandre8 (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

This smacks of OR: "general growth of islam the guardian and daily mail attest too, and islamism is mentioned in some of them, and july 7 bombing are evidence of it". Excuse me? The July 7 bombing is evidence of the growth of Islam or of Islamism? If it's the former, then that's simply undigested racism; if the latter, it might be of the more digested sort, or it might just be a huge oversimplification of a very complex issue. For this article, I agree w/ Snowded that we need "perceived" or some variation of that - otherwise the article lead could suggest not just that Wikipedia's editorial voice believes in the phenomena described (Islam, "Islamism," a messy, controversial term the use of which is already an act of interpretation rather than the statement of fact, and the ), but that Wikipedia endorses the implicit (and racist, disingenuous, and factually incorrect) narrative of the EDL that Islam leads to Islamism leads to the (leads to the downfall of "English culture"). This is an old narrative, drawing a lot on ideas of a supposed clash of civilizations -- the danger for this article is that it is a narrative, and thus an interpretation, that poses as fact. You seem to be trying to do the same thing when you move from proof of a demographic fact () to a historical event (the bombing) as if the relationship were a causal one. Sindinero (talk) 17:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Indent please Alexandre8and also read WP:SYNTH. Take this quote "According to this Tommy, EDL's raison d'être is to take a stand against the rise of radical Islam on Britain's streets. When you ask the rank and file though they will tell you they are just anti- Muslim." which is from one of the sources. The EDL are making complex and contradictory claims. You can't search out sources that seem to support part of the verbal formulation of those claims. --Snowded ^TALK 17:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Snowed, the EDL has a very weak identity and like the BNP full of confused people, contradictory claims are ripe amongst people without any real sense of diection. It is full of different kinds of people, hence why very hard to label. I myself am not surprised by what you just quoted. Tommy I'm sure is very sincere in his claim to be only wanting to tackle islamism, yet his ranks as you say ARE indeed filled by people who just oppose Islam. If however we're going by Tommy's aim for the EDL, then we ought to change the line that were talking about to "against the **** spread of Islamism and Sharia Law in Britain"" and omit "spread of Islam" because Tommy has made it clear in the past of his position on this. Who are we actually quoting here? IF we are going by Tommy's claims then it seems fair to remove "percieved" because neither islamism or sharia law are quite abhorrent things (note omission of Islam, but you rarely misinterprete what I write, this is more directed as sindinero).

Sindinero stereotypical socialist interpretation of what I wrote. Please try and read what I write, and not imagine what you thought I wrote. Islam and Islamism are different things,and to suggest that I was implying 7july was evidence of the growth of islam is just offensive to everyone. I thought it was quite clear I was referring to islamism. Secondly, I was merely relying the rhetoric of the EDL, IF that makes me racist, then again, im offended. Finally, it's not up to us to discuss the meaning of islamism, and what it actually means, we just go by the sources. Alexandre8 (talk) 17:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I indented your comment for you. You are missing the point about original research and synthesis. You phrase " stereotypical socialist interpretation" is frankly ridiculous and I suggest you withdraw it and focus on arguments within policy. --Snowded ^TALK 18:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I did not start making it personal. And let's face it, socialists always focus on and mix up racism with other forms of words. Alexandre8 (talk) 18:23, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

You are the only one to have made personal comments. I read your original comment the same way as Sindinero so you might want to tighten up your wording. As to your opinion on socialists, that has no place here. Please focus on content. Thank you for following policy in respect if indentation--Snowded ^TALK 18:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Alexandre8, I only responded to what you wrote, and another user read it the same way; I second the suggestion that you work on clarity, rather than turning well-meaning criticism into a personal attack, committing personal attacks in the process. I'd also suggest that you read what I wrote more carefully - you seem unable to distinguish between "Islamism" and terrorism, and this is precisely what I meant when I referred to implicit narratives. "Islamism" is a complex, contradictory, and contentious phrase that can refer to a number of things, tendencies, movements, and characteristics. To say that Islamism caused the bombings is no less problematic, OR, and nNPOV than to say that Islam caused them. It oversimplifies a hugely complex issue, and it's disturbing to see that you seem to endorse the EDL's essential narrative on this topic. That, and the fact that you call me a socialist because I criticized this narrative suggest that you have a distinct POV on this issue that you had best set to one side if you want to productively contribute to this article. Sindinero (talk) 19:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I called you a socialist because I believe that's what you endorse, I was just revering to you user page. To endorse the EDL. If you mean that I advocate violence and street marching and abuse, no I do not. But EDL is a microcosm of a much larger problem, Islam and Islamism. I see islamism and terrorism as one and the same thing only because that is what the tabloids write, and to ignore them would leave us bare of sources as most are found from the papers here on wikipedia. The reason I raised this topic was because there is evidence of what the EDL claim to be fighting, and the sentence "what is percieves to be" seems arrogant and airy fairy. It's a moral judgement and that's not what Wikipedia should be about. It negates what it's trying to achieve. I.E NPOV. Alexandre8 (talk) 22:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

My point stands. I don't think there's actually much to respond to in what you've just said - you've repeated your claim, seemingly out of the blue, that I'm a "socialist," whatever that means for you, and stated that you believe that Islam is a problem, and that you see Islamism and terrorism as equivalent. None of these give much confidence of your ability to contribute positively to this article. Sindinero (talk) 23:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I asked you to refute the claim about socialism? I was going by your profile. Anybody who is starkly opposed to the EDL cannot under your rules contribute either. Hard to sit on the fence on this one isn't it. Anyway, I'll tell you now, being I can't say I'm a particularly a fan of Sharia Law getting its noose over my neck. I'll just remind my muslim friend vince that you think he is the same thing as Osama bin laden, and I'm sure he'll be over the moon. Would you care to tell me how and why Islamism is a nice thing for the world? Alexandre8 (talk) 23:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand anything that I've said, and your last comment is largely incoherent. (Where on my profile do you see me identify myself as a socialist?) Not only the issue you're pushing here, not only your use of "socialist" to smear those who disagree with you, but your contribution history suggests that you have an agenda to push with regards to the British far-right. Despite your lame attempts at symmetry, pushing a specific POV on wikipedia is not the same as just having an opinion. Your comments here and your contributions elsewhere suggest that you're more interested in using Wikipedia as a pulpit for these groups than as a source of reliably-sourced, neutrally-worded information about them. That's a problem. Sindinero (talk) 02:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who is not a socialist, it seems to me that Alexandre8 has an unhealthy hang up about Islam and Muslims (in much the same way as some ran vendettas against the Jews in the 1930s) and I fail to see why he should be allowed to use this discussion page as a soapbox to express his paranoid views. Further more, why does he need to keep reminding us all of his sexuality? He'll find that socialists are far more supportive of gay rights than are any of the fascist nutters in the EDL.Multiculturalist (talk) 12:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that no one should use this page as a soapbox for thier political opinions or agendas. I would susgest that both Alex and Multi should take a step back for a while.Slatersteven (talk) 13:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Yawn. Alexandre8 (talk) 13:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Responding to your previous comment -- take the time to figure out what a Wikipedia task force is. Do you also believe that I am an anarchist, an East German, a work of science fiction, or a novel? Besides POV problems, you seem to have serious competency issues. Sindinero (talk) 14:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Go on then, just tell us what you are. Alexandre8 (talk) 14:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

What I am is an editor interested in contributing to quality article based on a use of reliable sources, a neutral point of view, and sound critical reasoning, none of which you seem particularly well endowed with. As far as wikipedia goes, those are my politics. My personal opinions are not really your concern, nor do I allow them to affect my editing. If you can't understand the difference between personal political opinions and POV-pushing, then you probably have no business using any human language on a regular basis, let alone contributing to politically contentious articles. Your thuggish provocation for me to tell you personal information about myself is getting pretty close to harassment, and is especially ridiculous after you've admitted you edit Wikipedia for POV reasons: "You know why I edit those pages? Because they are only edited by left wing people whose agenda is to use it as a slur page." [14] Sindinero (talk) 16:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, didn;t see that coming. Didn't take any notice of Multi's rubbish earlier up, and his lack of sources. I'll think you'll find you'll have to look a bit harder before coming to such wide and thoughtless stances on my work here. All of my contributions I make sincerely, and if you think this page needs no work you're not looking properly. Now enough personal attacks on me, and you get back to work. p.s if you're on the right wing of the political spectrum I'm mohammad. "As far as wikipedia goes, those are my politics. My personal opinions are not really your concern, nor do I allow them to affect my editing. If you can't understand the difference between personal political opinions and POV-pushing" such crap and you know it. Alexandre8 (talk) 16:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

You are pushing the boundaries of acceptable behaviour Alexandre8. You got some good advise with no personal attacks, and your response was to carry on making accusations and labeling people. Your contributions, like those of Multi are sincere but they are coming from a clear political position and it does affect your editing. Pull back (and Multi, you need to as well that recent edit was unsupported) and just stop. If not you are going to end up at ANI. You already have one block for a personal attack, don't add to it--Snowded ^TALK 17:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok Snowed. I just don't like being called a racist without good meaning. It's what sparked it, and sindinero's further responses were personal too. I'm taking a break I have work to do. p.s I've had no blocks ever, is that directed at multi? Alexandre8 (talk) 18:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Please don't lie. You have been blocked, link provided --Snowded ^TALK 19:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Whatever that's the first thing I knew about it. Alexandre8 (talk) 23:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, you're lying. This isn't productive, nor does it inspire confidence in either your intentions or basic competence. The block was announced on your talk page here, and you delete it here. Cheers, Sindinero (talk) 00:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Record of material deleted by Alexandre

O.K. I'm sorry, I just have to ask. Alexandre8 you seem to [know alot about/be a member of] the EDL, did any one in that organisation watch V for Vandetta? How did an anti-islamic right-wing UK political group, formed long after the release of the film, pick an almost identical symbol and color scheme to that of the fascist Norsefire party? 107.10.53.28 (talk) 04:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Norwegian Murderer

Yet again I have been forced into bringing this to the talk page, despite the edit being a reinforcement of the Wikipedia rules simply because it's not to the taste of other editors. The Guardian does not have a god status of being the ultimate source. It should not be the one primarily quoted on Anders Breivik when many other papers have commented on his links the the EDL. Only the guardian uses the word "boasted". This is no reason to give it presidence above the others. The others use sensible languages highlighting his links. They are the one's who should be quoted in an ENCYCLOPAEDIC article. wow this is like trying to get a visa for north korea.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/8658417/Norway-killer-many-within-far-right-share-Anders-Breiviks-ideas.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/outcry-over-role-of-english-defence-league-2319895.html

Neither links here use such wording. Alexandre8 (talk) 16:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see what your problem is, boasting seems an appropriate word, the links appear to have been information. --Snowded ^TALK 17:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Given that you like the Independent source (the Telegraph hardly mentions the contacts), maybe we should use this "Supporters of the English Defence League have blamed the Norwegian government’s immigration policies for the attacks that killed at least 93 people, provoking outcry from anti-fascist campaigners who are calling for the EDL to be classified as an extremist group." then follow it with the subsequent denial? I'm surprised that an editor who normally supports the EDL would want to remove "boasted" which phrase allows the the possibility that it is a false claim. --Snowded ^TALK 19:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I am rather unconvinced that Breivik belongs here at all -- it is his own self-published claim that he made contact (even according to the Guardian), and it is clear that the EDL had no formal contact with him and appears to quite strongly demur on his acts. Adding a despicable person's COATRACK to an article on a despicable organization is not supportable by Wikipedia policy. Collect (talk) 19:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The Independent article about the EDL's reaction is note-worthy. TFD (talk) 21:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Whats noteworthy in that article? Supporters of the English Defence League have said bla bla bla - who are these supporters? Boasting? where is that cited to ? Off2riorob (talk) 21:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Who normally supports the EDL lol. Boasted is just an immature word and the guardian only seeks to narrow the gap between the EDL and Breivik than to widen it quoted only from the famously impartial guardian. Hence why it should be removed. Alexandre8 (talk) 21:35, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The Independent article says, "Supporters of the English Defence League have blamed the Norwegian government’s immigration policies for the attacks". Is that good journalism? Don't know. But the correct way to stop perceived EDL-bashing by the media would be to complain to them or the Press Complaints Council. TFD (talk) 21:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it just goes to show all the papers are rather confused about the murderer's links to the EDL and what it means. We may just wish to remove all mention of the fanatic until things aren't so hazy. Alexandre8 (talk) 02:15, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Not sure how we can take seriously someone who uses the word "unencaeclopaedic" in the 'View history' page. At least learn to spell before you try editing Wikipedia. By the way, please do not remove this comment as you did before - it's not a 'personal attack', it's a valid question about why someone who cannot write proper English should be allowed to edit an English language encyclopedia. Multiculturalist (talk) 09:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll go through the sources when I get home next week and review the wording. The links are clearly notable, and if the Independent source is true, the the EDL supporters statements, while perverted are notable as well. "Boasted" is a word, it like most english words can be used both maturely and immaturely, it is a complete nonsense to suggest that it is immature of itself. In this case it seems accurate, unless there is evidence of wider or official contacts which may emerge. --Snowded ^TALK 06:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

You don't own this article and your attempts to control it are boorish. No one is waiting or cares where you are or what boring meeting you are at. If the mass murderer is reportedly boasting of something - go add it to his article where it would better belong - and make sure your desire to report as "boasting" are supported in the press and not just your own anti EDL spin. I have reverted User Snowded's rewrite - it focused on the mass murderer, this article is a bout the EDL the organization, not the mass murderer and the primary notable thing that the organization has officially done is to reject the actions of the mass murderer completely and to deny having had any contact with him. In the murderers article the focus is the other way around but not here. Off2riorob (talk) 08:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

It would have taken you one click or a simple reading of the discussion to see that "boasting" is up front and central in the Guardian article Off3riorob, and that would have been time better spent that some rather silly personal attacks. If we look at the sources we have:

• Boasting of EDL contacts (guardian) or more generally claiming them in various sources
• Clear controversy in the Independent which reports EDL supporters blaming Norwegian immigration policies for the killings
• Confirmation in the Guardian article that the EDL make no initial repines
• Subsequent to the above a denial by the EDL

From that it is clearly POV to start with the EDL denial, which is response to the boast/claim and the controversy (which is how I worded it). It is clear from the Independent article that controversy about the EDL and suggestions that Government attitudes etc. make this notable for the EDL article itself. It would be good to have some more considered material (I suggested some time ago we wait before inserting material on this if editors remember). It seems to me that "Boasting" is a more neutral term as it implies it could be claims that are not valid per se, but that is not the most important point. What is undeniable, based on the evidence, is that the EDL did not condemn the killings until after the reports and the text should show things in proper sequence. FOr example "In response to claims by X and reports that its own supporters said Y, the EDL stated ..." --Snowded ^TALK 13:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

EDL involvement in the riots

Yesterday's Channel 4 News reported on how racist scum from the EDL went to Eltham to cause trouble in the riots. They claimed they were there to help keep the peace but footage actually shows their supporters abusing three innocent black youngsters on the top deck of a bus. Can anyone provide a source for this? Also, isn't it time we used the word "racist" as an accurate description of these cretins, preferably in the opening paragraph? Multiculturalist (talk) 08:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

It is WP's goal to make encyclopedia articles, not to make clear how despicable we WP:KNOW some people or groups to be -- we only can use the wording of reliable sources without giving undue weight to any accusations. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Sources: [15] but a better one is [16] - there are more. Dougweller (talk) 11:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Multi, please stop making it your only goal to destroy the EDL. This is not the role of an encyclopaedia.If you're going to make comments like this then please refrain from huge POV in your messages its offensive. "Racist scum" is hardly words for here huh? When people are editing the history of the SDP they don't say, "CALL HITLER A NAZI" at every opportunity do they? Please think about this. Alexandre8 (talk) 13:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Lectures about impartiality carry very little weight when they emanate from Alexandre8. Incidentally, Channel 4 News were last night reporting about how EDL members were "shouting racial abuse" at people in Eltham when a group of their members were supposedly acting as vigilantes. They were then apparently involved in running battles with the police. Multiculturalist (talk) 08:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Because I always rubbish your content, which very rarely has any noteworthy content. You know the rules multi. Sources weight and NPOV. At the moment you have none, just like the post about calling them nazi's. Get som and perhaps this can go further. Kindest regards, sasha. Alexandre8 (talk) 12:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, David Cameron's comments as reported on the EDL web site seem to match those of Multiculturalist ..... --Snowded ^TALK 10:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

As thought the EDl website ws not RS for anything but their views. Howeveer we do have RS saying tat they appear to be acting as vigilanties.Slatersteven (talk) 10:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

We can get Cameron's statement from Hansard if its needed. I was however making a point, not proposing a change to the article at this stage. EDL are attempting to make something out of the riots, but we have police and political condemnation reported and citable. It may be notable, not sure on that yet and there is no urgency. --Snowded ^TALK 10:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

No, rhe EDL have been accused of trying to make something out of the Riots. Which is what we would repoprt (as the artciel does).Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Isn't that what I just said? --Snowded ^TALK 11:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

No, you said the EDL are doing it. You did not say that is only an accusation.Slatersteven (talk) 13:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Snowed, what you've added, and what Multi is saying are different things. You've added a decent informative encyclopaedic entry, and his was just a slur without even bothering to find sources. That's what we're objecting to. Alexandre8 (talk) 13:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Also we need to have what the EDL have said, and the fact that not everyone agrees thaqt this is an EDL organised action. Lets have all sides of this.Slatersteven (talk) 13:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Multiculturalist, your comments are disturbing. Calling people "racist scum" is objectifying them, which is what people accuse the EDL of doing. If you continue then I would support your being blocked. TFD (talk) 04:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)4

I think you need to differentiate. In the case of Eltham, there was no track record of riots in the exact area (the nearest having been in Lewisham, some three miles/five kilometers to the west, with an entire neighbourhood in between) and a history of EDL support in Welling immediately to the east: the EDL seem to have been integrated into the protest from the start, and it is to be surmised that they may have instigated it. In the case of Enfield, the protest group organised after two nights of rioting, the first of which did serious damage to the town centre itself and the second of which burned out a major distribution centre on the northern edge of the town. The group formed and chased off a concrete threat on the third night, and the EDL attempted to hijack it on the fourth. Enfield is 4 miles/7 km due north of Tottenham, and if this group had been a vigilante force it would have attacked Tottenham - it did not. Therefore, it lacks the proactive sense of the vigilante, and the attachment of the term is not NPOV.

I am not editing this myself becase I am about to return to Enfield after many years away, and am aware that there has been an ongoing poor relationship with the Police in the area, which motivated both the initial riot and the later neighbourhood defence action. Some consideration shoul;d also be given to the role of the Police in the Duggan death, as the ostensible action and disinformation in the initial briefing again shades the local relationship. That the IPCC should already have apologised for the initial error which caused this yet continues the enquiry casts grave doubt on their neutrality, and they should withdraw in favour of a neutral panel. Sufficient doubt has already been raised about their wider neutrality in the Media corruption/hacking cases as to further substantiate this concern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.129.24.181 (talk • contribs) 08:24, 14 August 2011

Four Deuces are these two paragraphs underneath your original statement yours as well? It's just there's no tag. Alexandre8 (talk) 10:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

No. However, I have added details for the unsigned editor. TFD (talk) 14:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

"Firms", vague usage for international audience

The article had a comment, "figures in hooligan firms." makes no sense to states-side English speakers. Please explain this "firms" idea further. It is unclear to speakers of English outside of Britain.Dogru144 (talk) 09:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The pipeline explains it in the second paragraph so there is more than enough of an explanation. Your other change to "associated" is inaccurate, it is to figures so I have reverted --Snowded ^TALK 10:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Lead paragraph.

I reverted Christopher Connor for four main reasons. Firstly, there is no WP:Consensus for a major revision of the long-standing intro. Secondly. having Dave Gunning in the lead constitutes WP:UNDUE. Thirdly, this source is used twice, but in both places the source does not support the text. Fourthly, the new lead violates WP:NPOV with the non-neutral language. Pass a Method talk 08:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

(About this edit) You misunderstand consensus and the undue weight rule. What exactly is undue about Gunning? Gunning is an academic, and his book is published by Liverpool University Press, obviously a high-quality source. For convenience, the part sourced to Gunning read:

The organisation is associated with racist violence, and is perceived as "offer[ing] a platform from which violent discriminatory views may be aired", according to Dave Gunning of the University of Birmingham.[17]

I added this to show that some think the EDL and its members are racist, and that they are generally known to be violent. You've only merely asserted the passage is undue and not explained why (often a red flag when an editor does this; likewise when an editor claims consensus is not adhered to), so I don't know what you specifically object to. Are saying the above is a minority viewpoint? If so, you need to bring forth other views that counter it, not mere assertions.

As for this piece by Treadwell and Garland, tell me whether or not you've read it; then we continue the discussion on this point.

As for NPOV, the views and quotes have been attributed in the text, so that resolves the problem.

You've also removed without explanation the part that said they were established in 2009 and "30 protests", and that Searchlight is an "an anti-racist magazine". If you're disputing this, explain why; if not, add it back. Christopher Connor (talk) 12:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Searchlight is anti-facist for a start. The Gunning quote may be appropriate but it should be in the main text. Best to agree its insertion there and then consider the lede. I suggest you keep those proposals distinct and draft them here for agreement --Snowded ^TALK 12:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Snowded about putting it in the main text instead of the intro. I wouldn't mind the Gunning quote in the Academic analysis section. Please try to gain consensus before a major revision of the intro next time. Pass a Method talk 14:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Ignoring Gunning for now, can you respond to my other points? Christopher Connor (talk) 15:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

As for the other points, again, they might be okay for the main text, but not for the lede/intro. Search-light is not anti-racist, rather anti-fascist. As for the "30 protests" part, that is disputable because if you add minor EDL protests then the 30 figure is way off the mark. As for Treadwell and Garland part, that is a reliable source, but the text does not match what the source says. Pass a Method talk 19:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

What "might be okay for the main text, but not for the lede/intro"? I'm glad we can all agree on appropriate wording to describe Searchlight. Do you have other sources for the number of protests? Note the wording said "more than 30". Remember that what you (and I) think is irrelevant. But for accuracy, we can even attribute and date that part. Please answer my question: have you read the piece by Treadwell and Garland given in the link above? Christopher Connor (talk) 20:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

yes, i have rea the Garlend link. The lede is supposed to summarize the most important points, per WP:LEAD. Pass a Method talk 20:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

So, lets actually start getting specific/constructive instead of endless debating. The vague and unhelpful questions being asked by Christophe Conner will not lead to productive results. Pass a Method talk 21:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, in that case, see page 623 for "English culture", and pages 626-627 for the paragraph about conflict about the two groups. Do you now agree that the material was indeed sourced? It's ironic that you say you want things to be constructive. You're the claim who's making vague assertions and statements accompanied without sources, and saying there's no consensus and random things without thought like "The lede is supposed to summarize the most important points, per WP:LEAD." But on the point of LEAD, the biggest section of this article is "Association with violence and anti-social behaviour". It is you who removed the part in the lead about the EDL's association with violence. What you've been doing is making vague, false, and unsourced statements, and when a reply is given you don't respond until asked repeatedly. All my questions have been related to the content of the article, and have been direct and straightforward. In fact, there's still material you removed that hasn't been explained. Christopher Connor (talk) 21:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

What to include and where

Okay, lets make proposals one by one about what to include and where. Emphasis on where because we have to follow WP:LAYOUT. Pass a Method talk 21:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

You're basically repeating the same behaviour I noted above. You said (twice) that Treadwell and Garland didn't source those two points. You said you've read the source. I've now given the exact page numbers, but you didn't respond. Perhaps you should go and check whether the source does indeed check out. Christopher Connor (talk) 22:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Page protection

There seems to be some kind of edit war. I've protected the article for a week but if editors can reach an agreement on the disputed material then protection can be lifted early by me or any admin.   Will Beback  talk  01:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks WIll, that is helpful --Snowded ^TALK 01:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Recent changes

(RE this). There are some points that I think should be in the lead:

• The date of its establishment.
• Number of protests.
• Mention of disorder/violence/antisocial behaviour.

Also:

• The two parts sourced to Treadwell and Garland I've already given the page numbers for.
• That Searchlight is anti-fascist magazine I've added, but the revert changes it back to anti-racist.

Those I think are all the points in the reverts. Christopher Connor (talk) 01:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Number of protests changes all the time, I think its enough to say they are a street protest movement

Can you provide the wording you propose for dis/order etc.

Gunning should be main text not the lede

I think we should just use Searchlight as a reference, there is no need to say "Searchlight says" and no need to say what type of a magazine it is, if there is a need then its anti-fascist but I would not include that. --Snowded ^TALK 01:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I propose this for now: "At many of their gatherings, which frequently result in violence, EDL members ...", sourced here. Maybe something about heavy police presence/cost if sources allow. I agree we don't need to say what type of magazine it is (but it already mentioned it (then "anti-racist") before I started editing the article), but they are somewhat partisan and may not be the most reliable source, so attribution may be needed. T&G 2011 give some explanation on why folks join the EDL in the first place. This sources "white working-class members", but that doesn't have to be in the lead, can go in Membership. Christopher Connor (talk) 01:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy with the "At many of their gatherings" wording. Searchlight has been determined by the community as a reliable source on these matters - on factual matters. Agree to put the white working class in membership section. Best to wait for some other editors however --Snowded ^TALK 01:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I think we should also mention something about the EDL seeing Islam(ism)/Islamic extremism being a threat to English/Christian culture; and how the EDL emerged. Right now, the lead is fairly short and doesn't summarise the article. Christopher Connor (talk) 01:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

As it happens the last issue if Searchlight had some good material on that, linked to the wider Far Right issues and internationalist ion which is also weak. I'm in the US at the moment but can dig it out when I get home at the weekend. --Snowded ^TALK 01:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you object to the material sourced to T&G2011? Christopher Connor (talk) 03:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Well the full text is not available on line, you look to be sourcing from the abstract which is fine in the main body of the article. --Snowded ^TALK 10:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I think This edit is superfluous and redundant. It repeats the same thing already covered in the first sentence. I disagree with the lede being too short. it looks fine as it is and covers the most essential details. Pass a Method talk 16:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, it seems you don't actually disagree with me on many of the points. It would have been better if you'd have only reverted or moved the parts you didn't like. The parts from T&G2011 are from the full article. I think that covers all the points. Christopher Connor (talk) 23:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Can we begin to implement the agreed changes? Christopher Connor (talk) 02:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I dont mind as long as you don't touch the lede. Pass a Method talk 23:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it may be fair to make some changes to the lede, but not to include that long piece which should be in the main body with a possible summary. Christopher, can you be specific about what you mean by "agreed changes". Thanks --Snowded ^TALK 09:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

This:

• Date of establishment in Lead.
• "At many of their gatherings, which frequently result in violence, EDL members" in Lead.
• The bit about "white working-class members", and conflict between groups (T&G2011), to go in Membership and support.
• "The EDL views Islam as a threat to English culture" in Views and reactions. Christopher Connor (talk) 13:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the second bulletpoint about violence in the lede is superfluous, but i have no strong opinion. I think the third bulletpoint about "white members" is slightly exagerrated as EDL have frequently stated multiracial slogans. Pass a Method talk 11:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Islamophobic EDL

I still cannot understand why the term 'Islamophobic' cannot be added to the opening sentence as one of the descriptions of what the EDL are. TV footage of one of their recent rallies showed clearly banners proclaiming that "Islam is evil". What is that if it's not Islamophobia? Further more, I understand that their leader says the group will defy instructions (made by our country's democratically elected government and home secretary) that they must not hold a series of marches in London: surely, then, the words 'lawless' and 'criminal' should also apply to the EDL? Multiculturalist (talk) 09:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

You certainly know we can only repeat what reliable sources say. I suggest you cite such sources when starting talk page topics such as this, as I don't see how some of the topics you start here are aimed at improving the article.--Pontificalibus (talk) 10:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, please use sources Multiculturalist, you are in danger of soapboxing --Snowded ^TALK 10:39, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, you are not alone in this but that does not make it acceptable.Slatersteven (talk) 11:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Want a box for that soap? Alexandre8 (talk) 12:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

That is a silly and provocative remark Alenandre8 I suggest you delete it. I don't think it would take much effort to find a source to support Multiculturists viewpoint and the two recent bans on EDL marches see them marked as racists. --Snowded ^TALK 13:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Feel the burns of the iron whip! God you're predictable. Kind of funny really. Anyway back to the nonsense written by multi. GET A SOURCE. How many times have you been told this! Stop wasting everyone's time which is what you're doing without a source. Hence my remarks. Time wasting. Alexandre8 (talk) 13:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep it nice and stop commenting in users.Slatersteven (talk) 14:49, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Anders Breivik

Collect removed following material as WP:coatrack:

Following a claim by Anders Behring Breivik to have had multiple contacts with EDL members accompanied by controversy over those claims, the EDL leadership condemned the 2011 Norway attacks, saying that "the taking of innocent lives can never be justified".

I strongly disagree. Breivik's connection to the EDL (actually more than just his claim) have put EDL under intense scrutiny here in the UK, completely changing the way they are debated in public, e.g. leading to much stronger statements from prime minister David Cameron - see literally hundreds of Google news hits for EDL + Breivik. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

You should find an article that explains how he is relevant to the EDL (rather than how the EDL is relevant to him) and we can write it better. The current wording looks guilt by association. TFD (talk) 14:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be difficult to write it without guilt by association. But it's just about the most notable thing to have happened in connection to the EDL, isn't it? It would be a bit odd not to mention it in the article. What would our purpose be in excluding it? --FormerIP (talk) 00:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

That tabloids exist is scant reason for WP to ape them <g>. If the connection is minimal, then WP:BLP and WP:WEIGHT apply. Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:55, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

(out) The passage does not explain the significance. I would use just one of the three sources, The Independent, "Outcry over role of English Defence League".[18] It says, "Supporters of the English Defence League have blamed the Norwegian government’s immigration policies for the attacks that killed at least 93 people, provoking outcry from anti-fascist campaigners who are calling for the EDL to be classified as an extremist group.... A statement from the EDL denied that it had any official contact with Breivik and condemned the attacks. But comments made by EDL supporters on the organisation’s forum and Facebook page are likely to increase pressure on the group." That way we have a source explaining the connection rather than our implying it. TFD (talk) 02:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Think the noteworthy bit is AB's claim to have had contact with the EDL, which is widely reported in international media. --FormerIP (talk) 13:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

But its only his claim, and he claims contacts with a lot of people. Placing it where we have impplies offical contact. There may be an argument that it should be the the association with violence section (which is what this is, a vagure aqssociation not direct contact).Slatersteven (talk) 13:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's only his claim, so that's how it should be clearly presented. But it's something that, because of the context, has received more media coverage that anything else to do with the EDL, so I think it would be perverse not to include it. To many people not in the UK, that's what the organisation is likely to be best known for, I think. --FormerIP (talk) 13:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

You need to provide sources that support the conclusions you have drawn, otherwise it is implied original research. He mentioned a lot of influences, but no one would suggest adding a paragraph to the JS Mill article. TFD (talk) 17:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Here's a small-selection of articles from around the world mentioning a supposed Breivik/EDL link: [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27]. It is something that featured quite prominently in his manifesto and, although I don't have time to prove it, I think it would not be unreasonable to guess that every major news outlet in the world carried something about it in the days after the murders, which would represent something of a spike in coverage for the EDL. --FormerIP (talk) 18:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

A lot of people and groups were also hevily mentioned in his manifesto. What we have is not proven direct link (despite clims that such would be found). What we have is talk on forums and chat groups. Thus whilst we can say they have been associated with Breivik we cannot say that they are linked or connected to him.Slatersteven (talk) 12:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course. We can only say what is reflected in the sources and we should certainly also include the EDL's denials. --FormerIP (talk) 13:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The "manifesto" covered a lot of people, places, things etc. and I suggest that having Breivik links in every article remotely mentioned by him without actuall connections going the other way was, and remains, COATRACK. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone suggested every article. Just this one. By extension I suppose the same rationale ought to apply in other cases where things included in the manifesto became worldwide headline news in their own right. --FormerIP (talk) 13:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

There are probably three things that might be relevant and notable. The first, noted already, is mentions of EDL in the "manifesto". As others have said, hundreds of groups and individuals are mentioned, and there is a risk of guilt by association and coatracking to devote space to this. However, the EDL is one of the groups mentioned more than any other. Second, there is his claim to have had contact with them. If this were just his claim ("Breivik wrote of having strong links with the EDL, saying he had met its leaders and had 600 EDL members as Facebook friends." [28], it would again be guilt by association and perhaps undue weight. However, it is more than just his claim. See e.g. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/8661139/Norway-killer-Anders-Behring-Breivik-had-extensive-links-to-English-Defence-League.html : it has been corroborated by several EDL members. Third, and the thing that makes Breivik most significant to EDL and not the other way around, is the intense public and police scrutiny put on the EDL as a result. From the same article: "Scotland Yard was investigating Breivik’s claims that he began his deadly “crusade” after being recruited to a secret society in London, and that he was guided by an English “mentor”. David Cameron, who was being kept updated on developments, said Breivik’s claims were being taken “extremely seriously”." More recently, Norwegian police have been questioning, for a few days I think, EDL founder Paul Ray [29] and the Breivik connection has been widely cited as one of the main reasons for police bans on EDL marches since then, see e.g. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/56c276da-d4bb-11e0-a7ac-00144feab49a.html#axzz1Wnm6PPxc http://news.scotsman.com/scotland/March-by-farright-set-to.6820705.jp http://www.scotsman.com/news/Spectre-of-Breivik-inflames-farright.6821219.jp BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm with BobFromBrockley and FormerIP on this one. Given that so many news outlets and on-line forums are making the connection, it should be given a prominent place in the article (along with the EDL's denials, of course). I also think TFD's quote is significant, inwhich he says "Supporters of the English Defence League have blamed the Norwegian government’s immigration policies for the attacks that killed at least 93 people..." What the EDL are in effect saying here is that Breivik's actions were an understandable (or even justifable) response to Norway's immigration policies and that those policies should be modified to suit his opinions. What a disgrace, and one that should surely be highlighted in the article. Surely the fact that the EDL are willing to use what he did as a tool with which to advance their own agenda is proof that there is an ideological link, if nothing else. Multiculturalist (talk) 09:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The notability is the press interest in the UK following the link and some rather stupid statements by EDL supporters which were eventually denied as EDL policy. Since then we have a lot of material investigating the links between far right groups and those include the EDL and groups with which Breivik was a member or associated (but who in general have condemned his actions, not they had much alternative). Given all of that its valid material for the body of this article, but not the lede, and we need to report the press coverage and responses not make accusations against the EDL --Snowded ^TALK 09:32, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Seems to me we are reaching a consensus. We're talking about one or two sentences, with a couple of citations such as the Telegraph article, which note the fact EDL leadership have denied connection. Should it go at end of violence section, or end of international connections section?BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

International connections is better in my opinion Pass a Method talk 19:55, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Association with violence and anti-social behaviour

There are a number of problems with these section:

1. From the link about the death threats it says, "Jeremy Dear said: "In a week when yet more photographers have been targeted by right-wing hate website Redwatch..." Wikipida calls them a left wing site. Which is it? Either way what does this have to do with the EDL?
2. The video is very misleading. The first part the rocks were being thrown by both sides which you can clearly see in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwgQuakchKs by the reaction of the faces of the EDL people that rock came from a distance but that is my interpretation. Either way the video implies it was thrown by the EDL which there is no evidence to that fact. Also the guy going into that restaurant was looking for some of the counter protesters that claimed to have ran into that restaurant after they attacked the EDL. I can get a quote later if need be. But either way this video is very misleading.
--OxAO (talk) 22:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The video is supported by a reliable source which unambiguously states that an EDL supporter was convicted for smashing the window of that particular restaurant. As the source says, the man was convicted for kicking the window, not throwing a rock at it; this, in the words of the prosecutor, 'instigated the subsequent attack on the building'. Perhaps the caption could be amended, but I don't find the video to be at all misleading. The act for which the EDL supporter was convicted is not depicted in the video, but it does show the broader incident in which the act occurred. I realise that you may think that it gives undue weight to the acts of the EDL, and fails to represent violence committed by the EDL's opponents. However, I can't find any realiable sources which state that non-EDL supporters were involved in this attack, let alone convicted for it. If you can provide reliable sources, perhaps we can move from there. What is the source of the quotes which you can provide? NotFromUtrecht (talk) 08:41, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

PS I've amended the caption in edit. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 08:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I can only piece to together what took place. I wasn't there. It is clear in this video that aggressors were not the EDL in this case. I am not saying they are not capable of being the aggressors but they were not the aggressors that day in October 2010. This is were the aggression started and blew into the restaurant and other actions after this attack. At 1:03 you can see some (more then one) of the EDL had their hands in their pockets at 1:05 you can see the opposition group pushed the guy with a white base ball cap with his hands clearly in his pocket. Then a large number of the opposition chased the EDL down the street when more EDL members shown up there was a second stand off. At about 2:06 you can clearly see the EDL was chasing the opposition. Then the police moved in and got between them and broke up what was clearly going to be a bad fight. The point is the original aggressors were clearly the opposition groups from this video. Also notice when the police shown up three of the EDL people put their hands up as an indication of "stop" even know two of them continued their counter aggression. Thank goodness for the police!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GKW65ToaCM

--OxAO (talk) 23:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Piecing together what took place would be WP:OR, and I find it difficult to see how the video you linked to on YouTube is connected to the video we have here. Maybe I'm missing something. The video embedded in the article speaks very well for itself, I think, and IMO it's a very good example of using video on Wikipedia. --FormerIP (talk) 00:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

They were chasing down their attackers braking the window is wrong but I don't know what took place in the restaurant the video doesn't show that and it is clearly out of context. In other words if you film someone speeding down the street with out knowing they were chasing down a criminal and all you see is video of a car driving to fast on the street. The driver maybe guilty of speeding but he had an reason. You and the law may not agree with the reason but it is completely void on the tape.

--OxAO (talk) 20:06, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Islamophobia

Right now the purpose/focus section says anti-islamisation. Should it be replaced with the word islamophobia ? Pass a Method talk 12:45, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

There should be enough soures to support that, yes. // Liftarn (talk)

I can not speak for the EDL but I agree "anti-islamisation" is a bad term. It should say something along the lines of against the Orthodox of Sharia law. Theocracy's should be avoided at the root in my opinion it should be a rule in any democracy. I Also, I don't know if 'islamophobia' is a real term or not but I don't think the Ahmadiyya Muslims would believe they have a phobia of Islam.

--OxAO (talk) 19:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Support the change to 'Islamophobia.' 'Anti-islamisation' buys too strongly into the EDL's POV, namely that something called "Islamisation" is happening. The Garland and Treadwell article would support use of the term. Sindinero (talk) 21:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that the EDL hate ALL Muslims which is what it says the definition means? Because i read some positives things written about the Ahmadiyya Muslims.

--OxAO (talk) 05:30, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Oppose -- it is not the job of editors to make the EDL's POV a reason for changing established language. Further, "Islamophobia" has a different meaning from "Anti-Islamization" in the first place - one if the fear or hatres of all Muslims, the second is the normal distaste for having Islamic culture predominate in a society which is primarily not Muslim. Because of the fairly clear differentiation, the current wording is proper. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:56, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry Collect, but I find your definition of "Anti-Islamization" deeply problematic. For starters, you call it a 'normal distaste;' even more troubling, you seem to buy into the EDL's assumption that there's a homogenous entity such as "Islamic culture," and the corollary that there's another homogenous entity, English society, that this culture is in conflict with. This is exactly what I mean when I say that "Anti-Islamization" already implies a narrative and a POV which we'd do best as WP editors not to endorse, consciously or no. And @ OxAO, Islamophobia doesn't have to mean that an Islamophobe hates each and every Muslim. Tokenism has never been a refutation of racism. The sources discuss the EDL as Islamophobic; it's really only the EDL themselves and fellow-travelers who describe them as "Anti-Islamisation". Sindinero (talk) 12:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry for your "distaste" but it is "normal" for any society to think its own culture shuld not be predominated by any minority culture - this is true about "Western" culture in Islamic states Such as Saudi Arabia and Indonesia as well - and is "normal" there. Or for Iranians to not wish to have "Arab culture" predominate (interesting story, that). Or for Germans to be wary of Russian culture. Or for Indians or Singaporeans to not wish Chinese culture to be predominant. And so on. And I do not care for the "racism" imputation thereon. The use of "Islamophobia" goes substantially beyond what the EDL appears to be as seen in the majority of outside reliable sources - and it is not up to us to correct thir "racism" and "tokenism" in any Wikipedia article. In fact, the use of categorisation and labelling in Wikipedia seems to be one of the project's worst weaknesses. It is not a matter of "endorsing" or "not endorsing" it is a matter of taking WP:NPOV seriously. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Ahmadiyya Muslims are a group not a token. I can also find statistics of who the EDL are referring to if you wish.

--OxAO (talk) 17:10, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

'Distaste' wasn't my word to begin with, it was yours, and that's where I see NPOV problems. I agree that the issue is WP:NPOV, and that it is not up to us to endorse anything. That was actually precisely my point. And just because racism may be widespread does not exactly make it the best foundation upon which to word an article about a fairly sensitive subject. I disagree that "Islamophobia" goes beyond what the sources say. The point is not to "correct" racism, but to avoid implicitly endorsing it by uncritically adapting the narrative and rhetorical framework, embodied in the word "Anti-Islamization", of the EDL. It would be as if an article on the Nazis described them as an organization aiming primarily to combat the degeneration of the German nation, rather than an anti-Semitic organization. We have to be really careful about whose framework we're adapting, and to my mind, using the word "anti-Islamization" runs the same problems that have been debated extensively on this talk page in connection to the lead.

As to your views on cultures, society, and normalcy, I feel they are tainting how you view this POV issue. Respectfully, I'd suggest you do some more reading on theories of nationalism and social theories. Benedict Anderson might be a good place to start. The fact that you can say that "it is "normal" for any society to think its own culture shuld not be predominated by any minority culture," besides the fact that this is a gross oversimplification and not, strictly speaking, actually correct, suggests that you use a word like "society" or "culture" without really questioning what it means, seeing them instead as homogeneous blocks. Contemporary academic work in the humanities has really stripped this idea of homogenous national cultures of any credibility whatsoever. In my opinion, your normative framework is undermining your ability to see the POV problems of a term like "Anti-Islamization." Sindinero (talk) 12:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

It is not how "I" feel - it is how scholars view the topic. Nor do my opinions "taint" how I edit - I rely on what outside reliable sources use for wording. I find the EDL despicable - but that does not mean I should say "The Wikipedia article must explicitkly state how despicable the EDL is" . Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:47, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Toynbee [30] notes the reaction of the Chinese to the Mongols, for example. Greek distatst for Turks (1821). And a bunch of other examples in his book (including Russia, etc.). More on request, but I suggest Toynbee is mainstream here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks like we reached a stalemate. It looks like im leaning towards agreing with collect, but i'm just going to leave the template as it is. I just took a sleeping pill so i expect to fall asleep anytime now. :) Pass a Method talk 15:47, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Collect, surely you are just soap-boxing? It is your POV that distaste for Islamic culture is "normal". Further up page, under the "Islamophobic" heading, I gave an example of the EDL's blanket hatred of Islam and Muslims, although I accept that no definite source was provided. However, the sources are surely out there. Terms like "anti Muslim EDL" and "Islamophobic EDL" are in common currency everywhere. At the moment I'm not connected to the internet, and can only use this library terminal for one hour each day, therefore I'm in no position to search for valid references. Multiculturalist (talk) 09:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

POV and percieved bias

Hello everyone. I'd like to voice my opposition to the wording of this article. One of the guidlines I note is to "assume neutrality" and that is something I cannot do. I do not wish to offend, but using Wikipedia as a political propoganda tool is a bad idea. I don't know what's happened here but it appears there's been a history of disagreement over this, and someone should at least note this on the page so that others are aware of other viewpoints. By what rule do you judge a "right-wing extremist?" As opposed to who? Everyone? What is right and left in the UK? I can draw many conclusions from the evidence presented, and most of them don't really mirror any of the ones presented here.

Drreed1057 (talk) 01:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC) Dave 08/06/2011

Neutrality means "representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". If you do believe that the article does this, then could you please provide sources that should be given more weight. TFD (talk) 01:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

We tend to go by what the papers say. We can't really be analysing words here to a great extent. Alexandre8 (talk) 02:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

POV from the start. The "Views and reactions" starts with people calling them racism and far right and them responding by saying "we're not racist!" (Also, being far right and implications of extremism/radicalism.) Only one viewpoint is presented, and the rebuttal. The whole section deals with these accusations. Not only is being racist derogatory, in continental Europe its illegal as in criminal. (Yes, freedom of speech is alive and well obviously.) But I digress: the entire section should be renamed "Accusations" or something similar. This is hardly a broad representation of viewpoints: having an entire section where the organization is accused of derogatory and illegal viewpoints and naming it something other than that is misleading. I mean, why not just come out and accuse them of being Nazis already? Why hide it so poorly? Obviously they are racist for thinking one religion is better than another... (j/k)

Change the material or change the section title. Obviously, once the section title changes to "Accusations" or some such business, the POV will be more evident, so I say that is the least obstructive edit. Int21h (talk) 11:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Ummm...just so you realise how badly written that was. You asked "why not call them Nazis" and then you claimed they weren't white supremecist, they were Christian supremecist. The Nazis killed Jews, Judaism is a religion, the Nazis were also religious supremecists.

Oh, but I do agree that there is bias. It seems everywhere in the article where it is asserted that the EDL is racist or is infact negative in anyway is stated as an opinion, while the EDL's position is stated as a fact. It ends up with the article reading like 'The EDL, which is supposedly racist and which so-and-so believes to be white and Christian supremecist, is an organisation dedicated to stopping the secret Muslim plot to conquer England and saving white society from the savage brown dogs'. To continue with your NSDAP analogy, it would be like somebody rewritting that article to read: 'The Nazis, who American and British media and historians claim are anti-Semitic fascists, was a party formed to protect white society from the secret Jewish communist plot...'. Since this is a political article and only the historians of the future will able to definitively say what this group is, I think the article should be rewritten so that all of the opinions are given as opinions, the oppositions views and the EDL's views should both be presented as opinions. Instead of 'The EDL, which is supposedly racist and which so-and-so believes to be white and Christian supremecist, is an organisation dedicated to stopping the secret Muslim plot to conquer England and saving white society from the savage brown dogs' you get 'The EDL is a political organisation formed to stop what it percieves as a Muslim conquest of England, some assert that the EDL is Christian supremecist, white supremecist, or both'. 107.10.53.28 (talk) 04:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The jury has come back, no need to wait to the end of time. TFD (talk) 05:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Really, you think it will take 10^100 years for historians to determine the nature of and properly label the EDL? Wow, I was thinking it would take maybe 20 years, but if you say so I guess we can wait.107.10.53.28 (talk) 22:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)