Talk:English Defence League/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 9

Opening lines and anti EDL sentiment

However, some EDL members have chanted "We hate Muslims" at pro-Palestinian demonstrators in London on 13 September 2009.[1]

This seems completely inappropriate for the opening lines. Yes arguments can be made but in the relevant sections. It's nonsensical to contest every thing they say they are in the opening paragraph. If this was common practise then they're be no need for the "Criticisms box". Yes, some people shouted that, but only some. It would hardly be appropriate to write on the opening line of "ISLAM" , Is a Religion from the 6th Century A.D which has Mohammed as their profit, "but some argue that he was a paedofile and a rapist and a warmonger". Not fair on Islam to write that. Neither is it fair to quote the EDL as hating of Islam in the opening paragraph for the umpteenth time. Alexandre8 (talk) 16:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Given their stated position the practice of their supporters is relevant and this is from an RS, if there is sourced information that contradicts this then lets look at it. --Snowded ^TALK 16:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Well what kind of source is would say "Actually, they never chanted these slogans". Papers simply don't write what didn't happen, only what did happen. I agree that there were protesters who would have shouted those slogans, but again may I bring your attention to my argument that it shouldn't be included in the opening paragraph. The quote IS relevant for later on I would say. Where would you suggest is a more appropriate place for it. I just can't see the logic in articles being critiqued in the opening line. Alexandre8 (talk) 16:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

May have a point. Can it be demonstrated that this represents what a large percentage of EDL supporters do a just a few trouoble makers (in the EDL tnhey much casue real trouble)?Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry slatersteven, excuse my qualms, but I didn't understand your grammar there, could you rephrase is slightly so it's clearer. Thanks (talk) 16:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC) Alexandre8 (talk) 16:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Ifthis can be shown to represent a significant number of EDL supporters attitude then it should be in the lead as a counter to the claim that are non islamaphobes. if however it represents just a small percentage of EDL members, and thus represents only an extreme fringe then it should not be in the lead as it would give undue weight to the views of a minority.Slatersteven (talk) 16:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Ironically the various comments on the facebook page although a primary source, provide plenty of back up. --Snowded ^TALK 16:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Assuming they are all made by EDL members and supporters. What we need is some clear inidication from RS that this does indead represetn teh real heart of the EDl. If not then whilst it can (and should) remian in the articel it has no place in the lead.Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

yep Snowed, we can all laugh at that one lol :)) haha.

Back to the issue, may I go ahead and delete the "offending" line now or not? Alexandre8 (talk) 17:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

No I don't think so, its in the Guardian which is a RS. What we should probably do is to check on how many other RS say the same thing, and/or see if there is a RS which comments generally on the issue of whether this is a minority view or not. Its not factually incorrect so no great harm in leaving things for other editors to get involved. --Snowded ^TALK 17:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

But there is the issue of wp:weight. Thus it should not be in the lead.Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Alexandre8 to remove the offending line from the lede. It doesn't belong there. The article is about the EDL, not what some voices were shouting out at a protest. The item can be included further down in the body of the article, but it doesn't belong in the lede. Santamoly (talk) 17:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Possibly Slater but the general issue is the generic anti-muslim practice as opposed to what it says. The article which references "far right" is interesting and says "Of all those political entities espousing an overt anti-Muslim, anti-Islamic discourse it is the relatively new EDL" it goes on to say that the EDL have been successful in attracting Asian and Israeli support which is notable. It does make it pretty clear that it is anti-Muslim not anti-radical Islam. I think what we need is a new sentence linked to that article and then we can either remove the quote or move it elsewhere in the article. I think that is the way forward but we need to leave some time for other editors to engage--Snowded ^TALK 17:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, shall wait for further suggestions. Alexandre8 (talk) 18:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Give it a day or so, if no one else comes up with anything I will draft an alternative based on the source I mention above with the Guardian material as an illustration --Snowded ^TALK 22:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I think alternative wording would be best. Its not clear from the curent sources that it represents more then just a loony fringe (of the EDL?). The otehr sources seems rather more direct in its accusation.Slatersteven (talk) 23:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree its the best way, life is just a bit frantic at the moment so it will be a day or so before I can research and draft it. --Snowded ^TALK 23:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok will try and be patient! Alexandre8 (talk) 01:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

As someone who once featured in a very contentious major newspaper article, I know the EDL leadership will have been shown the article and given the "right to reply" before publication. They could have said they didn't hear any chanting, they could also have said this is not EDL policy -in which case we would have to include their comments. They chose not to do this and that is significant.

JRPG (talk) 15:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

That is an assumption, besides it does not address the basic point. It does not demonstrae what level of Islamaphodia is present in the EDL, just that its there. As such being in the lead gives it more weight then it deserves. Include it the the artciel by all measn but we need a lot more then one line in one article to demonsrate that islamphobia is a major issue with this group.Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

For NPOV, be can't have in the lead "the EDL claim..." without anything to balance it. I'm not sure if the chanting reference is the best way to do this or not but, since it is sourced, if someone wants to remove it they should come up with a suitable replacement text. --FormerIP (talk) 15:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree, with both points thats why I would let Snow come up with a better text, thats better sourced.Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I have commented out the sentence now. It is equally obvious to me as it is to most, if not all, others in this discussion that this sentence without corroboration does not satisfy our requirement for neutral editing. As it is such a glaring bias it is better to remove it while the discussion continues on what to replace it with and how to present this perspective, if it can be corroborated and is deemed appropriate for inclusion in the article. After all, more than 1,000 people are looking up this article every day while this discussion continues. __meco (talk) 10:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Personally I don't think you should have done that. I will provide an alternative text this evening UK time - need to clear some stuff first. I'm not going to revert (but reserve the right to do so) as we seem to be moving forward, but I do think we should agree changes here rather than individual editors choosing to make changes --Snowded ^TALK 11:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

There clearly isn't consensus to remove the text. A number of users (me included) think it may be possible to improve upon the wording that is there. But there is nothing wrong with it per se. It's from an RS (The Guardian) which doesn't need "corroboration". Given the controversial nature of the organisation, to include mention of how they view themselves without any balancing information is the worst of possible options. --FormerIP (talk) 12:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Either Snowded or someone else go ahead and make the requisite change of this absolutely untenable sentence or I will tag the article for neutrality violation and request input to this discussion from WP:NPOV/N. __meco (talk) 22:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Meco, we seem to have a sort of consensus that the material can be removed once a suitable alternative is found, but also that it should not be removed until that happens. If you can't wait while someone else does the work, why not look for a source and propose an alternative yourself? --FormerIP (talk) 22:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that simply won't do. I'm not going to get into the reworking of that sentence, but I am also not going to accept it remaining for much longer. I think about 12 hours from now I'll do what I have declared. __meco (talk) 22:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Its Christmas Meco, I finished my last conference call three hours ago, grabbed four hours sleep last night so despite the best of intentions I'm not going to get it done today. I've referenced the article where I think the material exists so feel free to have a go yourself. In the meantime its really not a major issue given that it is properly referenced and the question is not removal but placement or replacement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowded (talk • contribs) 22:29, December 23, 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this can stay any longer. I do think it's awful bias the way it is given prominence in the article. If this cannot be remedied now then it should be taken out while we wait for you to finish your work on it. That seems to me quite to be middle road on this. __meco (talk) 22:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Meco, you seem to be saying that you will knowingly edit against consensus in 12 hours if your demands are not met. You've no right to set a deadline. The material is question has, AFAICT, been there months, so a little patience ought not to be a big deal. Snowded has said he's working on an alternative. Please assume good faith and be reasonable. I agree that the material, like much of Wikipedia, could be improved. But removing it altogether would be an egregious breach of good faith and would clearly go against neutrality. If you have difficulty with patience for some reason, the option is open to you to undertake the legwork. Have a little festive spirit. --FormerIP (talk) 23:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Re right of reply, you may find it helpful to read the quite short press complaints commission guidance if you're not already familiar with it. I agree the chanting shouldn't be in the lead but believe it has condoned by default.

JRPG (talk) 19:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Alternatives

OK, I have been working with this source which is a reflective paper rather than a news report. The following are direct quotes:

• Without any doubt, the discourse of the EDL is one that reflects that of the BNP and others albeit tailored to be more inclusive and by consequence, more relevant to con- temporary Britain’s inherent diversity.
• What is particularly interesting and quite unique about the EDL – and reflected in the League’s origins in football – is that they not only routinely march behind banners that state ‘Black and white unite against Islamic ex- tremism’ but so too are the people marching behind them of black, white and mixed heritages. Unlike other far-right organisations, the EDL are proud of their diversity. They regularly have black and Asian speakers at their rallies and have a person of Sikh heritage in their leadership
• much of the EDL’s discourse reflects the ideas put forward by Furedi, re- ferring to ‘preachers of hate’, ‘vile specimens’ and ‘Muslim extremists’ as evidence of the threat posed.

Now the Guardian report of a chant supports this. It seems to me that we have two elements that need to be handled here (i) the EDL's success in bringing other anti-islam groups into play, Hindu Nationalism, Zionist etc. and (ii) the fact that the real discourse is more extreme than that of its spokespeople (which also has the Guardian support.

Do people agree? If so I will draft something on that basis. --Snowded ^TALK 05:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Partialy, If we have RS aying that "discourse is more extreme than that of its spokespeople" and that it accuratly refelcts the sources then yes. If however we have any kind of systhasis,OR or undue wieght then no. Untill we see the text I dpoon't think we can pass any real judgemnt on it. But we should not include material that has not been agreed to, or has been opjected to, untill it becomes clear that there is a general consensus for its inclusion.Slatersteven (talk) 13:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I've read this article twice but I'm not sure all our EDL contributors will and I'm afraid I've not heard of the author.

I quite liked this sentence.

• Without any doubt, the discourse of the EDL is one that reflects that of the BNP and others albeit tailored to be more inclusive and by consequence, more relevant to contemporary Britain’s inherent diversity
  

The following sentence surprised me but appears more relevant to the BNP than EDL.

• But what is clear is that the discourse of the far-right in relation to Muslims and Islam has, at times, only been slightly different from the discourse emanating from more mainstream political figures and parties.
  

JRPG (talk) 15:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

It is a good source. Here is a link to the author's page at the University of Birmingham. TFD (talk) 16:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. Birmingham University did an excellent report on the equally contentious issue of gypsy sites for Leicestershire and adjacent counties. It took the sting out of a very difficult subject.JRPG (talk) 22:28, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• I've protected the page for a few days. Please find a consensus here rather than engaging in sterile reverting.   Will Beback  talk  22:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

OK, so no objections to using that source so let me hazard a proposal for wording based on it.

In the lede as an additional paragraph after the first

The EDL is unique among far right groups in attracting significant non-white support but its discourse is seen as "one that reflects that of the BNP and others albeit tailored to be more inclusive and by consequence, more relevant to contemporary Britain’s inherent diversity"

I think we then need to expand the Academic analysis section to include more material from this article but lets get the disputed issue out of the way first. --Snowded ^TALK 05:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I've left it 24 hours and no response, If there are no objections by midday UK I will make the change --Snowded ^TALK 06:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the changes, your hard work is appreciated. Alexandre8 (talk) 16:29, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Section break: Anecdotal information in the lede

With the contentious statement lingering in the lede and attempts to have it removed appear to be stonewalled, at least nothing is being done about it except excuses for why it should remain while someone is working on an alternative. As I have announced in the previous sub-section I have now reported this issue at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Anecdotal POV in lede of controversial topic article.{{editrequest}} I am also requesting that {{POV-lead|date=December 2010}} be added to the top of the article. __meco (talk) 09:11, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Meco but this is pretty pathetic, a discussion has opened up about changing the wording and you are not even participating in that. --Snowded ^TALK 10:37, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Just remove that sentence while the discussion continues, please. __meco (talk) 10:41, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Its been there for a long time, get involved in the discussion. There is no agreement on deletion, there is agreement in principle to revising the text and or position. WP:BRD is clear here, the existing text stands while we discuss change. --Snowded ^TALK 10:44, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Rather than tagging the article, it seemed more appropriate to fix the problem. I have read the discussion above and find a consensus to remove this sentence. This should not influence the discussion currently underway and it may well be appropriate to include a suitable alternative statement somewhere in the article. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:51, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I say remove the sentence. Here's why, and I think my idea may be novel. Yes, some said "I hate Muslims." However, we need to look at the context. In the heat of a demonstration regarding a certain limited issue, they shouted "I hate Muslims". There is no evidence that they hate Muslims generally. There are many, many Muslims in the world and all of them cannot be put into the little box that represented those involved in the demonstration. So by putting what they shouted at a demonstration against a relatively limited few in the lead paragraph without proper contextualization, the implication is made that they hate all Muslims, not just those involved in the demonstration, and that would violate various Wiki policies. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 15:09, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Coming here from NPOVN. It's a textbook example of synthesis isn't it ? It's very similar to the example given in WP:SYN. The first sentence "It presents itself as being multi-ethnic and multi-faith" etc covers how EDL presents itself. It's fine. The second sentence is from a source that doesn't address how EDL presents itself. It's simply a report about an incident, an instance. The source doesn't draw any conclusions about EDL based on this incident so we can't connect the 2 pieces of information with a 'However' to imply something that isn't in either source. It's like saying something like "Abrahamic religions present themselves as being opposed to murder as a grave moral evil, however BTK Killer Dennis Rader, a Lutheran, murdered ten people between 1974 and 1991." Sean.hoyland - talk 16:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

If you have a look here you will see a series of quotes from an academic article which provide a way forward, it does make a clear connection between the EDL and extreme anti-islamic positions (more than the Guardian quote) but also notes that they are unique among the far right groups in the UK in not being exclusively white. In effect they have also attracted Zionist and Hindu Nationalists to their fold. The proposal is to use that material and I am still awaiting comments. --Snowded ^TALK 17:37, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Not quite the same thing, because there is an academic consensus that the EDL incites hatred toward Muslims. I accept though that we should use a source that contrasts the EDL's claims of not being Muslim with evidence that they are. Most protests draw a range of people, including extremists, and we need a source explaining that this behavior is typical of the group. TFD (talk) 18:03, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

My point was really just that the sentence was a pretty clear policy violation with the current source and therefore should be removed (and I see that it was removed). I saw that there were suggestions that it should stay until it was replaced. That's not a valid argument in my view because WP:SYN is a policy rather than a guideline i.e. it being a policy violation and there being an obligation to remove it doesn't depend on whether there are proposed alternatives or on the actual nature of the EDL according to other sources. An editor wanting to retain it in the meantime while the alternative is discussed would need to argue that it's not synthesis which I don't think is possible. Anyway, it's gone and alternatives using better sources are being discussed so I guess there's no issue anymore...other than agreeing an alternative... Sean.hoyland - talk 18:41, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Coming here from NPOVN. I agree with TFD's assessment/proposal. The lede in general could use expansion to include sentences summarizing other material that exists in the article; the current protected version doesn't quite fairly demonstrate how controversial this group is. THF (talk) 22:34, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Overseas support????

This section is simply wrong. Savage's statement does NOT imply support for EDL, merely surprise at the perceived forbearance of UK authorities in not giving tacit free rein to a private army. He wrongly believes the police would avoid blame in such circumstances. Even if rewritten, there's no suggestion that Savage has ever been to the UK or has any special knowledge of UK policing and riot control, i.e. he doesn't meet wp:source requirements. I propose removing this section in the fairly near future.
JRPG (talk) 17:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Savage? AAH we have two sections for teh saem thing, I think I shall merge them. “Popular American radio talk-show host Michael Savage becomes the first major media figure to publicly voice support for the EDL.” is what the source says (so we may have a copyright violation) as to his comments not meeting sources, not sure they fail. He is a notabel media figure and his views are attributed. Slatersteven (talk) 17:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

On the grounds that "overseas objections" are also included in the article, see the Jewish groups in Israel condeming the group, I would suggest Savage, however savage he may be, has a right to be noted due to his popularity in America. Alexandre8 (talk) 18:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The source is questionable.[2] While it is interesting that Savage supports the EDL, we need to source it properly. Any good news source for example would point out not only that Savage is a "popular media figure" but that he is banned from the U.K. because he is "considered to be engaging in unacceptable behaviour by seeking to provoke others to serious criminal acts and fostering hatred which might lead to inter-community violence". TFD (talk) 19:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Badly written sentence

It opposes what it sees as the spread of Islamism, Sharia law and Islamic extremism in England.[8][9][10][11]. The EDL uses street-based marches against what it labels as Muslim extremism.[12][13]

The wording being objectionable aside, this is just a really badly written sentence. It doesn't read at all like fluent and concise English. Can it please be re-drafted, so that it presents the views concisely and equally fairly. Alexandre8 (talk) 23:07, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to propose wording but please don't edit war. Any statement about Sharia law and Islamic extremism has to make it clear that this being an issue is the view of EDL not a fact. --Snowded ^TALK 05:05, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Error in intro

The intro got mashed and needs correcting. This should be non-controversial, so if people agree here I can add the Template:Edit-protected. Ref 17 shows the Welsh, not the Scottish league is defunct:

"The Scottish Defence League was an offshoot organisation [16], now defunct[17] A Welsh Defence League was also formed [18][19]"

should read:

"The Scottish Defence League was an offshoot organisation.[16] A now defunct[17] Welsh Defence League was also formed.[18][19]"

--Pontificalibus (talk) 12:04, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

{{edit protected}} No one has disagreed and this error should be readily apparent from the references.--Pontificalibus (talk) 19:54, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Done Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:49, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Uneconomic use of references

In the lede five sources are used to reference the EDL being a "far right" group (two being from the same newspaper, which should in itself be dealt with). Then in the section Views and reactions another set of five sources are used to reference the same information. Some cleanup should be done here. __meco (talk) 09:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

They are there largely as a result of the amount of challenges. Best to have them in the main section, none in the lead then have a box on the talk page which says this has been discussed before and lists them? --Snowded ^TALK 09:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like the smart solution. Perhaps this talk page will have a FAQ template box eventually as well. __meco (talk) 10:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Good idea to add FAQ, and the solution is the norm on controversial articles. You fancy having a go at it? I am working on the replacement for the Guardian quote (see above) --Snowded ^TALK 10:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Nope. __meco (talk) 12:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Just allocating work for the British løysing then? --Snowded ^TALK 13:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

He probably doesn't know how to do it, to be honest. I don't either. It's a good idea though. Alexandre8 (talk) 13:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

OK I'll have a go at it later in the week, agreement is hard to come by here so lets use it! --Snowded ^TALK 06:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

That's right. Had it been something I had been involved in in the past, it would be more likely that I'd take on the task. I don't have that motivation now at least. __meco (talk) 10:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Wording

Not sure I quite understand the wording/formatting of this part:

The EDL also incorporates a Jewish Division as well as a “gay” “division”

Just poor editing or am I missing something? --92.30.200.194 (talk) 15:55, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Personally I think it could be deleted. --Snowded ^TALK 15:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

That I see no grounds for, other than to veil an aspect of the EDL as being multi-faceted that would tend to fly in the face of their propagandizing opponents who seem rather intent on having them branded as a uniform mob of white, fascist hooligans. And we're not here to do that, surely. Responding to IP user's query I cannot see what would be the problem with that sentence. It clearly conveys an unambiguous message as far as I can understand it. __meco (talk) 17:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

If you check Meco I just inserted a text which acknowledged that they were unique amoung right wing groups in securing non-white support. I think that is enough. --Snowded ^TALK 17:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

RS have thought it important enough to mention, maybe not on the lead but in the body at least. Espeicaly if we wish to also include material about accusations that the front they present in not true. Also Jews and gays are not neccersarily non-white, so the sentance does not sum it up at all.Slatersteven (talk) 14:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy with your edit - its a good solution --Snowded ^TALK 15:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Non eaten

There seesm to be a problom with the numbers invlioved in the Nuneaten protest on the 27th of Novemver 2010. Source a say 500 EDl and 50 Anti-fascists http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-11857789 source b says 1500 EDL and 150 Anit-facists http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/2010/11/29/missiles-thrown-during-tense-edl-march-in-nuneaton-92746-27735718/ Coventrytelegraph.net. thast a vast differance. Are these in fact the same Demo? Slatersteven (talk) 13:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Conflict with UAF topic of documentary

To the existing text "The group states that its aim is to demonstrate peacefully in English towns and cities, but conflicts with Unite Against Fascism (UAF), local opposition and other opponents have led to street violence, anti-social behaviour and arrests" to which a user added "which was one of the main topics shown on 2010, Channel 4, police documentary, Coppers". This was reverted with the edit summary "don't need to now that". I suggest this, if accurate, certainly is important enough to mention in that context. __meco (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we do. The program (episode 5) was about the Greater Manchester force's Tactical Aid Unit response to the Bolton protest. The text however does not add anything to undertsanding what happened. It just mentionsd the show.Slatersteven (talk) 19:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't necessarily think this is irrelevant, but we would need a source that says it is "one of the main topics" of the show. That would seem to be OR otherwise. --FormerIP (talk) 19:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

It needs a source to make any commentary on the show --Snowded ^TALK 22:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

"What is considers" "What it perceives"

I think users ought to stay clear of using this phrases for the most part, as 9/10 times it's glaringly obvious what the group/person considers. If we did this with every statement, then the article would lose focus. In this article specifically I have tried edit it so that the wording isn't long winded and opinionated. Please discuss Alexandre8 (talk) 23:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Please discuss *your* changes *prior* to making them. Claims from far-right extremist organisations should not be presented as fact. Where is this spread of Sharia law the EDL claim to be opposing? Unless there are extremely reliable sources to show that there is either a spread or a clear chance of a spread, EDL scaremongering isn't being presented as fact. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Please see sources. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4749183.ece http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2010/jul/05/sharia-law-religious-courts. The times and the guardian seem reliable to me. Plus, it's not being presented as fact, it's being presented as the opinion of the EDL, as the previous line clearly say " Its stated aim is to oppose .... "

The changes I have made are : 1) Moving the Criticisms of the Jewish group to the relevant section in the article, and combined it with existing information already contained in that section. Additional sources added to EDL claim of spread of Sharia law and Militant Islam. There is no need to change this again. If you have a discrepancy regarding the description of aims of the EDL, please discuss here first before removing. Alexandre8 (talk) 14:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Please see source here. There are elements of the things the group opposes in England, and so it's not innapropraite to present the EDL's view as "opposed to the spread of .... ". Alexandre8 (talk) 12:15, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

@Alexandre8 point you to where the sources are [3] Mo ainm~Talk 12:29, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Just above you buddy. They simply show the obvious, that Sharia Law Courts and such like which the EDL opposes do exist in England, so it's no NPOV to state "the EDL opposes the spread of them" Alexandre8 (talk) 12:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Nice bit of WP:OR as neither of the sources you have provided even mention the EDL unlike the ones I have linked to that were provided by One Night in Hackney. Mo ainm~Talk 12:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

You completely miss the point. Read what I've written and put two and two together. Of course the sources don't mention the EDL. THEY'RE NOT ABOUT THE EDL. They are about the existence of Sharia courts in Britain. To write "what they percieves as the spread" implies there IS no spread. These sources show that Sharia Courts exist, thus the EDL oppose these courts. Get rid of the silly POV langauage and write the truth. Alexandre8 (talk) 19:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

No he doesn't (i) its OR (ii) the wording you are inserting implies that Sharia Courts etc. represent an issue (iii) you need to stop edit warring, arguing its OK because you are right won't wash. --Snowded ^TALK 21:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Quite right, Snowded. Alexandre8 previously complained that the wording was "opinionated" and yet he makes an amendment which is highly opinionated and which requires the reader to accept EDL propaganda as fact. The word "perceives" is integral to helping to ensure some basis of neutrality in this article which, as it stands, is far too pro-EDL. Multiculturalist (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

To be honest MultiCult, your language and your views are completely unbalanced and inappropriate. Please learn to use a politer way of voicing your objections. Alexandre8 (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually you are the one now addressing editors rather than content issues Alexandre8. --Snowded ^TALK 17:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't I've been decent with you, and thanked you on your efforts. Having trouble thanking you on your impartiality here though. I do believe "Alexandre8 previously complained that the wording was "opinionated" and yet he makes an amendment which is highly opinionated" is fairly provocative. Nah, it's just damn right rude actually. At no point here have I actually been aggressive except in my defence. Alexandre8 (talk) 18:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

First sentence

I think everyone can agree that only the most important characteristics belong in the first sentence. I also think we can agree that the facts of the EDL being a British organization should go here as is uniformly standard on all organization articles on Wikipedia. Then the question becomes, what is the next important characteristic to report? Currently the far right label is afforded this priority. I suggest that the organization's anti-Islamism (or anti-jihadist) focus is more important than its asserted position in the political spectrum. This should be especially the case with the EDL not being a group that engages in classical politics (i.e. parliamentary party politics) but that instead has a very narrow topical focus. __meco (talk) 19:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the second sentence deals well with the anti-Islam issue and as far as I can see "far right" is clearly cited and used in the main in the references. I don't see the reason to change but I would not object to "is a far right anti-islamic", but not anti-jihadist as that is an EDL claim, most of the references are to anti-islam. --Snowded ^TALK 22:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

It would in my opinion be nothing other than inappropriate not to report how they label themselves on par with how notable commentators are labeling them. This is also consistent with our guidelines for applying reliable sources as a subject is considered a reliable source on matters pertaining to itself. __meco (talk) 13:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The article is clear on their claims as to their nature. Its there, the lede sentence of articles like this is normally based on 3rd Party Sources however. --Snowded ^TALK 15:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, but are you asserting that some precedent exists which disallows the subject's own declared purpose from being presented in the first sentence? __meco (talk) 16:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

This has been discused at leangth in numerous places. The general consensus (I do not agree but there you are) is that we use labels that are attributed to third party RS.Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't sound like sound practice to me. It would be good if someone has a pointer to a discussion about this (in general terms). Otherwise I expect this to call for another visit to WP:RS/N. __meco (talk) 22:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Well you can go and check it out if you want, but Slater and I who often disagree on content issues both agree that is the policy. --Snowded ^TALK 17:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Why is this article biased in favour of the EDL?

Near the beginning, it states that "The EDL is unique among far right groups in attracting significant non-white support". This sounds like the type of thing that would be found on the EDL's own website. Quite apart from the fact that "non-white" makes it sound as though people with black or brown skins are "non-people", the notion that the EDL has "significant" minority ethnic support is completely absurd - as anyone who has seen one of their rallies can readily testify. They have one or two alleged Asian supporters whose involvement the EDL has, for purely propaganda purposes, sought to highlight. The offending passage seems to be based upon a paragraph that has been cherry picked (for the purpose of placating an editor who complained about alleged anti-EDL bias) from a thesis written by Chris Allen. But no where does he use the term "significant" and nor does he use the expression "non-white". He does say "Unlike other far-right organisations, the EDL are proud of their diversity" which I think is an appalling travesty of the facts, especially given that one documentary recorded the racial abuse that one of their few Asian supporters received at an EDL rally. If Chris Allen were of a visible minority ethnic group himself, and were to feel the discomfort that most of them would experience at the sight of an EDL rally, perhaps he would not be so generous to the EDL. At the very least, the offending passage at the beginning should be amended to read "The EDL is unique among far right organisations IN CLAIMING to attract significant minority ethnic support". After all, Chris Allen's assertion is derived from their CLAIM and not from what is the reality. No group that allows BNP thugs to join its demos can possibly expect to be taken seriously when they claim to be proud of their diversity. Multiculturalist (talk) 22:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Politicsandreligionjournal.com is not sufficient sourcing for this. First of all, the citiation is incomplete, since it gives only the homepage so it fails WP:V. Even if the site does contain some sort of support for this, the claim counts as extraordinary (have a look at YouTube footage of EDL demos), I think, and this is not an extraordinary source, since it doesn't appear to be written by specialists in the subject or by people particularly close to events relating to the EDL. --FormerIP (talk) 21:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Its considerd RS before, so why not now?Slatersteven (talk) 21:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, didn't see the link to the PDF. It doesn't say they "have significant non-white support", that's a spin that has been put on it by an editor. It says they are "proud of their diversity". I also think this is not significant enough for the lead, per an "extraordinary claims" rationale. --FormerIP (talk) 21:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

So why did you not re-word it and move it?Slatersteven (talk) 21:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I was the one who re-worded it and you reverted my amendment. Personally, I'm glad that FormerIP has deleted the whole contentious passage. This is supposed to be an impartial encylopedia. Multiculturalist (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

It's back now, lower down in the article. Personally, I think it's only tolerably biased now, and you have to put up with that from time to time on WP. However frustrating it may be, we have a reliable source saying something that isn't true. Task is to find sources that disprove it. --FormerIP (talk) 00:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually I think you guys are wrong. One of the disturbing aspects of the EDL is that it has also attracted anti-islamic elements in Hindu nationalism and Zionism. --Snowded ^TALK 06:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the EDL leadership has aspirations towards respectability, and that entails trying project an image of "valuing diversity" to distinguish itself from the activities its members carry out on the other six days of the week. And they would very much like to ally with Jewish, Hindu or Sikh groups that share their agenda. It does not appear that they have yet been able to find any such groups with which to ally, however. They appear desperate to reach out to Jews - you will see Israeli flags at their demos, but you will not see any Jewish people. They have one prominent Asian member, but apart from that, watch any YouTube video and what you will see is a mixture of skinheads and football hooligans and a smattering of their girlfriends. You will not see a delegation from the local Gudwarda.

The EDL would like to present a facade that is different from the reality, but we should not be tolerating the misrepresentation of sources in this article so as to help them achieve that. --FormerIP (talk) 14:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

That is opinion, not fact. Alexandre8 (talk) 16:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

However much you dislike fact, fact is fact and therefore BEING an encyclopaedia, it isn't up to editors to make a moral viewing of the texts. Snowed is right here. Alexandre8 (talk) 09:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure you're not confusing "fact" with your own prejudices? Multiculturalist (talk) 13:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

If RS say it so do we. We do not exclude it becasue we think its wrong.Slatersteven (talk) 12:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Your jibes are starting to seriously irritate me. Get a grip please.If you would like to make such accusations at least back them up. Alexandre8 (talk) 13:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

AGF please.Slatersteven (talk) 13:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Bill Baker

I removed the bit by Bill Baker. The statement was taken completely out of context. Here is the article[4].

It states that there was to be a protest (which was cancelled). Members of EDL were "expected to attend". Nowhere does it say that EDL organized it.

Baker says the protest was "organised by people from all walks of life, all religions and faiths – even the local Sikhs and Hindus were concerned. It wasn't a far-right protest. Although they might have been utilising the situation they were nothing to do with us."

It seems he is aware the EDL would be present at the protest. But he is distancing himself and other organizers from. Thus his statement that the protest wasn't far right seems to refer to himself and the organizers, not EDL.VR _talk 23:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Label

Labeling UAF left was rejected by multiple editors. This was not necessary since the group has not denied the label and it is not inherently contentious. The EDL has rejected the label. Some sources even admit to it not being known. As mentioned at the UAF page, an easy fix (in the lead of course) would be something along the lines of "The EDL is often called far-right by the British press, but this is denied by the group." or something along those lines. I personally like the way The Guardian did it "The EDL claims to be a non-racist, peaceful organisation. However, demonstrations over the past 18 months have attracted support from a number of known rightwing extremists – from convicted football hooligans to members of violent rightwing splinter groups. "[5] (we would have to remove "however" per WP:WORDS). I also like how the Mercury spells it out.[6] This would also be too much for the lead but it shows that some press and even a researcher are looking into the group as a whole not being right but instead only certain (of course multiple) elements. The EDL and UAF should be treated at least somewhat similarly and if UAF cannot have a not contentious label I don't see how the EDL can have a contentious label. I posted something similar over at UAF so let me know if this would be better at the POV noticeboard for a more centralized discussion. Cptnono (talk) 02:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Multiple prior discussions on this if you look. In respect of the EDL all the broadsheets consistently use the far right label and so do academic articles. In the case of the UAF one of the broadsheets uses left wing in one out of more than 40 articles and there are no academic references. --Snowded ^TALK 07:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The reason the UAF cannot be described as "left" is obvious: it does not have an ideology. It's sole purpose is to oppose the organised far right. Being against the extreme right does not necessarily make a group "left". I believe in the market economy and I support the UAF - am I left? The Conservative leader David Cameron supports the UAF - is he left? By contrast, the EDL is most certainly far right because that is its ideology. Multiculturalist (talk) 10:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Whilst the EDL have been called far right by multiplre RS I thibnk sayiing they have an ideology is giving them more credit then I think they deserve. They (likie the UAF) are basicly a one issue group, and that issue is riots. But lets stop the soap boxing shall we and actualy discuse sources and artciels not our own personal views.Slatersteven (talk) 13:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

If you think that the academic community are wrong to call the EDL "far right" then you should submit an article to a peer-reviewed journal and change the academic consensus, after which we will happily accept the new consensus. TFD (talk) 14:28, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I was not aware that peer revieewd jounels wer the only sources we could useSlatersteven (talk) 14:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

They are not. But if there is an academic consensus then we have to accept it. (So will the other reliable sources.) TFD (talk) 14:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I was not aware that I had disputed that academic consesnsu calls them far right. Nor do I beleive (if I was not claer enough I appoligise) that I has sugested removing the label.Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

POV pushing

I thought you all might all be interested in this sugestion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Advocacy/Noticeboard.Slatersteven (talk) 15:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Interesting ;) Alexandre8 (talk) 14:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Anti-Hindu EDL

As well as being virulently Islamophobic and anti-semitic, I would contend that the EDL is also anti-Hindu. Otherwise, how do we explain the following from the "protests" section of the article..? "Away from the main demonstration a Hindu Temple was attacked along with shops, restaurants, cars and homes. The cost of the demonstration came to £400,000 in policing and £150,000 to the local council." I would contend that this deserves greater prominence in the article. I would also argue that this makes a mockery of the EDL's claim to be diverse and multi-ethnic, and hereby suggest that references of this sort should be struck from the article. Multiculturalist (talk) 12:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Try and think about the relevancy of your suggestions. If you think something like this is worthwhile adding, try and get a list of decent sources going with some sourced examples. I just feel like your wasting your time if you just write what you have. The likelihood of an anti Islamic extremist group getting media attention for being as you claim, anti hindu anti semetic, and why not through in anti gay as well is very slim. Alexandre8 (talk) 14:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

You would need a source that makes the same observation. Most likely EDL members do not know the difference betweern Muslims and Hindus. TFD (talk) 16:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

That in itself is uncalled for. Please don't abuse people without good reason. Alexandre8 (talk) 16:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it was intended as an amusing aside, Alex. --FormerIP (talk) 16:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that you can't possibly hope to make impartial and helpful additions to articles if you are already mocking those about whom you are writing. Alexandre8 (talk) 17:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

You're entitled to an opinion, Alex, but I think you are missing the point of what TFD said. It would be OR to describe the EDL as anti-Hindu because its members attacked a Hindu temple, when there is a credible alternative explanation as to how that came about. If you don't think there is, then maybe we can describe them as anti-Hindu. --FormerIP (talk) 17:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

okI get you, fair point. But now I'm gonna take some time off from Wikipedia since I live in Moscow and give a few thoughts to the real problems that matter like today's slaughter in Domodedovo Aiport. God Bless their souls. Alexandre8 (talk) 17:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

We have a source that a Hindu Temple was vandalised while an EDL demonstration was taking place in the area, but that is about it. Not enough of a source to justify anything at the moment and although there is an implication in the quote its not a confirmed link. Multiculturalist, please start making proposals based on reliable third party sources rather than drawing conclusions or stating opinions. Alexandre please don't react so quickly. This is a problematic article and we need to be strictly objective --Snowded ^TALK 18:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Facebook support

I believe I was the one who originally included information about a Facebook support group based on information in the Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten. It was 40,000 according to that article. Now, people keep updating the figure based on original research. We can't do that, can we? __meco (talk) 10:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree and its a dubious statistic anyway given the effort to remove a "like". I think there is an argument simply to remove it. If the figure is admissible then some of the racist comments from facebook members in response to their photo library would also be allowed. --Snowded ^TALK 10:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I had a quick look but can't find any official guideline on the use of Facebook, which seems surprising. It seems to me, though, that details about the Facebook page are unlikely to be notworthy for inclusion. And yes, it would seem logical that if the "likes" can be included, then anything else on there would be fair game (as a primary source, at least). --FormerIP (talk) 10:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Well now, both of you, don't forget that I did mention there was a very reliable source for the Facebook "likes" in the first place. Let's not go on with this discussion as if that hadn't been established. __meco (talk) 10:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The fact that it's in a reliable source (from Norway - nothing against Norway, but...) doesn't make it worthy of inclusion in the article. If details about the Facebook page are worthy of inclusion (which I don't think they are) then they are worthy of inclusion, and the page itself would seem to be suitable primary source for them. --FormerIP (talk) 11:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

To me you seem to be conflating notability with verifiability. In any case WP:RS/N is a useful venue for input on such issues so I have made yet another inquiry there, WP:RS/N#Facebook page "likes" to show level of support (when cited in an RS). __meco (talk) 13:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Given that any facebook 'likes' information suffers very much form being news(ish) It will always be about of date withing a few hours (if not minuites) of being inserted it is not really all that notable. Also it does ot given any indication of why people like it, just that they do.Slatersteven (talk) 13:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Meco, posting at RSN might somehow make for an entertaining sideshow, but this isn't an RSN question and an RSN answer is neither here nor there. Like I just said, Aftenposten is a reliable source. Even if we end up with a consensus that Facebook is a reliable source, that isn't the point. Facebook likes are indicative of nothing and they are not a useful addition to the article. For one things, I just looked at the EDL Facebook page and, although it doesn't let you view the whole list of its admirers, of of the random six names it showed me two were Muslim, which I think suggests that not everyone is treating the page with the seriousness it deserves. I'll tell you what, if you can find a comparable UK organisation that has its Facebook likes detailed in its article, then I'll give in without further objection. --FormerIP (talk) 13:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Aftenposten have decided the number is meaningful, Wikipedia editors don't have to make that call. Aftenposten is a RS, their coverage of the topic is useful information to add to the article, and the fact that the method they used for measuring the support is a number of Facebook likes is also useful. I don't think the information warrants being in the lede, as it's not headline stuff, and the number shouldn't be continually updated and cited to Facebook, as FB is not a RS. Just report what the source says, that the source says it, and move on. Davémon (talk) 15:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

That argument just boils down to "use anything and everything you find in a source", which just doesn't reflect the way Wikipedia operates. --FormerIP (talk) 15:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

No. That argument leads to wp:NPOV, which is how wikipedia works. Unless of course it's inconvenient for some POV-pushing editors who want to sit on an article, in which case, that's wikipedia not working... Davémon (talk) 17:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it's very useful for anyone who want's too see a rough estimate of their support numbers. I have to question how anything the papers would produce would be any more accurate, in fact I'd even suggest they'd probably quote the facebook group seeing as it's a convenient source of support. I don't think it matters if the numbers will change daily, people will always be here to update it. Alexandre8 (talk) 15:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

It cannot be taken as a rought estimate of their numjbers. just as a rough estimate of the number of people who think its funny to whind poeple up on facebook.Slatersteven (talk) 15:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

People who read the article will understand that it's facebook and so probably doesn't have the exact number of supporters, but I don't see where we can get another reliable source for the number of supporters? Alexandre8 (talk) 15:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

what does thier website claim>Slatersteven (talk) 15:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Unless the publish membership figures and/or we have a reliable third party source then we simply can't say anything about their numbers or support. Facebook does not do it and that should be deleted. --Snowded ^TALK 15:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Why? I don't understand your motives for deleting it. It provides a clear rough estimate of their numbers which no other website can provide. Alexandre8 (talk) 15:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

it offers no indication of anthing other then the number of people who have claiemd (but not their reason) to like (not even support like) the EDl facebook page. Without some kind of method of differnetiating between those who support, those who think its a joke and thus who think that (see below) the facebook page tells the truth about the EDL we cannot say what the facebook number imply.Slatersteven (talk) 17:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

A leading newsroom apparently thought it was indicative of the support for the EDL. That is the appreciation we're going with, not whether Wikipedia editors think it does. __meco (talk) 17:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Actauyl we would go with whether or not Wikipdia considers it RS, so lets take it to the RSN shall we and see.Slatersteven (talk) 17:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, Aftenposten is clearly a RS, whether Facebook is reliable or not is not relevant, it is not what is being cited. If there is any debate to be had, it should be around whether the Aftenposten article is reporting trivia and so the content shouldn't be included. Davémon (talk) 17:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The question is not whether Aften is RS, but whether information that by is very nature is RS for anything otehr then an out of date 9anf therfore irrelevant) snap shot.Slatersteven (talk) 17:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• The Facebook link is an actual primary source on the current number of individuals on Facebook who "like" the group. Although this number does keep changing, the link provided is directly to the Facebook page for the "EDL" so I don't see why it can't be used, especially since the current number is at over 67,000 likes. The 40,000 number from that outdated newspaper source is irrelevant and inaccurate. Epf (talk) 02:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

It an unreliable indictor of support even if reported in a source. I agree there is no difference between taking the primary source and taking that reported within significant comment from a newspaper. However it seems to be that the only valid use is if it is used as part of an evaluative article that sets it in context with other material --Snowded ^TALK 05:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I removed the source entirely because it was so out of date. CAn anyone find a more up todate one now or agree that a direct link to Facebook would not breach reliability "laws". Alexandre8 (talk) 21:20, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The number of Facebook supporters is not relevant. This article is about the EDL, not the EDL Facebook group. There is no way of determining how many of those Facebook accounts listed as having clicked the "Like" button in relation to the EDL Facebook group actually represent people who define themselves as EDL supporters. --Pontificalibus (talk) 21:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Islamophobic EDL

Surely it is time to make the beginning less pro-EDL? They are clearly anti-Muslim, not just anti-Muslim extremism. This is what it says on the front page of their website:

"I present the following transcript and the title 'The fundamental differences between Shia and Sunni Islam' to provide some understanding regarding the enemy we face. I say enemy, for unless you are Muslim, you are the enemy of Islam and deserve to die. Therefore, as a Non-Muslim, Islam directly threatens me with death as a punishment for not accepting Islam."

To use the word 'enemy' as a broad-brush term when referring to Islam is, surely, Islamophobic. How can it be otherwise? These words are, after all, in a very prominent position on their website.

Therefore, I would like to add the word 'Islamophobic' to the opening sentence, so that it reads "The English Defence League is a far-right Islamophobic group".

I will enact this change within a reasonable space of time, subject to it being the general consensus among non-EDL supporting editors. Multiculturalist (talk) 20:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but islamophobic is a very strong word, and arguably derogatory. Wikipedia aims to present fact without bias. 100% opposed to this change. Alexandre8 (talk) 20:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Also I thought that the EDL are not RS for what thet are. I would also add that the quote seems to be about Islams attitude to non-muslims, not the EDL's attitude. Could a link be provided so we can get some context please? OK I have looked Who wrote this, is it the offical stance of the EDL or the view of one member?Slatersteven (talk) 20:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

You'd need a source of islamophobia, and being anti-islam does not mean you have a phobia about it. --Snowded ^TALK 20:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

It is absolutely appropriate for "Islamophobic" to be used in the article, but the wording should make it clear that this is an opinion held by some and not an established fact. As Snowded says, as source will also be needed, so here is one: [[7]]. --FormerIP (talk) 20:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I would argue that as the source only says they have been called Inslamaphobic we need a better source then this for the lead.Slatersteven (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we should try for a source that asserts they are Islamophobic, since it is a matter of opinion. A source that says they have been called it is actually better. --FormerIP (talk) 20:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Not for the lead. The lead is supposed to summerise the important and aslient points of the articel. Also I thought that we only included mlables where multiple top line RS had called an organisation that. Certainly if you want to include a passage that says (in the body of the articel) "they have been called Inslamphobic." by all means. But unless it can be demonstrated that this is a widely held bleife (or accusation) it has zero place in the leade.Slatersteven (talk) 21:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, I agree with Snow and Slater. Please try and keep this article professional. Unless it's a real established view widely published, then it really doesn't belong here, let alone in the lead. Alexandre8 (talk) 21:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Umm, if an official Jewish body has denounced it, then its notable --Snowded ^TALK 21:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Good point, Snowded. Harrow Synagogue also publicly denounced the EDL when they tried to hold a demo outside Harrow central mosque. There are hardly any Jews who support the EDL - and the EDL are frauds when they claim to have an empathy with Jewish people or with Israel. The EDL have proven links with the BNP - and allow BNP members on their demos: BNP leader Nick Griffin is a long-term holocaust denier who described that historical event as "the holohoax".

Regarding the issue of the EDL's Islamophobia, I agree with FormerIP that it may be acceptable to go for a compromise and state in the opening paragraph that they have been accused of Islamophobia (rather than simply say 'they are Islamophobic'). Either way, what the opening paragraph currently says about this is far, far too pro-EDL:

"It opposes what it sees as the spread of Islamism, Sharia law and Islamic extremism in England. The EDL uses street-based marches against what it labels as Muslim extremism."

This lets them get away with appearing to only oppose Islamic EXTREMISM - whereas their website front page and the source provided by FormerIP both show them to have a very general hatred of all Muslims and Islam.

FormerIP - How would you suggest we work the phrase 'Islamophobic' or 'has been accused of Islamophobia' into the opening paragraph? I contend that this is essential to at least bring about some semblance of balance. Multiculturalist (talk) 00:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• Meanwhile the chairman of Birmingham Methodist Church, Rev Bill Anderson, has written to the Home Office and West Midlands Police asking for them to ban the protest by the EDL. "Their sole aim is to create tension and to intimidate and provoke the people of Birmingham with racist and Islamophobic abuse," he said.
  • Chiefs allay fears of protest violence in city NEIL ELKES. Birmingham Post. Birmingham (UK): Sep 4, 2009. pg. 12
• It is an odd characteristic of the synergy between hooligans and far-right groups that both disclaim each other. The EDL, for example, insists that it "is nothing to do with the BNP", its website bans "racist or Islamophobic behaviour", and a planned demonstration in the London suburbs in which it is involved gives a long list of "don'ts" to prospective marchers.
  • Plenty of young men are seeking the excitement of a fight [Eire Region] David Aaronovitch. The Times. London (UK): Sep 7, 2009. pg. 17
• The North Staffordshire Campaign Against Racism and Facism (NorSCARF) is planning to hold a counter demonstration on January 23. It says the "peace and unity vigil" in Hanley will aim to show Stoke-on-Trent is not a racist city. NorSCARF spokesman Harry Ward said: "Despite claiming to be only against Islamic extremism, the EDL have repeatedly shown themselves to be racist and Islamophobic. "They already have a well-documented track record of whipping up hatred against Muslims and against Asian people, attacking individuals and property, making Nazi-style salutes and shouting disgusting racist slogans at previous demonstrations.
  • Anti-extremist group confirms Islam demo; Police leave cancelled as counter protest planned AIMI REDFERN. The Sentinel. Stoke-on-Trent (UK): Jan 9, 2010. pg. 4
• And now there is a street movement, the English Defence League, directly adopting the officially sanctioned targets of "Islamists" and "extremists" - as well as the "Taliban" and the threat of a "takeover of Islam" - to intimidate and threaten Muslim communities across the country, following the success of the British National party in baiting Muslims above all other ethnic and religious communities.
  • Comment: This tide of anti-Muslim hatred is a threat to us all: The attempt to drive Islamists and young Asian activists out of the political mainstream is a dangerous folly Seumas Milne. The Guardian. London (UK): Feb 25, 2010. pg. 33
• But the EDL is not a simple rerun of previous far-right street groups. On each demonstration there is a smattering of non-white faces and one of the group's leaders is Guramit Singh, a British-born Sikh. The organisation's core support appears to be young white men who are often fuelled by drink and sometimes drugs. But its Islamophobic message seems to have acted as a lightning rod for a strange coalition - from rightwing Christians who see it as being on the frontline in the "global fight against Islam" to gay rights activists.
  • National: Special report: English Defence League: The new wave of extremists plotting summer of unrest: Forged on football terraces and targeting Muslim communities, rightwingers return to the streets in an increasingly violent form; [1] Matthew Taylor. The Guardian. London (UK): May 29, 2010. pg. 20
• In a brilliant expose last Friday the Guardian reported how a lone man held up a pink triangle at a demonstration of the English Defence League - one of the most openly anti-immigrant and Islamophobic organisations in the country.
  • Comment: Gay equality can't yet be claimed a western value, but it is a human right: The far right's use of homophobia as a stick with which to beat Islam is symptomatic of a broader confusion Gary Younge. The Guardian. London (UK): Jun 7, 2010. pg. 27
• he EDL, which started up in Luton last year, and whose supporters belong to "divisions" across the UK, has become the most significant far-right street movement in the UK since the National Front in the 1970s. A Guardian investigation this summer has identified a number of rightwing extremists taking an interest in the movement, from convicted football hooligans to violent rightwing splinter groups. Many of its protests, which have sometimes attracted as many as 3,000 people, have descended into violence and racist and Islamophobic chanting.
  • Police shoot out tyres of English Defence League member over alleged bomb plot Steven Morris. The Guardian. London (UK): Jul 28, 2010. pg. 13
• A vehement spat in which no love is lost rumbles on following the appearance of the Islamophobic English Defence League alongside members of the Zionist Foundation supporting the state of Israel at recent demonstrations.
  • Comment: Diary: Stephen Bates Stephen Bates. The Guardian. London (UK): Aug 17, 2010. pg. 27
• Opposition to the EDL has been well organised since news of the planned march broke. In Bradford city centre, Maya Perry, 35, was gathering signatures for a group called We Are Bradford. [..] She was doing brisk trade gathering signatures from passers-by putting their names to a statement denouncing the EDL as Islamophobic, adding to the 10,000 already gathered demanding the march be stopped.
  • Bradford braced for arrival of the EDL Jonathan Brown. The Independent. London (UK): Aug 28, 2010. pg. 4
• The EDL, formed last year, has become the most significant far-right street movement in the UK since the National Front in the 1970s. It claims to be a peaceful, non-racist organisation opposed only to "militant Islam". But many of its demonstrations have ended in confrontations with the police after supporters became involved in violence and racist and Islamophobic chanting.
  • National: Bricks and bottles fly as far right battle with police during anti-Islam protest: Five arrests as 1,600 officers in Bradford hold back 700 EDL demonstrators Matthew Taylor, Martin Wainwright. The Observer. London (UK): Aug 29, 2010. pg. 6
• Though the organisation claims that it is not racist or anti-Muslim, opponents such as United Against Fascism say that the group's agenda is blatantly Islamophobic.
  • Brit anti-Islamist group's donors' details 'stolen after database hacked' Asian News International. New Delhi: Dec 21, 2010.

There are a bunch of sources which mention 'Islamophobia' and EDL, and one that talk abot EDL's views on Islam.   Will Beback  talk  00:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I would still say the source I posted has the best summary of all this for the lead (although I would say that, wouldn't I?): "...has been denounced as Islamophobic, violent and extremist". Also it practices: "generalized hatred against Muslims" according to the Canadian Jewish Congress. Source: [8]--FormerIP (talk) 00:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion to FormerIP: How about if we change the passage so it reads "The EDL uses street-based marches against what it labels as Muslim extremism,[12][13] although it's opponents claim it practices generalised hatred against Muslims[14]. You can then make [14] your Canadian Jewish Congress source, maybe backed up by other sources which make similar assertions. How about it, FormerIP? Let's do it. Multiculturalist (talk) 18:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Please find MAIN STREAM sources from WITHIN the country. Ideally from both sides of the political spectrum. The Canadian Jewish Congress is inappropriate. I'm outraged at this complete contempt for any sort of freedom of speech. If you don't like what the EDL do, then tough, you don't have to like it, but it's your right to be offended. WIkipedia is not a place for you to warp articles to your own beliefs. If you look hard enough on the internet there will always be sources from notable papers calling all sorts of bodies extreme this or anti that. It's not acceptable to just find a few fringe groups ect. Alexandre8 (talk) 09:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

You accuse us of having "complete contempt for any sort of freedom of speech". Quite the contrary, we are actually exercising our freedom of speech - and we do not need your permission to do so. Our "freedom of speech" entails us expressing our own points of view - it does not require us to agree with your point of view. By the way, The Guardian is a "mainstream source from within the country", or is it only Tory-supporting newspapers that count as mainstream? Multiculturalist (talk) 13:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Additionally you only have to look at the "leads" to other controversial groups/political leaders ect around the world to see that the disagreeable things that stand for are not rammed down your throat in the first few lines. I beg you to stop butchering articles and just present fact from a NPOV point of view. I'm seriously offended at your attempts to ruin the NPOV rule "legally", it goes completely against the Good Faith act. Alexandre8 (talk) 09:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

But in the view of some of us (though evidently not you) the EDL is "disagreeable". So why should the opening paragraph continue to be made up mostly of pro-EDL POV? I will remind you that this is supposed to be a neutral encyclopedia - not the EDL's propaganda website. Multiculturalist (talk) 13:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Nothing propagates the view of the EDL here. It isn't your position to say what people should and shouldn't believe. This isn't citizenship lessons. Please stop trying to ram your rubbish down people's throats it's incredibly frustrating. Alexandre8 (talk) 18:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Most of the opening paragraph propagates the view of the EDL. It's written largely from their perspective. The "rubbish" which you say I want to "ram down people's throats" may not be pro-EDL, but at least it is properly sourced and comes from a variety of mainstream organisations. It may surprise you to know that that is the way these articles are SUPPOSED to be constructed. Multiculturalist (talk) 20:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Based on the sources I've excerpted above, I would not say that ELD is commonly called "Islamophobic" by reliable sources, though it appears in a couple. Rather, the sources report partisans using the term. However they do that often enough that it should be mentioned in the intro. We should also report their denial. Perhaps something like 'EDL is called "Islamophobic" by opponents and press reports, but it denies the charge'. As for non-UK sources, they're usable if they are otherwise reliable. EDL is reported on in the US and Canada. We routinely use sources from Anglophone countries for political articles about either side of the Atlantic.   Will Beback  talk  10:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I think Will Beback has provided excellent mainstream sources, as has FormerIP. It would be an absolute scandal if no room was made in the article for some reference to the many accurate claims that the EDL is Islamophobic. Failure to do so would be a victory for the EDL's apologists. I would also strongly contend that it is anti-semitic, otherwise why does one of Will Beback's sources report EDL marchers making "Nazi-style salutes"? If that's not anti-semitic, what is? Multiculturalist (talk) 13:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

anti-semetic? Thought this was about islamophobia, or are you just not sure what you want. You're a shambles, and I shall defend the integrity of this article for as long as I can, and for your information, it's not in the slightest pro EDL. Alexandre8 (talk) 20:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, anti-semitic. That's what people are when they do Nazi salutes. Anyone with an IQ above room temperature can work that out. And yes, it's quite possible for a group to be both Islamophobic and anti-semitic: that's what their BNP allies are. Or do you not regard Nick Griffin's policy of holocaust denial as anti-semitism? Multiculturalist (talk) 21:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

We do not 'work things out' we repeat what RS say. Also they have Jewish allies (and one who it can be proven with far better evidacen tehn the bnp). Do you regard teh JDL as anti-Semitic?Slatersteven (talk) 13:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

That is OR, unles sources say they are anti-semitic (odd as they have formed ties with the JDL) we can't. I would also ask for AGF.I would also repeat that the lead is for summerising the artciel, ot for making points. As such unless we have a significant disciusion of the Islamahpobia within the body of the articel (and I am not sure ther is enough material for that, this does not seem that wide speard an accusation) then we cannot have it in the lead. I wouold susgest a line in the commentry section.Slatersteven (talk) 13:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

You don't have to look far to find yet further examples of EDL Islamophobia. The following link provides such examples: [9] No doubt Alexandre8 will claim it's biased against the EDL - well it IS the EDL - in fact, it's their official blog. Among the blanket attacks on Islam and Muslims, it includes the headline "How Sick is Islam?" and makes great play out of using the word "Muslims" to describe the two men recently convicted of heading a paedophilia gang. How much more evidence do we need before we put something in the opening text to point out this group's Islamophobia? I remind people again of my earlier suggestion: that we alter the opening passage to read "The EDL uses street-based marches against what it labels as Muslim extremism,[12][13] although it's opponents claim it practices generalised hatred against Muslims[14]." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Multiculturalist (talk • contribs) 21:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry - omitted my signature. Not sure why the link doesn't work either. Here it is...

http://theenglishdefenceleagueextra.blogspot.com/ (In fact if you google "English Defence League", the EDL Extra Blogspot is one of the first results to come up). Multiculturalist (talk) 21:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I would argue that this is b.s on an unprecedented scale. I just looked at the link you provided, and they outlined that the, paedophiles, were Muslims. They were. Truth hurts sometimes doesn't it. Even Jack Straw went on national telly and said that muslim grooming gangs were a problem. There is no way he would have said unless there was truth in that. Sure you'll come back with the wishy-washy rubbish that not all muslims are paedophiles. YEh, I know, that's sort of obvious isn't it. Doesn't change the fact that those men there were though does it? Alexandre8 (talk) 21:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Jack Straw did not call the grooming gangs 'Muslim'. He called them Pakistani. The EDL Extra website makes a specific point of saying they do not call them Pakistani they call them MUSLIMS. The reason is because they are consumed by a twisted hatred of all people who belong to the Islamic faith. You say "Truth hurts sometimes doesn't it". Yes, it certainly hurts you - because the fact of the matter is that some paedophile gangs are run by Muslims and some are run by people of other faiths or none. But neither you nor the EDL wish to make an issue of the religion of the wrongdoer unless they are Muslim. Normal people think paedophilia is wrong whoever is doing it - whether it be Muslims or Catholic clergy or anyone else. Multiculturalist (talk) 21:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

If they had a problem with a peace loving mother Theresa, or a good willing William Wilberforce, then you know what, go ahead and denounce them in the lead. But since they are protesting, against what they claim to be radical islam, and I woulda thought paedophila is pretty radical wouldn't you, then I'm not gonna sit here and let you give this article a political overtone. Stick to the damn facts for the last time. Oh, p.s let me just bring your attention to the full name of Pakistan. "Islamic Republic of Pakistan". Wouldn't have thought that changes much though ;). If you can find leading source that that says islamophobia is an intrinsic part of what they stand for, then please add it. Remember what Islamophobia stands for..."Islamophobia, an irrational fear or prejudice towards Islam and Muslims." Alexandre8 (talk) 21:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

IS the EDL blog spot (as it is not hosted on their website) definalty porduced by the EDL?Slatersteven (talk) 13:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

It certainly seems to be, but to be honest I'm not sure why you and Alexandre8 are even bothering to contribute to this TalkPage - you have both recently attempted to make amendments to the article without first achieving a consensus of opinion about it. As I have said before, Wikipedia is not an EDL propaganda tool - it is an impartial encyclopedia. For that reason, we do not simply take EDL claims as fact. Multiculturalist (talk) 22:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems to be to be anonymous and there is not obvious link that I can se (but please provide and evidacen to teh contary) I would ask you again to AGF and to refrain from PA's. Nor (as far as I am aware) are we taking what the EDL says aas fact. I have not sadi we cannot have the claim of anti-Semitsm in the artciel, but tnat it must be worded in a way that refelcts its usage in RS. Its clear that it is only used (and then in pasing not as part of an on depth analysis of the claim) by a couple of RS in ways other then just reporting it as an accusationmmade by (mostly unspecifide) outside persons or groups. As such the claim is not a fact (any more then the EDL's claim they are no Islamaphoic is) that they are Islamaphobic, it is an un-proven accusation. The claim of Anit-Semitiism is even more dubious, givwen their choice of public freiinds.Slatersteven (talk) 22:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• The thread seems to have wandered from a discussion of 'Islamophobic' to 'anti-Semitic'. Getting back to the original focus, does anyone object to adding to the intro this sentence: 'EDL is called "Islamophobic" by opponents and press reports, but it denies the charge', using the sources posted above?   Will Beback  talk  08:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

You will not get it past a certain individual whose sole purpose is to ensure that only pro-EDL POV is allowed in the article. Nonetheless, I would still urge you to do it. The EDL's supporters have no respect for democracy - and quite casually make alterations to the article without first waiting to achieve a consensus on the talk page - so why should those of us who favour a balanced article be any different? That said, I think your wording is a little weak. The suggestion I made a little earlier would, I suggest, be better - namely that "The EDL uses street-based marches against what it labels as Muslim extremism,[12][13] although it's opponents claim it practices generalised hatred against Muslims[14]." (Reference [14] would be the Candadian Jewish source given earlier). However, if you do not agree with this wording then I'll support your suggested amendment instead. It's completely crazy that we are fearful of walking on eggshells on this issue - why on earth are we not allowed to make some reference to the well-sourced claims that this group is Islamophobic, especially when it's so blindingly obvious that they are? Please enact your suggestion so we can finally put an end to the tail wagging the dog. Multiculturalist (talk) 13:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• • Please, please please please try and get the article right. Such content is for the article body not the lead. The lead should summarise the article and not introduce new material. Get this into the article body and then we can consider how best to summarise it all (as an example in the lead would could summarise the different ways they are referred too together, as sourced in the article body). --Errant ^(chat!) 13:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The Islamophobic issue is addressed under "Views and reactions". If it's incomplete then more should be added. is there any objection to adding a slightly more detailed version of the proposed text, 'EDL is called "Islamophobic" by opponents and press reports, but it denies the charge', to that section?   Will Beback  talk  21:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

reset

Its not at all clear what is being proposed anymore and there is a lot of original research in the comments. As far as I can see the sources in general show that the EDL have an active dislike of Muslims bordering on the pathological and there are multiple sources with say they are anti-islamic. A phobia on the other hand represents an irrational fear which is not the same thing as irrational hatred, racist distortions etc. etc. We also have the issue of what their street supporters do as against the reported policy of the group. On UAF we have street supporters who are extreme left but that does not make the UAF left wing, we need to be even handed here. We have lots of statements in the article that they are anti-islam, do we have a RS that says they are islamophobic specifically using that word.--Snowded ^TALK 19:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I should think there are hundreds. Several examples of the EDL being called Islamophobic were given by Will Beback at 00:38 on 17 January (under the "Islamophobic EDL" section of this Talk Page). We've discussed this for long enough - let's do it! Multiculturalist (talk) 19:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Just like there are many examples of the UAF being left wing. Considering the judgement passed on the UAF I assume that same sort of line will be taken with this similar group. At the end of the day, the EDL probably don't like Muslims who follow sharia law, I don't imagine you really need sources to explain that. I for one am not a huge fan of having my balls chopped off for being a homosexual under sharia law either. Alexandre8 (talk) 19:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I looked through those sources and most of them report islamophobic chanting or statements by others. Only one Jun 7, 2010. pg. 27 in the Guardian comes close and no diff is provided. We need something more substantial than that to use the word. --Snowded ^TALK 20:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Islamophobia is a newly coined term and does imply hatred. (See the WP article.) If EDL is islamophobic, we need a high quality reliable source that says they are (i.e., not just a passing newspaper reference), just as we need good sources to call groups "left-wing", "far right", etc. TFD (talk) 20:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I maybe being purist here, but while Phobics may hate a subject, it does not follow that hatred of a subject means that someone is phobic about it. That said I realise that common use has blurred this point somewhat --Snowded ^TALK 21:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

In modern usage, "-phobic" doesn't necessarily refer to someone with an actual phobia. "Homophobic" being a primary example where it is used more often to refer to irrational hatred rather than fear.

Getting back to the issue at hand, in addition to the sources listed above here's a recent parliamentary report which says, in part:

• The last six months has seen a growing number number of virulently anti-Islam marches and demonstrations organised by Far Right such as the English Defence League (EDL)..."[10]

  Will Beback  talk  07:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Thats a good source for far right and I've added it into the article. However the overall text says anti-islamic. I remain dubious about phobia however. I agree its meaning includes irrational hatred as well as fear and I can see why its used as a label in consequence. It means that not only is someone wrong but they are being irrational in that belief. Given that implication its a strong claim which needs direct sourcing, we can't impute it. --Snowded ^TALK 07:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• Islamophobia is prejudice against, hatred or fear of Islam or Muslims.

So says Wikipedia, with several sources for it.   Will Beback  talk  07:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

It needs a RS or two that uses the word explicitly WIll --Snowded ^TALK 09:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

In the section above I posted several newspaper excerpts that include the word explicitly.   Will Beback  talk  21:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

We also need more then just a oone sentance passing mention. We have to have an explanation or description of what makes then Islamaphobic. As has been aid lets use the saem criteria for the incliusion (in the lead) as we use elsewhere. I support mthe inclusion (in the body of the text) some thing like "Opponents have called them Islamaphobic, and this has been widely reported in the press but the EDL eny this". Perhpas giveing a couple of examples of teh evidance, but onoly if the evidacen is actualy liniked in the source to the accusation.Slatersteven (talk) 12:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Could you clarify what the minimum requirement is for inclusion in the article or the lead?   Will Beback  talk  21:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The criteria that was agree for such labels was mutliple coverage is broad sheet newpapers and actual analysis rather then just passing referance.Slatersteven (talk) 13:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

If we could come to a user consensus first it might save us all a lot of time. Let's ask ourselves, and just give a little yes or no as a reply to show your side. Is the inclusion of the EDL being specifically "Islamophobic" in the lead fundamentally necessary to the enrichment of this article?

I'll go and vote "NO". To get it rolling. Alexandre8 (talk) 21:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

What are you voting on, and why do you vote that way?   Will Beback  talk  22:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Just above you will ^^ Alexandre8 (talk) 08:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

• As far as I see we have sources that call the EDL islamaphobic. It might be possible to using notable examples of the these to attribute opinions on the EDL. However, no source has been presented the support the suggestion that the EDL are regularly referred to as islamaphobic. Without such a source that sentence would be pure OR and cannot go in the article. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see where anyone has proposed using the word "regularly".   Will Beback  talk  22:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

See Jon Garland and James Treadwell, ‘No Surrender to the Taliban’: Football Hooliganism, Islamophobia and the Rise of the English Defence League, Papers from the British Criminology Conference. The article makes clear that the EDL is perceived as islamophobic.[11] TFD (talk) 22:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Personally I think the far right and anti-islamic labels are enough, given that there are direct references the choice is between anti-islam and islamophobia. My preference is for the first and existing. --Snowded ^TALK 08:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I vote "Yes" - there are enough reliable sources that refer to the EDL as Islamophobic. Failing that, the article should make it clear that it has been accused of displaying generalised hatred against Muslims, not just Muslim extremists. Multiculturalist (talk) 10:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what we are voting on but I vote yes/no. We can say they have been called Inslamaphobic by oponents and that they deny it. But not in the lead.Slatersteven (talk) 13:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I have here a quote which I think sums up their stance quite neatly. "Searchlight, which campaigns against far-right extremism, says that while EDL may not be an all-white group of hardcore fascists, its banners and chants are anti-Muslim and therefore incite hatred." http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/manchester/hi/people_and_places/religion_and_ethics/newsid_8302000/8302485.stm Straight from the BBC website. It shows that whilst there is some diversity in the group, they are generally fairly Anti-Islamic. I would not object to this being included. The words islamophobic are not used however. Alexandre8 (talk) 19:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Key people

FormerIP asked in an edit summary: Can we get reliable sources that these are "key people"? (i.e. Leon McCreery and Guramit Singh). Google searching throws up lots of references, but whether any of that makes these "key people" I wouldn't like to say. How "key", for example, is a head steward? Out of interest:

• Leon McCreery - EDL's head steward. Aged 28. Background in UDA paramilitary family (father a convicted UDA thug who served 11 years in prison for the attempted murder of Geordie Legge); fled Belfast in 1999 with mother, brother and sister after he was attacked and slashed in the face by rival Loyalists.

• Guramit Singh - arrested 22 December on suspicion of intentionally causing religiously aggravated harassment, alarm or distress. Usually described as an unofficial leader and spokesman for the EDL. His Facebook profile was full of racist jokes and offensive rants against Muslims and the prophet Muhammad, such as "You know what, ive got an inkling the profit muhammed was really a bit of a adultering, raping, hate preaching looting C**t!! Anyone agree, or is it just me????" Emeraude (talk) 17:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeh, the bile they may or may not say, are they key people or not? I've heard a fair bit about both of them. Guramit Singh is a key player. I'm not sure what the technical definition for key people is though. Is there are a reference for the other names in the box more importantly? Is one really necessary though when it's an indisputable fact whether they are or are not a key person or not? Alexandre8 (talk) 17:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

There are references for the other two in the body of the article.

I think the thing is if we're going to have "key figures" in the infobox they need to be small in number and genuinely be the two or three most important figures in the movement, not just randomly picked members. So we should have sources saying: "This is the leader", "this is deputy" or whatever it happens to be (appreciate that the EDL may not have a formal committee like that, so "chief spokesman", "founder" etc would serve the same purpose.

Guramit Singh is particularly problematic because he has, true enough, been featured in a documentary. But I'd say he's a token Asian and propaganda tool more than anything else, so putting him in the infobox seems a bit pro-EDL. If, on the other hand, we can get confirmation from an RS that he is one of the very top brass of the EDL, then he can go in. --FormerIP (talk) 18:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeh I thought that would be your objection. Well shall have a look and see what I can find. Alexandre8 (talk) 18:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/islamophobia-watch/2010/12/22/police-arrest-edls-guramit-singh.html

http://hotterthanapileofcurry.wordpress.com/2010/12/27/english-defence-leagues-guramit-singh-arrested-on-grounds-of-religiously-aggravated-harassment-alarm-distress/ http://www.mpacuk.org/category/guramit-singh.html

I've got a few references there that call him "one of the leader's of the EDL". He seems to be very unpopular in the Muslim community, but he seems to have a big voice in the EDL ranks. Alexandre8 (talk) 18:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

You know what is meant by "reliable source", though...--FormerIP (talk) 18:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but when it's something as solid as a leadership role, I don't really see how it can be seen as problematic to add him to the info box. If an Anti-EDL site has documented him being a leader, I guess he must be a leader. Alexandre8 (talk) 18:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not that the sites are anti-EDL is that they're not RS because they're blogs. --FormerIP (talk) 18:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

How about this one? http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/local/police_arrest_edl_protest_s_leader_1_2200521 http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jun/15/what-makes-sikh-join-far-right Mentioned by the guardian. If he's in the national paper as an advocate for the EDL, he's in. (talk) 18:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

As for Leon McCreery? Alexandre8 (talk) 18:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Being mentioned in the Guardian doesn't make him a key figure in anything.

The Peterborough Today website may be RS for this, but I'm not sure it's sufficiently clear about his role. What does "an unofficial leader" mean? --FormerIP (talk) 18:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I understand your scepticism, I just feel like he's been in too many articles all over the internet as "leader, un-noffical leader, spokesman, ect" to be ignored. The word "Key people" is horribly vague. It's doesn't specifically say "Group leaders, organisers, spokesmen, ect" I imagine is it's the people of the group who get the most "press" as so to speak. I doubt the EDL would have let him speak on the national news if he wasn't a high player with them. Anyone else care to add their tuppence?Alexandre8 (talk) 18:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

If the issue is with the wording then why not just change it to something like Significant personnel - Key Administrator's - Primary Organisers Johnsy88 (talk) 08:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Or we could give specific roles of individuals if we have the sourcing (e.g. "Top dog: Bob Cratchit"). --FormerIP (talk) 12:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Assuming the EDL is that organised. The fact you have 'unoffical leaders' lends credance to the idea that they are fairly add hok. That he has no 'offical' possition within gthe organsiatioin and is just willing to be interviwed. We need some RS laying outm thier structue and possitons.Slatersteven (talk) 12:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Something else to consider here. The infobox is named as "infobox organization", but if you look at the relevant template (see Template:Infobox organization) you'll find that the example here has been so altered as to bear no relationship to the original. Specifically, "key people" is not one of the elements. I would question whether this is an appropriate infobox template to be used here; could som other be more relevant, for example Infobox political party. Emeraude (talk) 14:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

problom is its more of an organisation then it is a political party (in fact it is not a political party).Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

If the article is to specify Guramit Singh as one of the EDL's "key people", then it surely follows that the word "Islamophobic" should be included in the opening passage. How could it be otherwise when he was arrested on suspicion of intentionally causing religiously aggravated harassment and is even quoted as saying "ive got an inkling the profit muhammed was really a bit of a adultering, raping, hate preaching looting C**t!!"..? Alexandre8 seems to think we should regard this individual as one of their key people, saying "If an Anti-EDL site has documented him being a leader, I guess he must be a leader." Would Alexandre8 be in favour of us relying on anti-EDL websites for other information about the group? My own view is, as FormerIP says, Guramit Singh is being used as a token Asian - and is probably not as high up the EDL ranks as they would like to portray him as being. I also think his anti-Muslim rhetoric is probably fuelled by his desire to make himself acceptable to his peers. In conclusion, I do not think the article should flag up Guramit Singh as one of the group's key people, but if others insist then let us finally put a stop to the equivocation over the Islamophobia tag and put this word prominently in the opening paragraph. Multiculturalist (talk) 14:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Forgive me but I see nowhere where it says he did say anything that was Islamaphobic, just that he has been arrested for being accused of “intentionally causing religiously aggravated harassment, alarm or distress.” Has he been charged?Slatersteven (talk) 15:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I hate to break it to you Multiculturalist, but until you actually know something about the man in Question, it doesn't seem quite right that you should give such a strong opinion on the matter. I totally understand that you're unwilling to give any credibility to this group since your and their views are diametrically opposed, but I'm afraid sometimes you're just going to have to let the facts do the talking. People will look into this more closely and if it's agreed the Mr Singh is important enough in the organisation he'll be included in the key people. Remember that his views however anti islamic they may be, don't affect his position in the party. Infact waht he says is irrelevent. See Nick Griffin forexample. Still leader of the BNP though. Moreover, the peterborough times is not a PRo islamic newspaper. And that would be our main source. Alexandre8 (talk) 17:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

EDL Leadership

Interesting that this source identifies the leaders of the EDL, and their links to the BNP. Its from a Searchlight site which is normally considered a RS for far right material. Further it clearly describes the EDL as racist and ant-islamic, not anti-islamic extremism. --Snowded ^TALK 20:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Thats hardly a reliable source in my opinion. Are blogs considered reliable these days? I could easily link to some counter jihad blogs if you want me to? Far left POV sites should not be used as sources unless you are happy for me to use BNP sources when editing the UAF page?--Steveg79 (talk) 20:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

It references Searchlight material, and is a Searchlight site. This has been debated before and the community has agreed that Searchlight is a reliable source in respect of far right groups. You appear very knowledgeable for a new editor, have you ever edited under another name? --Snowded ^TALK 21:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Well I am part of the community and I dont agree as do many others. Obviously the socilist types will but that is just POV rather than a being neutral and informative. I see all your comments on he UAF talk page and TBH I dont think you editing EDL/BNP/UAF pages is good for the community as you cant be neutral.--Steveg79 (talk) 21:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Now that particular refrain sounds familiar - please answer the question, have you edited under another name before? That aside, if you want to change the decision of the community on Searchlight you will need to go to the RS notice board and make the proposition for that change. Until then it counts, and I think it justifies a section on the EDL leadership and their backgrounds. --Snowded ^TALK 21:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

So where is this decision of the community you talk about?--Steveg79 (talk) 21:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Well the last attempt to change it is here; now answer the question --Snowded ^TALK 21:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

That hardly looks like a concencus to me quite the opposite in fact. You can't get away from the facts that there roots are in the far left and ties to the communist paty which hardly makes them a RS on anything to do with the far right. Sources should not be seen to be biased as it will damage the perceived neutrality of wikipedia.--Steveg79 (talk) 22:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

"Steveg79" is confused. Just because Searchlight don't like Nazis, that doesn't make it a far left organisation. Anyone with an IQ of above room temperature can work that out. By the way, "Steveg79", there is a warning on Alexandre8's talk page about his habit of logging in under multiple accounts. I respectfully suggest you re-read it. Multiculturalist (talk) 00:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think s/he is confused rather its a classic response of an SPA and his/her subsequent edit of the Searchlight article shows this. The strategy is to label anyone who opposes the far-right as left-wing (even if the organisation concerned includes the leader of the Conservative Party as it does in the UAF case). Steveg79 has not yet answered my earlier question as to whether he has previously edited under another name. --Snowded ^TALK 06:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Far Right

The opening of this article instantly identifies the organisation as far right. The far right is a term that is associated with the National Socialist party or nazi party This is deliberately misleading, as is the assertion further down the page that a "significant" number of the members are football hooligans. I would argue that using emotive and media driven tags is less than fair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Straightliner2000 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

So what's wrong or misleading about that? The fact that the EDL has never been involved in any government and therefore had no chance to commit genocide? Hans Adler 11:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The sources given describe it as far-right - see the discussion at the top of this page. --Pontificalibus (talk) 21:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Sources that describe EDL as right wing rather than far right. There is far from a consensus here. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6825354.ece http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1259409/Police-attack-right-wing-group-anti-fascists-clash-violent-street-protests.html http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/index.php/news/content/view/full/98004 http://www.luton-dunstable.co.uk/News/EDL-switch-march-date-to-up-support.htm --Steveg79 (talk) 22:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

You've only got one RS there, namely the timeonline which does not stack up against the multiple RS, including academic articles which use far right. --Snowded ^TALK 22:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

You think Hope not hate and search light are RS lol. I have seen you arguing on the UAF that they should not be labelled left wing let alone far left which they are.--Steveg79 (talk) 22:15, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm just running with community decisions, its the way things work around here --Snowded ^TALK 22:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

There is an academic consensus that they are far right. TFD (talk) 22:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

A source used is titled "EDL Goons on Newsnight, part2" suggest that it is removed as the title does not reflect neutrality, also many sources are infact the same soutrce from the guardian and times. suggest only one link per source--Steveg79 (talk) 22:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

One definition of "far right" is ignoring the democratic will. Some might think that by reverting those parts of the text which have been arrived at by majority consensus, "Steveg79" fits this definition quite neatly. Multiculturalist (talk) 01:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

We now have twelve sources for the first paragraph in the lead when we really should have only one. Could someone please provide a good academic source (rather than news media) that accurately describes this group. Here is a link to a scholarly article, the sort of source that we should use. TFD (talk) 03:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Given that we have a stream of pro EDL SPAs, some of whom I suspect we have seen before I think it may be better to create a talk page note to say that the far-right issue is resolved with the various sources listed. Then we can remove them all from the lede--Snowded ^TALK 06:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Care to list this stream? In my opinion we have a bunch of people here with the only goal of making the EDL look as bad as possible. Not interested in facts and impartiality at all. No one here who you accuse is trying to make the EDL look good, just give a balance or this page would be a UAF propoganda page. You know deep down that you couldn't care less if the info here is accurate or not, just that if the EDL look in anyway shape or form legitimate and credible you've lost what you came here to do. GIVE it a BREAK please and I can stop wasting my time with this page since I have little in common with these people anyway, I just can't bear to see rubbish on wikipedia pages. Alexandre8 (talk) 11:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Have a look at the references they answer both your questions--Snowded ^TALK 12:15, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The sole agenda of the person who posts under Alexandre8 and Steveg79 is to turn this article into an EDL propaganda site. He has form in using multiple accounts (and, indeed, has been warned about this on his talk page). He has now seen fit - once again - to leave abusive comments on my talk page. The last time he did this I warned him of the consequences and he quickly deleted the comments and issued an apology. This time I will not accept an apology. Because Snowded plays by the rules - and Alexandre8 does not - we have a situation whereby this article is now significantly more pro-EDL than it was 24 hours ago. It's a disgraceful situation that fascists should be allowed to abuse Wikipedia in this way, and Alexandre8/Steveg79 sould have his account(s) suspended forthwith. Multiculturalist (talk) 12:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Wrong, offensive, inappropriate, rude ect ect. You are being reported for it Here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard Alexandre8 (talk) 12:53, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I've just left a detailed rebuttal on that board. Also, I am delighted that the moderators have now seen fit to put a lock on the EDL article - as I do not have the same amount of spare time as you evidently do, and so cannot continually compete in this never ending edit war. Multiculturalist (talk) 14:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, shouldn't you be on the streets protesting this group rather then sitting at home writing about them ;). Hang on, am I allowed to make that joke here? Alexandre8 (talk) 14:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_about_winning

Take a look at that people who are trying to push POV. Alexandre8 (talk) 11:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Nazi

Steveg79 made this insertion which appears to distance one of the EDL leaders from any Nazi association. I was tempted to simply delete it, but instead provided a balancing statement which was then reversed by SteveG and Alenandre here. All material is reliability sourced. It seems to me its an either delete all, or add back in the balancing position. --Snowded ^TALK 12:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy for the fact the Yaxley-Lenon was a former member of the BNP to be included to for balance but was not happy with the statement that a significant number of EDL supporters are BNP members as this can't be backed up by any RS.--Steveg79 (talk) 12:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

It just seems a little irrelevant to add a sentence in like that at the end of the paragraph so deletion would be my first move OR Why not just tone it down so that it simply states that Mr Yaxley who claims to be the leader of the EDL has attempted to distance himself and his street protest movement from Nazism by symbolically burning the Nazi flag. Johnsy88 (talk) 13:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Something like that is fine, but the prior membership of the BNP is significant. How about "Mr Yaxley, a former BNP member, who is one of the founders of the EDL attempted to distance the EDL from Nazism by symbolically burning the Nazi flag." --Snowded ^TALK 13:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes good half way point Snowed. I support this rectification. A fact is a fact. If he was in the BNP, he was there, if he no longer likes them, he no longer likes them. Alexandre8 (talk) 13:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I corrected the grammar. an n always comes after an A if a vowel proceeds lol. Alexandre8 (talk) 13:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Leadership

We all know that Sephen Yaxley-Lennon and Kevin Carrol are the leaders of the EDL. If we could find sources and come to a agreement ment on this it would tidy the article up a little and we wouldn't have to uses phrases like 'claims to be the EDL leader' and get rid of citation needed stuff as well?--Maxted101 (talk) 13:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Well you came up with one source in your previous manifestation, but then decided it was a bad idea as the same source also said the EDL had multiple BNP members taking part in its activities. --Snowded ^TALK 15:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

hunting the EDL

The attack does have an RS the BBC.Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC) I agree that one source may not be enough.Slatersteven (talk) 17:26, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I just read it, the whole thing lacks any notability whatsoever. I knocked it back to something supported by the source but it could as well be a fantasy by the EDL member, there is no material which supports the statement the attack even took place. --Snowded ^TALK 17:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess if the BBC reported it, it may as well be taken seriously for a while until further evidence is realised. Alexandre8 (talk) 17:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Its hardly even a report and its too current anyway. It should be deleted. If anything comes of it then it will be properly reported and can be considered for inclusion --Snowded ^TALK 17:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

He's a party Spokesman and was alledgedly attacked. It's noteworthy for the timebeing. Alexandre8 (talk) 17:55, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Please show me the source which says he is a party spokesperson --Snowded ^TALK 18:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQZc0BQWzyQ ENJOY! Alexandre8 (talk) 18:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't really, now how about that source? --Snowded ^TALK 18:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I'm just tired :P! Let's all be friends and get this wikipedia in shape ). ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandre8 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Its a lot easier if people follow WP:BRD and other editors (from both sides) enforce it when we get new and seemingly SPAs getting involved. I think its pretty clear that this new section fails wikipedia policy on recentism and notability. It is not notable that an EDL supporter reports something being thrown at his window, or that he thinks he saw someone black or asian unless and until the police confirm something actually happened. Given that no damage is reported, no suspect found I rather think we will hear nothing more of this. --Snowded ^TALK 18:55, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

God we kick ass at making agreements here at Wikipedia. God bless this establishment :P Alexandre8 (talk) 19:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC).

Proposal to delete section

This is a minor report of a minor incident, not yet confirmed by the police as happening as described by the EDL member. The sources are a police request for information and the briefest of reports. There are no articles or substantive news reports which would normally be required. It thus fails tests of both notability and recentism. --Snowded ^TALK 19:09, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support deletion pending a more substantive report --Snowded ^TALK 19:09, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

just to live up to what I just wrote.

"Against" deletion. (nah i have real reasons.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandre8 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Against deletion. I disagree that it could be described as a minor incident as it involves one of the leaders of the EDL being confronted on his doorstep with a shotgun. As it is the facts are reported and nothing else all backed up with credible sources, If the story develops it can all ways be edited. --Steveg79 (talk) 20:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

"leader" has not yet been supported by a reliable source. Or at least you did use one, which also said the individual was a BNP supporter at which point you decided it was not reliable! The sources say that the victim thought the person was carrying a gun. That hardly supports "confronted on his doorstep with a shotgun"--Snowded ^TALK 20:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I vote FOR deletion. Now let's do a count up: Me and Snowded voted FOR deletion whereas Alexandre8 and Steveg79 voted AGAINST deletion. By my calculation, that makes two votes FOR and only one vote AGAINST. Accordingly, I propose that it should be deleted. Multiculturalist (talk) 00:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Well it really means that its evenly split but as yet there is no consensus for its inclusion and Steveg79 chose to ignore WP:BRD after the initial inclusion. Best to leave it for a bit and see what other editors think. Given the recentism and quality of the reference it may need to go to a forum. --Snowded ^TALK 07:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The section that is currently being edit-warred about obviously does not belong in the article. We only have very short news reports mentioning that someone has alleged something. From our fundamental policy WP:What Wikipedia is not, more precisely WP:NOTNEWS:

"While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia."

This is routine news coverage of a minor police investigation. The situation may change as reliable sources start to report in more detail, but we must wait until that happens. If it happens. It doesn't seem very likely. And even then we will have to discuss whether it's relevant to the EDL or just to Kevin Carroll (for whom we do not appear to have an article).

Also, please everybody be careful about your use of edit summaries. They are intended for information and discussion, not for personal attacks. My removal of the section with the abbreviated rationale "Barely even newsworthy, and see WP:NOTNEWS" was reverted with the comment "undoing blatant vandalism". That kind of behaviour can easily lead to blocks. It is never acceptable to claim vandalism just because you disagree with someone or are unable to follow their policy-based argument. Hans Adler 12:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Disagree, as it it it only states the facts as known at the moment as is written in a neutral POV. Combined with the recentism tag I think it is a good and informative addition to the page. Deleting a whole section because YOU dont think its newsworthy is considered vandalism and will be reverted as such. Maybe you should have come to the talk page first?--Steveg79 (talk) 12:15, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you should respect WP:BRD in the first place --Snowded ^TALK 12:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I never said it is not newsworthy. I said (in my edit summary and above in this section) that it is barely newsworthy. However, policy is very clear that we don't say things just because they are newsworthy. Encyclopedias are not newspapers. They have a much higher standard for relevance and noteworthiness. Hans Adler 12:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

If the attack did indeed happen, which I have no reason to beleive it didn't, then of course it should be included. It's a very serious event. Not the mention the fact that the article is pretty small anyway. Extra information should be encouraged. Alexandre8 (talk) 12:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

As far as the reports in reliable sources go, it's not an attack but an unreliable report of an attack. Even if and when reliable sources start coming to the conclusion that it did happen, it will be at most a little more noteworthy than any single attack by EDL people on their usual victims. Hans Adler 12:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeccision makes me a sad panda :( Alexandre8 (talk) 12:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

closing this

As far as I can see there are 5/6 editors opposed to the recent addition of this section and two opposed, one of who is now blocked. Given that the insert is less that 24 hours old and has been contested by every experienced editor who has been involved I think its now reasonable to request its deletion (as the article is now frozen). --Snowded ^TALK 13:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. If there are no policy-based objections forthcoming in the next hour or so, I will create an edit request for removal of the section. The reason the section is currently in the article is that before it was protected one editor went way beyond 3RR and right before the protection an obvious sock turned up to revert again with its only edit so far. This is current news, and leaving it in now even for a short time would reward the edit warring in a way that we simply can't allow, per the spirit of the 3RR rule. Hans Adler 13:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I think an attempted murder article that has made it into bbc news, metro news ect is note worthy. It demonstrates well the tentions the group are creating in the community, if someone appears to be thretning a leader with his life. The only reason I can see people wish to use policy to close this article is because they do not want to see anything to martyrise (is that a verb, I'm not sure lol) the group. I think this reasoning is insufficient for a deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandre8 (talk • contribs) 13:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I was about to do the same Hans. "A stone is allegedly thrown at an EDL member's house" is simply not worthy of inclusion in the absence of reliably sourced context that shows its direct relevance to this article. I saw reliably sourced context so we avoid the fantasising in the post above. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Cut the crap One night. Just for once, can you post something that doesn't mock someone for their different point of view. Alexandre8 (talk) 13:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Attempted murder! What are you talking about. Its a two liner report of a complaint to the police from the leader of EDL and BNP supporter who says he may have seen someone black or asian with a shotgun somewhere near his house after some unnamed object is thrown at his window but does no reported harm. It may not even have happened, if it did then the press will pick it up and that would be the time to include things. Your claim elsewhere not to be an SPA is rather damaged by the above statement (I'm not going to dignify it with the word argument) --Snowded ^TALK 13:53, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Why on earth is it on national news if it's nothing? Your ability to dismiss what is there is dumbfounding. Alexandre8 (talk) 13:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not on national news, its a byeline report, please ....--Snowded ^TALK 14:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Gahhh, I hate it when our views clash on such basic of things :P. This is mind bogglingly stressful lol. Alexandre8 (talk) 14:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit protected request Done now

Note: This "edit protected" tag was removed by an anonymous editor from Sheffield who later also undid the striking of sock puppet comments below. [12] The removal went unnoticed for 14 hours. Hans Adler 11:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The section "Attack at EDL leaders Luton home reported" should be removed through the protection. It was added boldly by the main edit warrior who caused this page to be protected. Apart from this editor, who is currently blocked (and his obvious sock), it is only supported by a long-time SPA. Otherwise there is a clear consensus to remove the section as it is slightly newsworthy, but per WP:NOTNEWS not actually noteworthy at this time. Hans Adler 16:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not actually just a simple SPA. I've also written two articles completely unrelated to anything political. One of them only a month ago or so. Recently this has been the only hot topic with which to engage myself. Alexandre8 (talk) 19:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not all that relevant here since the main problem is that you don't have any good arguments for including the section and you are currently the only user arguing for it who isn't indeffed.

Yet: According to WikiChecker you have made no more than 516 edits since you created this account in August 2008. The majority of your edits (156) are to this page and its talk page, and the next in line are Unite Against Fascism (47) and British National Party (45). Together these account for 2/3 of your edits to article and article talk space. While it is true that the articles where you have been less active include some non-political ones, they also include Redwatch and Rivers of Blood. I looked for evidence of somewhat significant contributions of yours to non-political articles, but could not find any. I did, however, notice this bizarre edit. Hans Adler 23:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm opposed. as far as I can tell the links are from reliable sources. The only reason I can see for wanting it removed is POV. As long as only the facts as known are stated and it's written in a neutral way it as it appears to be it should stay. The resentism tag is included so people reading are well aware it relates to a recent event--Sambob204 (talk) 20:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

....and that's your first ever contribution to Wikipedia? --Pontificalibus (talk) 21:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Sambob204 has been indeffed as an obvious sock of Steveg79, who has now also been indeffed. Hans Adler 23:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

hello, im new to wikipedia and am looking forward to getting involved in developing this article cos atm it's pretty poor and doesn't seem balanced at all. --Sock789 (talk) 23:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

LMAO how many users has this guy got. Alexandre8 (talk) 15:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Done, sorry I missed this, I protected the article literally while the edit was being made. Dougweller (talk) 11:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!Hans Adler 12:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

plagiarism

I've noticed in the Academic analysis section the following is taken word for word from the guardian article it cites as a source.

"For Matthew Goodwin, an academic who specialises in far-right politics at Manchester University, this is a crucial difference between the EDL and previous far-right street movements."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/may/28/english-defence-league-protest-bnp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redordead97543 (talk • contribs) 15:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I suggest it is removed as plagiarism is not allowed on wikipedia.--Redordead97543 (talk) 15:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

SPA? What exactly is it that you wish to be removed? I'm sort of not following here. Alexandre8 (talk) 15:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

What I have quoted above from the academic analysis section. It is cut and pasted word for word from the Guardian article.--Redordead97543 (talk) 15:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

No it's not. --Pontificalibus (talk) 15:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed we are not presenting this as our own work but as a qoutation from his work.Slatersteven (talk) 15:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is the "offending" piece from the Guardian, but they have attributed what they write TO him? So THEY'RE quoting HIS work. No reason to remove..

For Matthew Goodwin, an academic who specialises in far-right politics at Manchester University, this is a crucial difference between the EDL and previous far-right street movements.

"The reason why the EDL's adoption of Islamophobia is particularly significant is that unlike the 1970s, when the National Front was embracing antisemitism, there are now sections of the media and the British establishment that are relatively sympathetic towards Islamophobia," says Goodwin. "It is not difficult to look through the media and find quite hostile views towards Islam and Muslims. That is fundamentally different to the 1970s, when very few newspapers or politicians were endorsing the NF's antisemitic message."

"The point for your average voter is that if they see the EDL marching through their streets shouting about how the neighbourhood is about to be swamped by Muslims or how the UK is going to be Islamified by 2040, they are also receiving these cues from other sections of British society … the message of the EDL may well be legitimised if that continues."

The people on the sharp end of the EDL's message echo this view. Mujibul Islam, chair of the youth committee of the Muslim Council of Britain, says the foundations for the growth of the EDL have been laid not just by extremists but by countless political speeches and newspaper articles. "It simply would not be acceptable to say the things that are being said on these demonstrations about any other group – black people, Jewish people. But we are now in a position where it seems almost acceptable to say these things about Muslims."

He said the growth of the EDL was having a real impact on the way ordinary Muslims were being treated. "A woman I know got on to a tube train which had a lot of EDL supporters on recently and was really badly abused; another man was attacked as he made his way home on the train. These are the consequences of what we are seeing now. It is not just a theoretical debate about freedom of speech." Alexandre8 (talk) 15:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree the quote is attributed to Matthew Goodwin but the text that precedes it is blatant plaigerism from the Guardian article and should be edited or removed.--Redordead97543 (talk) 15:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

No, that text is not in the Guardian article. --Pontificalibus (talk) 15:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

"For Matthew Goodwin, an academic who specialises in far-right politics at Manchester University, this is a crucial difference between the EDL and previous far-right street movements."

That is the offending bit of text and it IS cut and pasted straight out of the Guardian article. Have a look.--Redordead97543 (talk) 15:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The article doesn't contain that quote you give, it states "Matthew Goodwin an academic who specialises in the study of far-right extremism has argued that the press are more sympathetic to the Islamophobia of the EDL than they were to the anti-Semitism of the National Front in the 1970s". --Pontificalibus (talk) 15:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

There's no issue here. The words in the Wikipedia article are not a direct copy from The Guardian article, but even if they were, it is not plagiarism to quote from another piece of work. It is certainly not plagiarism to use another peice of work, especially when the original is cited. And it is not plagiarism to quote what someone has said, whether first hand or via another source. (And anything else would be original research anyway, wouldn't it?) Emeraude (talk) 17:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Case closed imo. Alexandre8 (talk) 17:07, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 91.110.131.137, 31 January 2011

{{edit protected}}

Nuneaton demo drew 3000-5000 members, not 500

91.110.131.137 (talk) 20:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Source? It's not about what you say, but how you say it (talk) 21:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

BBC News (which is cited for the figure of 500) is a reliable source within the Wikipedia criteria. Given the notoriously inaccurate reporting of attendances at demos, it is not beyond the realms of credulity that 500 is not an entirely accurate figure, but to allege 3000-5000 is going much too far. I see no reason to accept this edit request. Emeraude (talk) 12:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

 Declined per the above comments :) no sourced. --Errant ^(chat!) 12:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Just to wrap it up, some further references that counter claims of 3000-5000:

BBC News the following day repeated its 600 figure. The Coventry Telegraph said 1500 (and 150 counter demonstrators); The Sunday Mercury says 1000 (and 150) and adds that EDL "had expected 1,500 to protest"; ITV Central News says there were "around a thousand in the region" (my emphasis). There is a possibility of confusion as there was also an EDL demo in Preston at the same time, but even taking both together there is no way of approaching a figure of 3000. (Some sources suggest a total in both of around 2000.) Emeraude (talk) 12:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I would susgest the either say "disputed" or "500-1,500.Slatersteven (talk) 13:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

No point - the request has been declined. But, in any case, the most reliable source is the BBC's - the others seem to have got hung up on the EDL's prediction that there would be 1500. Emeraude (talk) 14:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

LGBT Division

Why is there no mention of the gay EDL? Surely being a racist does not preclude gayness? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.11.120.48 (talk) 17:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

First of all you posted this in the wrong section (I've made this one for you), secondly you've come without even a quote, just a complaint. If you want things changed at least take the time to provide an argument and some material to include. It's not about what you say, but how you say it (talk) 18:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Table

This is now growing out of control. Should we change it back to a high level narrative, or possibly create a page "List of EDL demonstrations"? --Snowded ^TALK 22:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

If people are going to continue to document the demonstrations, and it is assumed there will be many more, I think creating a separate table would be a good idea. It's not about what you say, but how you say it (talk) 18:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I see no value in this - newscruft is, I believe, the term. It is bound to grow, every entry is inevitably going to be challenged on figures, and nothing of encyclopaedic value is added. The test always for current affairs should be: In a few years' time, who gives a shit? Or even remembers? Look back and see which demonstrations have really stood the test of time. I can think of very few, such as Cable Street 1936, Grosvenor Square 1968, Red Lion Square 1974, Southall (death of Blair Peach) 1979, anti-Iraq war protest (2003). These were notable either because of something extraordinary that happened or the vast numbers involved. Listing every gathering of a few dozen or hundred is totally pointless. Delete the table and summarise any really notable manifestations in text. Emeraude (talk) 11:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

(Comment moved down.)

Request for Semi-Protected status

Once the month ban is lifted, I would like to request that this article receives Semi-Protection status due to its volatile nature. It would stop people with no other desire than to vandalise the page from doing so. It's not about what you say, but how you say it (talk) 14:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with that proposal. will stop all the vandalism and unregistered edits of sections that are being discussed in the talk pageJohnsy88 (talk) 19:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

More comments please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandre8 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

No Admin will do this simply based on a request here. You'll have to wait until the protection is lifted and until there is evidence that semi-protection is required. Then ask at WP:RPP. Dougweller (talk) 12:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

As the protecting admin, could you lift the full protection as it's no longer needed. I agree long-term semi-protection is needed and will request it in due course. --Pontificalibus (talk) 12:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Pont It's not about what you say, but how you say it (talk) 13:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Unprotected

I've removed the full protection on request. I've added basic WP:Pending changes protection so that edits by new and unapproved users require approval due to the possible [[WP:BLP}} problems on this article. Dougweller (talk) 14:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Far-Right

May we please clarify whether the EDL is far-right, or whether it is single-issue. Clearly, it cannot be both. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelPWSmith (talk • contribs) 21:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Why not? TFD (talk) 21:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I would agree there, and indeed that was my first thought upon reading the article, because you can't be 'single issue' and be right-wing; that very term suggests a selection of policies. However, the article has to be understood through the prism of what Wikipedia defines 'far-right' to mean. And it has very little to do with politics - check out the article, effectively Wikipedia defines 'far right' as meaning racist/nationalist, in much the same way that the left-wing press tend to (note how the only sources in this article for the EDL being 'far right' are simply newspaper articles that call them far-right). Xyster (talk) 16:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Strange its anti Islamism but it has an anti-halal meat campaign so thats going beyond its single issue however its not far right in the terms of Combat 18 whilst it does contain C18 members check this link: http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2010/08/457877.html?c=on#comments —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omar418 (talk • contribs) 00:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

My belief is they are trying to incite Racial Holy War an idea they have an acronym for RAHOWA. The Anti-Defamation League are a respected group when it comes to this, Heres another link: http://www.adl.org/hate_symbols/acronyms_RAHOWA.asp --Omar418 (talk) 00:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

EDL have been linked to C18, BNP, and Ulster Unionists. They are quite clearly far right and overlapping with NeoNazi and racist groups. 92.11.174.68 (talk) 13:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Ulster Unionists are not far right, NeoNazi or racist. --Flexdream (talk) 23:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, they have no ties to the EDL. TFD (talk) 05:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Could someone provide a clear definition of the term 'far-right', for a start? It seems to me to be a highly subjective term Lahgbr (talk) 18:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The term is used extensively in academic writing.[13] Essentially it means farther right than both mainstream conservatives, such as the Tories, and more radical right-wing parties, such as UKIP. Right-wing refers to views on equality. TFD (talk) 18:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

"Far-Right" is used by Labour Party supporters to brand anyone who doesn't vote Labour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.22.152.207 (talk) 21:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

A senior police officer has stated very clearly that the EDL are not far-right. Surprisingly, the only newspaper to report this was the far-left Morning Star: http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/index.php/news/content/view/full/98004 Dormantat (talk) 04:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

And its reported as a controversial statement and is an aside in a wider article on student protest and surveillance. Not sure its even relevant, even if it was in a more reliable source as its not an official police statement. --Snowded ^TALK 04:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

On last night's Channel 4 "Coppers" documentary, a police officer was giving a pep talk to hundreds of police officers who were about to take part in the policing of an EDL demo. He said "The EDL are linked to the far right, the BNP and Combat 18." During police scuffles with EDL thugs, one police commentator mentioned that the EDL crowd included a large BNP and C18 contingent. Therefore, the "far right" description seems pretty accurate and is well-courced. Multiculturalist (talk) 18:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Not a reliable or official source as argued by Snowded above in response to my comment. Really shouldn't cherry-pick sources. I think the term "nationalist" is much clearer and more supportable than "far-right". Dormantat (talk) 23:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. "Nationalist" is what they call themselves - "far right" is what nearly everyone else calls them. If we were constructing their official website, then "Nationalist" would be suitable. But we're not: we are constructing an impartial Wikipedia article where the facts should prevail over propaganda. Multiculturalist (talk) 20:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

A quick google reveals links between senior EDL and the BNP and even German Neo-Nazis! That this is not mentioned anywhere in the article stinks of deception:

http://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=edl+bnp&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#sclient=psy&hl=en&safe=off&q=edl+members++bnp&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=4824b41ba0d4cfd8

92.12.207.140 (talk) 13:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Also:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-11916458

92.12.207.140 (talk) 14:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

And: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xS9TtzRkSk&feature=player_embedded 92.12.207.140 (talk) 15:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The far right label should be changed to " depicted by the media as far right" because this is the facts of the matter Johnsy88 (talk) 18:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Check your wikipedia policy. We have broadsheet newspapers providing a reliable source, Its been debated several times in the past if you check the history. --Snowded ^TALK 19:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I am an activist in the EDL and have attended demonstrations. As there is no official membership of the EDL it means anybody is free to turn up at our protests, therefore the EDL have relatively little control (except stewarding) on any event. As in any protest you will have agitators. There are far-right wing elements within the Tory Party for godsake. The vast majority of peoiple I have met at the demos are certainly NOT right-wing, racist, or football hooligans. I think this article needs to be edited and actually the press need to actually chat to some of our activists as they might learn something and stop making stories up. Iannwichester (talk) 13:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Your personal experience and comments have little relevance here. WIkipedia works from third party sources and those say it is far right. --Snowded ^TALK 13:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The fact Iannwichester admits to being active in the far-right EDL is, I would contend, a very good reason why he should not be involved in editing this article. Wikipedia is about objectivity, and is not here to give a propaganda platform to any group. Multiculturalist (talk) 20:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

On the same basis advanced by "Multiculturalist" here, Muslims would not be allowed to be involved in editing any pages about Islam (or the EDL). Does that make sense? Of course not, you only exclude those you disagree with - that's rule one of "multiculturalism" folks. And yet again wikipedia always rules out exactly the people who actually know what they are talking about.86.135.227.243 (talk) 01:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that wouldn't be allowed. Alexandre8 (talk) 21:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Interesting that newspaper reports on the EDL are accepted evidence that they are 'far right' but similar newspaper reports on "United Against Fascism" Wiki (q.v.) being 'far left' are not allowed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.138.12.153 (talk) 16:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Multiple broadsheet references in one case, one passing one (and only to left wing not far left) in the other. Read up on WP:WEIGHT --Snowded ^TALK 08:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Err I see one broadsheet referance. Perhaps you could provide 2 more? Also the Guaridan sources does not call teh EDL far right, it just says that they were at a far right demo, As I bleive its been decided that jusy being at a kind of demonstration is not in and of itslef proof of a political leaning this source sdoe not support the label. Niether do local papers. I would ask that the saem standers of sourcing are applied to all pages, as such I would ask that the curretn sources are replaced with those that meet the criteria established elsewhere or that the label is removed. Lets distibute the wieght evenly shall we?Slatersteven (talk) 18:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Academic literature refers to the EDL as "far right". Here for example is a link to a an article in The Politics and Religion Journal. Notice that they are using the term in a precise sense - they call the BNP "far right", but distinguish UKIP from the far right. They also explain how the EDL differs from the rest of the far right: "Unlike other far-right organisations, the EDL are proud of their diversity" (p. 227). TFD (talk) 19:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Its a one line rferance, not the sort of referance I thought it had been decided should decide these labels. Certainly its better then what we have. But it seems undue weight to ascribe a label in the lead and info box to one line in one paper.Slatersteven (talk) 19:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

(out) You should read through the article. It is about the political discourse in relation to Muslims in the U.K. and is quite clear in categorizing the EDL as "far right", e.g., "UKIP officials have been courting the support of the far right, none more so than the English Defence League" (p. 226). "As for the far-right,... it will be its future direction that will be interesting, not least because of the relative nullification of the BNP compared to the rapid growth of the EDL" (p. 233). Other scholarly sources categorize the EDL with the BNP, NF, etc. TFD (talk) 20:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

But we need more then just one passing referance (a one line comment) as has been established elsewhere. What I am asking for is the saem level of sourcing for this label as is being demanded for others. A consistancy in sourcing. So we would need more then a one line referance (preferably in an articel about the EDL) that is from a boradshhet, and multiple broadsheet referances. I did not establish these criteria I would expect those who did to enforce them. Also I am a bit iffy about this source, it seems to have been set up to be searched online. It does not appear to have been published by a scholastic journal, but by a webmag promoting a new discipline. It might be RS, but could you not find a better source?Slatersteven (talk) 20:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

OK we now have one good sources, any more out there?Slatersteven (talk) 20:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I just added some more. Does this mean you are accepting the argument about sourcing at UAF? --Snowded ^TALK 20:43, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes and no. I accept that this page now meets the critiera for labaling that has been demanded at the UAF artciel. I do not ho0wever support any kind of lablaing that is not self inflcited in the lead or in the info box. Such labels can only eveer (unless tested in a court of law) only ever be accusations. But if we have a consistancy of apporach I will work within that, evne if I disagree wiht it.Slatersteven (talk) 20:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, consistency is all --Snowded ^TALK 20:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Right-wing groups present a special problem with taxonomy because they rarely self-identify as right-wing and never use the specific terminology assigned to them, in this case "far right". TFD (talk) 04:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Which does not matter to my mind, many criminals deny they are guilty that does not mean that we put unproven accusations as proof just becasue a lot of people have claimed it. If a group does not self identify but are so obviously something then the sources souorces should be cabable of demonstrating that without the reader being told its true. If its not that obvious then it cannot be an obvious fact and should not be represented as such. We are supposed to impart knowledge, not truth. that should be left to churches and political extreamists.Slatersteven (talk) 13:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

As it is also apparent and true with the WP:Article UAF, The label on this Article that says Far-Right is a media opinion and not a fact and the label is not supported by any academic research on the subject (if there is academic research then please point me in the right direction so i can read it). Therefore it is an incorrect label and should be changed to state that the English Defence League has been labelled as Far-Right by multiple media organisations. By doing this the truth is being told and WP editors opinions on the Label which they have interpreted as making the EDL Far-Right. Your thoughts? Johnsy88 (talk) 20:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The difference Johnsy88 is that in the case of the EDL there is an overwhelming number of references to EDL as "far right" in Broadsheet newspapers as well as articles. In the case of the UAF there was only one passing reference in the Times and it was not repeating in over 40 other reports from the same newspaper. Please read WP:WEIGHT. --Snowded ^TALK 20:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

So you would be happy to represent any view portrayed in an article as long as there were enough articles and they were in broadsheet form? Since when did any Encyclopaedia source its facts in this way? An Encyclopaedia should really represent academically researched facts that have been thoroughly investigated and are attributed to sources. Using Back-door loopholes due to legislation to represent a body as something they really are not is not really morally the right thing to do. Especially when WP wants to represent itself as a reputable and highly trusted Encyclopaedia trusted by all. It appears that people are hiding behind certain rules regardless of what is really true. Johnsy88 (talk) 20:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia works from reliable sources and those include broadsheet newspapers with a reputation for quality journalism. In the case of EDL we also have academic articles. --Snowded ^TALK 20:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Haha i have read the "academic" article and again it lacks actual sources to attribute the label of Far-Right. I don't expect yourself or any other editor who edits in this way to agree because this has been and for the foreseeable future always will be the major flaw with WP as a somewhat contentious Encyclopaedia that always remains slightly untrusted in the slight educated public's opinion. However for those who wish to twist or manipulate the truth slightly to inform the masses of the proletariats who know no better its a perfect way to pass on engineered facts. Johnsy88 (talk) 20:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

It is called "far right" in academic literature. Check out these sources. Not as many sources as for the BNP because the EDL is recent. TFD (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest TFD that you educate yourself on what the label Far-Right actually means before placing a list of sources that do not back up the criteria for a label of Far-Right. And as i have already said i have no interest in arguing to be perfectly frank. i have said my piece and will leave you to your editing Johnsy88 (talk) 21:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I certainly know what the term means, as do most editors here, but would be interested in any additional sources you could provide. The first article, which is from a paper at a Conference of the British Society of Criminology, clearly states that the EDL is "islamophobic" and "far right" and "that it poses the most serious threat to public order and community cohesion since the heyday of the National Front in the 1970s".[14] TFD (talk) 04:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

therefore by that affirmation please clarify to me what policy's the EDL have in place that substantiates that it is a far-right group (facts please). Opposing Islamism, Sharia law and Islamic extremism in England is not a far-right point of view and i would like to see evidence to prove that it is. Because a groups point of view upsets certain element of the populace or "community cohesion" does not corroborate a far-right label to be applied. A group that is made up of multi-ethnic patrons from all walks of life and religions including Atheists, Christians, Jews , Hindus and others somehow seems unlikely to corroborate to the far right view that they share a belief in "superiority" and have a view of "inferiority" of others. Also considering the fact that far right politics often support segregation the separation of groups, the EDL's appears as a collection of peoples and races from all walks of life in multicultural Britain who appear united on a common belief of opposing the so called islamification of Britain. When you look at the fact that the far right label is applied to groups associated with fascism, Nazism and other ultra-nationalist (which the EDL appear to be of neither persuasion considering that any British individual of foreign heritage or of any religion eg: the Jewish/Hindu support of the EDL would not really make a very good Nazi). Also the far right is linked to religious extremism (which the EDL clearly states it opposes) and normally prescribes to a list of reactionary ideologies... if the EDL would be classed as far right because it is may appear to be the latter then so would any other pressure group or organisation set up to counter another ideologie because it opposes the ideology of any other organisation-See UAF)Johnsy88 (talk) 13:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Damn good point Johnsy. Let's give this a review ey? Alexandre8 (talk) 13:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

yes it should be reviewed because the label of far right is factually incorrect and this is clear for anyone who takes time to actually study what the far right is to understand. The problem that we have is that although the facts are clear for anyone to see. Users appear to ignore these facts and hide behind loopholes to maintain their POVJohnsy88 (talk) 13:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

(out) Groups are "far right" if that is how they are described by reliable sources. We do not go through a checklist and make the call ourselves. Do you not understand why they are considered "far right", or do you merely object to the term? TFD (talk) 14:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Well no, groups are not really far right if they are described by "reliable" sources who clearly ignore the criteria for being far right and apply the label in generalisation to whitewash the issue. Hence the major flaw in the way WP generally works and why it will always be treated as a contentious Encyclopaedia which is for the most part untrusted and unreliable. Its a dam shame that such a promising idea is being manipulated for the worse and it will inevitably lead to its downfall Johnsy88 (talk) 16:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

That is the nature of the project, that it reflects the sources even if they are wrong. There are other wikis that reject that policy, such as Conservapedia, "Mises Wiki", etc. TFD (talk) 16:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

So that makes it ok then? because the way in which WP works is clearly flawed it makes it ok to carry on without someone ringing out changes so they can really make this Encyclopaedia the most definitive and trusted in the world. You must be so glad to be part of it knowing its blatant and somewhat shocking flaws and going along for the ride because it suits your POV Johnsy88 (talk) 16:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Oppose to be Far right or Right wing you'd have to be involved in Politics, and the EDL is a street movement, therefore a non political group. After all would you put far left on the UAF site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.17.72.78 (talk) 23:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Is CND a left-wing group? Not necessarily but in practice the people who join are predominantly left-wing. The EDL are a single-issue group that, whatever its stated position is, attracts people whose other political interests are, apart from soccer hooliganism, apt to be rightist. The crucial point is about their behaviour and outcomes. Will this lead to more or lwess tension and Islamic extremism? I rather suspect that they & the Islamic lunatic fringe actually quite need one another. --Streona (talk) 11:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Latest reversion

Miack made this edit which seems perfectly reasonable:

"EDL claims to be unique among far-right groups in attracting significant minority ethnic support..."

to

"EDL also claims to be attracting significant minority ethnic support.."

The EDL clearly do not claim to be a far-right group. However this was reverted by Alexandre8 for no reason other than "please talk". The reasoning was clear in the edit summary - what disagreement could there be with this edit? --Pontificalibus (talk) 17:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I accepted an IP wanting to restore the orginal edit. Let's keep it that way unless someone can give a reason here. --Pontificalibus (talk) 18:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Expanding the academic analysis section

[deleted edit by block evader] Dougweller (talk) 08:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes I reverted due to length. I assume others also agree it's too long. It's not about what you say, but how you say it (talk) 19:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but not just because of the length. In my view, it is not an academic analysis. It is a badly written piece of blatant pro-EDL POV. Further more, it presents the lies of the tabloid press as facts. Take this passage as one example:-

"In evidencing such claims, the EDL cites the fact (fact? Who says it's a fact?) that nativity plays have been banned in some schools, that halal meat is the only meat option served in many schools, that Englishness has become marginalised, and that the national flag – the St George’s cross – has been banned by some local authorities."

To take just one example, which local authority has banned the flag of St. George? Answer: None. I would also contend that this passage is blatantly pro-POV: "Unlike other far-right organisations, the EDL are proud of their diversity". Further more, the following passage is not only POV but betrays the poor quality of the author's standard of written English (suggesting s/he is unlikely, therefore, to be a true academic): "Undeniably – and proudly overtly (sic) – the uniting factor for the EDL is its anti-Muslim, anti-Islamic message."

I hope there are no further attempts to reinstate any part of this "academic analysis". Multiculturalist (talk) 22:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Sock

Out latest SPA IP (94.196.180.126) has a very similar IP address and more or less identical geolocate data to the IP who became steveg79, now permanently banned from Wikipedia. WP:DUCK I think. --Snowded ^TALK 22:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Read WP:DUCK. A brand new IP address, more or less identical to a previous sock master moves in to make very similar edits on the same page Both SPAs. WP:AGF does not mean we have to be naive. I've tagged your page as a suspected sock puppet so hopefully someone will check it out soon. --Snowded ^TALK 22:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

You are pretty obviously an editor who has been here before. The fact that Steveg79 first appeared in the same way (the mobile connection) plus the subject matter makes this one pretty clear I think. --Snowded ^TALK 07:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Will these socks ever stop...nothing can get done whilst they keep this up Johnsy88 (talk) 01:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protection

As a range block is impractical and it's obvious this will continue without protection, I've semi-protected this page and the article for a month. Dougweller (talk) 08:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Luton 4/2/11

Can someone add this protest as I my edits keep being reverted. Here is one of many links that can be used for citations http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-12372713 thanks UKWikiGuy (talk) 14:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Add it any way, if its an OK edit it should get left alone.Slatersteven (talk) 14:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

What is it you want to add? Something that hasn't finished yet? Beware of turning this article into a news report - that is not what an encyclopaedia does. If you simply want to add details of the event, you might want to consider the comments above under Table. Emeraude (talk) 14:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

According to mainstream media, new "Defence Leagues" from other European countries also attended the protest, namely from Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands, "as well as supporters of more established far-right groups from France, Germany and Denmark", Guardian. Norwegian media reported on members joining the protest of the new minor "Norwegian Defence League", TV2. – Bellatores (t.) 17:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Which is by far and away the most iinteresting apect of the EDL.Slatersteven (talk) 17:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

David Cameron

Having removed a mention of Cameron as there was no source linking his speech to the EDL, here's one that does [15] if someone wants to add it. Dougweller (talk) 21:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Changes to Protests field

I have edited this and removed all references to the cost of policing the demos. The title of this column is "description" and is therefore about what happend. The bill for the Bobbies is irrelevant and has no purpose here beyond creating the impression that the EDL are a burden upon the British taxpayer.

I have also removed references to chanting (e.g. "we love the floods") and the bit about 50 EDL supporters attacking a police car. These are taken out of context from online news articles and are unreliable as well as misleading.

Wikpedia is a factual representation of events. Saying that chants of "we love the floods" (re: Pakistan flooding) is unverifiable and potentially biased.--Cziltang mexico (talk) 23:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Surely it should be up to the reader to decide if the EDL are a burden upon the British taxpayer? If it costs a certain amount to police one of their riots then that information should be given. After all, to consciously omit is to indoctrinate. Multiculturalist (talk) 11:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

If serious reliable sources thought this information worth reporting, I can't see why it shouldn't be included here. As long as an online article has the editorial imprimatur of a reliable news organisation it can be treated as reliable. William Avery (talk) 17:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Views and reactions

May I obtain a consensus to add the remark that Trevor Phillips made this morning on the Andrew Marr Show? He said: "Although they (the EDL) are creepily plausible, they are basically street thugs". This is how his quote might fit into the "Views and reactions" section:-

Meanwhile, on the BBC's sunday morning Andrew Marr show on December 13, 2010, Liberty director Shami Chakrabarti described the EDL as "modern day blackshirts".[92] On the same programme on February 6, 2011, Trevor Phillips of the Equality and Human Rights Commission said "Although they are creepily plausible, they are basically street thugs". The creation of an EDL "Jewish division" in June 2010 was condemned by various different Jewish Groups.[93][94][95]

Any objections? Multiculturalist (talk) 11:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

These people are in active organisations against the EDL. Points of views to be included in an encyclopaedic ought to be neutral scholars or important people. It's like taking Tommy's view about the UAF and putting that on their page. I don't see the point as all they're saying is an opinion and I don't think their opinion is note worthy on an encaeclopedia. I know you're going to say "oh but you're just trying to protect them", but I honestly think these people are 1) not neutral 2) not high profiled It's not about what you say, but how you say it (talk) 11:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I can't agree with you there. While my opinion is not noteworthy, and neither is yours, Trevor Phillips and Shami Chakrabarti are themselves notable people and heads of notable and respected organisations, so what they say is most definitely noteworthy. To say, as you did, that "These people are in active organisations against the EDL" is to take a personal stance that I hope you did not intend, and a slur on the integrity of both Equality and HRC. Let's remember that millions of people are opposed to the thuggery and/or the views of the EDL. Many of these are members of organisations "opposed" to the EDL, such as the Church of England, The Conservative Party, the magistracy, the police force, the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the Football Association, the National Union of Journalists. Are we to ignore all comments about the EDL from members of these and countless other organisations? That would be ridiculous. However, whether these particular quotes should be included I have my doubts, but only on the gounds that they really add nothing new to the article or to our understanding of the EDL and they are of current news value that may well have faded in a year. Emeraude (talk) 12:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The individuals are notable enough to report their reactions, but I don't think those comments especially add anything--Snowded ^TALK 12:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree not sure what this wuld really add. We already note they are violent (and are an of shoot of football hooligans). We also have plenty that refer to them as right wing.Slatersteven (talk) 14:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I take your point Emeraude, but as I accept that a lot of different people are opposed to the EDL, and it doesn't matter where they come from or what they do, Trevor Philips is a memory of the HRC and shakribati is a signed member of the UAF I believe, so I was saying that both these groups are actively opposed to the EDL, the primary function of the UAF and the indirect function of the HRC. So someone prominent like the town mayor, the head of Anglican Church something neutral whilst important. And seeing that various important people have already said what the quotes outlined above say, I don't see the need to add these especially when imho they are less effective than the ones already included in the article It's not about what you say, but how you say it (talk) 16:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any evidence that Liberty or HRC "are actively opposed to the EDL". Indeed, I suspect it would be contrar to their charters to be so, however much they may be against what the EDL stands for. Emeraude (talk) 17:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The EDL has been around long enough that there are better sources - academic books and articles - that explain the opposition and are preferable. TFD (talk) 16:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

A genuine oddity of an organisation

The EDL is a genuinely very odd organisation. They are not racists as they have non-white members and want more. A Sikh is one of their national leaders and they have at least one Muslim member : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12374835 Admittedly from his accent he appears to be Scots not English but the point remains. Calling them 'blackshirts' seems unfair as they have publicly burnt a swastika flag. I'm not even sure that is fair to call them far-Right as their only real position is that of opposing Sharia law and similar extremist Muslim ideas. I'm not aware of their even having any other politics. Given that there is zero possibility of the UK government adopting Sharia law it seems to be unclear what their demands are or even if they have any. Maybe I am being politically naive - if so I hope other editors can educate me - but for now I am filing them as more odd than anything else. SmokeyTheCat 19:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Errrr.... the reason they have "publicly burnt a swastika flag" is just that: a publicity stunt. Multiculturalist (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

You should read the article and read the sources p;rovided. TFD (talk) 06:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)