Talk:English Defence League

Nobody paying attention then?

Like to additions like:

On Thursday, December 22, 2011, Tommy Robinson, the leader of the EDL, was attacked by a group of Pakistani youths with knuckledusters shouting: "Allahu akhbar" and "Merry Christmas, Tommy". Allegedly this was a revenge attack because planning permission for a thirty second mosque in Luton, Tommy's home town, had been turned down. The police are now treating this as a hate crime. The mainstream media completely ignored this news story

Ignoring the blog which isn't a reliable source, we're left with Luton Today. So let's see what's accurately sourced.

• On Thursday, December 22, 2011, Tommy Robinson, the leader of the EDL, was attacked by a group of Pakistani youths - nope, source says "Asian appearance"
• with knuckledusters shouting: "Allahu akhbar" and "Merry Christmas, Tommy" - no mention of any chants in either source, reliable or otherwise, and the reliable source makes only mention of an apparent pole and that "the hospital said the injuries looked like they’d been caused by a blunt object".
• Allegedly this was a revenge attack because planning permission for a thirty second mosque in Luton, Tommy's home town, had been turned down - nope
• The police are now treating this as a hate crime - nope
• The mainstream media completely ignored this news story - nope

The other addition is just as bad, completely misrepresenting the facts. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 10:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Well said! It is clear that some of those who are trying to corrupt this article are active EDL members. To them the word "Asian" is interchangeable with the word "Pakistani". A recent contributor to their website said that the new MP for Feltham & Heston, Seema Malhotra, wanted to turn the Labour Party into the "Muslim Party". Yet Seema is a Hindu! Basically, the EDL are not terribly bright people. Multiculturalist (talk) 13:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Well done! (Though "EDL are not terribly bright people" may be flattering them somewhat.) Emeraude (talk) 15:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

He may be on to something. In case there's any attempt to add back Robinson getting a good kicking, it's got no place in the section it was added to and there's no verifiable evidence of any connection to the EDL.

As for the Remembrance Day incident, the police arrested them under the belief they were going to attack the Occupy camp, which wasn't mentioned. In addition the claim that none of them were charged isn't germane, since they were arrested in order to prevent a breach of the peace. Once the chance of that happening had receded, they were released. Plus as the EDL made very clear it wasn't an EDL demonstration, anyone there was acting as a private citizen not as an EDL member so what relevance does it have to the EDL article? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I would hope then that all thiose paragrapsh about EDL supporters attacking things are removed if there is no claim made that these were official EDL actions.Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that would be a bit over the top. Whether or not an action was officially claimed by EDL leaders, if reliable sources attribute a significant action to EDL or EDL supporters, it certainly makes sense to mention it here. _W^\|/_haledad (Talk to me) 16:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

That's not what I said Slatersteven. The EDL made quite clear that it was nothing to do with the EDL before it ever happened, "This is not an EDL march and EDL colours/hoodies and banners should not be bought along" makes that clear. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 09:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I hear he has bruising to the brain, lol, those poor 2 brain cells. IraqiLion (talk) 07:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Area's of Bias that need addressing.

There are several occurances of Bias in this article which need addressing. Judging by some of the comments in this Edit section, it seems that several authors have a negative view towards this group and this has come across in the writing.

Firstly, I feel the section about Anders Brevik needs the inclusion of the fact that he stated in his dossier that he actually didn't agree with the EDL (page 1438 of his dossier "The EDL, although having noble intentions are in fact dangerously naïve. EDL and KT principles can never be reconciled as we are miles apart ideologically AND organizationally" (info provided from: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2011/07/anders-breivik-and-the-english-defence-league.html)) The author has shown the links between Breivik and the group, however this rather relevent piece of information has been left out, and I belive it would paint a clearer picture once included.

Futhermore, the fluidity of membership to the group needs a mention. It is rather unclear how one becomes a member of the EDL, there is no offical members list and no subscription fee. So from this, it makes it rather hard to blame acts of violence carried out by people who have attended EDL marches or "liked" them on facebook as offical acts of the EDL.

Some people say this is deliberately done by the group so that they can distance themselves from aggressive action carried out by thier members (see newyorker link above). On the other hand, you have the EDL's website, where they repeatedly denounce this form of conduct, and say people like that are not welcome on thier marches, but again whether this is true or just an elaborate front, is a matter of speculation. But it is a fact that they do denounce this form of conduct on thier website, and this does need mentioning in the article.

Anders Breivik attended an EDL march, but he didnt agree with thier beliefs, so it seems that not everyone who attends a march is a member of the group. However this does raise the issue of why he was drawn to them in the first place.

The group have got several monitors, who remove trouble makers from the EDL protesters before a protest begins (apparently, this information was obtained from thier website, but it shouldn't be hard to find the truth behind it, video's on youtube, photo's etc.) Supposedly there have been instances of these undesirables then going on to smash up windows and spray "EDL" on things, but again the truth behind this remains elusive. That said, it is plausible, and I belive should be mentioned in the section of violent acts carried out by the EDL. There is a clear line of logic that some acts could infact be carried out by people who dont support the group and it is thier way of dropping the group in the preverbial. The other two instances are that the acts are organised and carried out by the group, or they are carried out by people who are drawn to the group but dont actually understand what they groups values are. Out of these three points, the only one mentioned in the article was the second one, which is somewhat bias, when one understands the complex nature of the group. The truth about whether or not these acts were carried out by the "EDL" group is unknown. This has not been mentioned.86.26.129.46 (talk) 22:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

There is a lot of bias by editors on this article and they are not too shy about admitting it. However, discussing it only gives them more opportunity to organize their efforts and find "reliabe" sources. For example you mention one source which is a blog - this will likely be challenged. Using Breivik's manifesto as a source has been questioned but I think you could try to insert a direct quote from it. The reality of bias in the English media makes finding neutral and reliable sources difficult. I would suggest that the easiest approach is to simply make the changes you would like to see, whether based on reliable sources or improving the neutrality of characterizations and phrasing made by wikipedia editors. As Admiral Grace Hopper of the US navy once said, to paraphrase, it is easier to do something and ask for forgiveness after, than to get permission first. I hope I didn't mangle her words or misattribute them, but why give opponents the chance to prepare a negative response. If it comes to a dispute then we can argue about it. If it is worth your time then I hope you can invest more. People generally edit articles they care about, one way or another. Overcoming systematic bias against this group will be difficult - not because most Englishmen disagree with their sentiments (which they may or may not) but because their opponents are extremely active, large in number, organized, and have often been indoctrinated by universities (i.e. they will be intelligent enough and determined enough to prevail). Also they are often American - witness the "intelligent" comment above that calling a Pakistani "asian" in appearane is "not too bright" - these folks spent too much time in socialology class and not enogh time getting an education, traveling, or looking at maps. How many sympathetic or unbiased Americans will care about this article versus fanatically organised leftists? And there, I have also spent time analyzing a situation that could have been used editing. Obotlig (talk) 23:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

...? Quoi? So which is it? Have the hordes of leftists working on this article been indoctrinated by university or made intelligent there? Do they have too much education or not enough? Did all that time in American socialogy [sic] classes give them an education or deprive them of one?

How about this: in the interests of this article, rather than rambling on clutching a passel of vague accusations that begins to resemble nothing so much as a conspiracy theory (that itself seems to have a family likeness to the paranoia on the far-right about the sinister powers of "Cultural Marxism"), why don't you point to the specific sentences or words—the "area's of bias"—you feel are problematic, explain in clear, good English why they are problematic and why, in your opinion, they are not supported by reliable sources? Even better would be if you could provide reliable sources to support your own change in wording, so that, through discussion and consensus, we can move on. Does that sound to everyone here like a more appropriate solution than levelling vague blanket insults against most other editors? To me it seems that way. Sindinero (talk) 07:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh my you caught a rather serious misspelling of sociology there. I had no idea of the correct spelling. This is almost as good as a liberal arts education. Anyway, I believe I said that the conspirators, due to having been indoctrinated into multiculturalism, egalitarianism, socialism, cultural relativism and the like (not to say I disagree or agree with those sorts of social theories) at universities, they are probably smart enough to wage a good battle, especially with number and cooperation. I don't think these sorts of people have the highest IQs at universities, which I would guess would be found among the scientists and engineers, just that they are probably not imbeciles. And if observations on systematic problems of bias are forbidden, I can't imagine what conversation would be relevant. WP:RS is applied in a biased manner and this experiment in "democracy" seems to prove the absurdity of mob rule. Obotlig (talk) 06:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

That's pretty speculative, although your understanding of intelligence is almost charmingly puerile. Furthermore, your tone and contributions suggest that you certainly seem to disagree with "those sorts of social theories"; the fact that you lump multiculturalism, egalitarianism, and socialism together speaks volumes.

You know nothing about other editors' education, background, and motivations, and it's counterproductive and insulting for you to speculate like this. If you don't like collaborative endeavors (or "mob rule," as you sneeringly call it), maybe Wikipedia isn't the place for you. If you can bear to work with all of us inferior others, then please stop insulting other editors en masse, assume good faith, and get down to it: suggest or make the changes you envision, back them up with reliable sources, and then see where discussion goes. If the mainstream media sources, solid academic research, and general social consensus prove too "biased" to your liking, maybe your efforts would be better served by other outlets.

All best, Sindinero (talk) 16:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Sindinero, your post wasn't particually helpful, and does seem to illustrate the point Obotlig was making. Thankyou for your post obotlig. It is known that the british media is somewhat bias, and I found it refreshing that another person is aware of this. Further more, the level of bias that exists against this group in general needs addressing and it makes for rather poor reading in the article, hopefully we can get a bit of neutrality back into things. I will wait to see what other feedback I get before I change anything in the article as I may be incorrect in my reasoning, or I may have missed something. Although you do make some good points as to why I should simply update the article with my changes now, and discuss it later. Lets see what other people have to say 86.26.129.46 (talk) 20:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC).

You need to back off from the multiple accusations of bias. If you make edits based on the arguments above they will just be reverted. You need to look to content based on sources rather than opinion. --Snowded ^TALK 20:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately your post wasn't very helpful either Snowded. You have not commented on any of my points. You are quite rudely telling me to "back off", if you do chose to post, I would rather it was in relevence to what I have said. The point I made about Ander's Breivik was rather concise, and sourcing it is just a matter of finding his "manifesto" the fact that you have dismissed this, rather than discussing its inclusion, show's me that you are not neutral on this article. The point I made about the groups membership was rather more complex, but again it won't take much to show that they don't have an offical membership list (as far as I am aware?) and they don't charge people subscription fee's. Then from this, the point that it is hard to proove whether the violent acts were actually carried out by the "EDL group" or by people who have attended thier marches can come to the fore, which is an important point to make.86.26.129.46 (talk) 21:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

My initial statement was designed to generate discussion on the topic, with the end goal of either including, or not including my points in the article. However from Snowded's post, I get the feeling that there will be several people that will simply wish to brickwall any discussion on this unless I provide an exact source. So after a short search here is the link to follow if you choose to download A.B.'s manifesto. http://depositfiles.com/en/files/xkfpsa8ex The link does work, and once in the manifesto you can find the quote "The EDL, although having noble intentions are in fact dangerously naïve. EDL and KT principles can never be reconciled as we are miles apart ideologically AND organizationally." Word has it down as being on page 1437, the third paragraph.86.26.129.46 (talk) 21:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you establish an account and an identity and argue your case? You might even find that quote in the New Yorker. Make your case. Jason from nyc (talk) 00:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I told you to back off from general accusations against other editors which is against policy. Also you need to read up on WP:RS, primary sourcing (i.e. his manifesto) is not desirable, we need reliable third party sources to make a statement. So someone in a book, article in refereed journal or one of the broadsheet journals needs to make the point. Working from primary sources as you suggest is original research and/or synthesis. --Snowded ^TALK 05:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I am shocked by the fact that Ander's manifesto cannot be used as a source for Ander's view on the EDL. This is stupidity in the extreme.198.28.69.5 (talk) 11:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:PRIMARY. There are good reasons for these policies. Sindinero (talk) 11:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Having read the link you supplied, I find nothing in there that says that this source cannot be used in this article. This is what I've taken from it: "Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages"

It seems that 86 26 has been following this, and was trying to discuss it with the other editors on here, but for some reason there seems to be resistance to any form of discussion on her/his points. Rather than just loosely quoting wp:primary at me, I would request that you take specific parts from it that back up your claims that Ander's manifesto cannot be used.198.28.69.5 (talk) 11:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Please learn to indent your comments. The policy says "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources.". Primary sources (such as the diary) are not favoured especially if any claim is to be made about the EDL. You might also want to read about original research before making any proposal --Snowded ^TALK 11:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Although primary sources are not favoured, there is a difference between not favoured and not allowed, as you said earlier. I assume you didnt read my quotation as you did not respond to it so I shall post it again. "Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages" Maybye you need to read up on WP:PRIMARY. I am not seeing a whole lot of discussion on here about any of the points raised. Just people misquoting WP:PRIMARY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.28.69.5 (talk) 12:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Please read a little further. There you'll find the following: "Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base articles and material entirely on primary sources. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material. Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people; see WP:BLPPRIMARY, which is policy. Please also see my comment below - we have a secondary source, so there's no reason to turn to Breivik's journal. And please start properly indenting your posts. Sindinero (talk) 12:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you actually able to read english? Snowded said that the journel couldn't be used full stop. This is not correct. Ander's view of the EDL is not an interpretation of the source, it is his view as written by him. There are other secondary sources who confirm that the journel was written by Ander's, so based on your post above, the use of Ander's journel as a source is up for discussion. It it NOT to be instantly ruled out as not complying with WP:PRIMARY. I hope that not all of the editors on this site are of the calibre of Sindinero and Snowded. Furthermore, please refrain from petty behaviour such as asking me to indent my posts, snowded already made this comment, in you making it it simply shows your calibre.198.28.69.5 (talk) 12:32, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes I'm able to read english [sic], but thanx for asking! Let me reiterate: we have a reliable secondary source, so we don't need to use Breivik's journel [sic]. I hope you can understand that the policy on primary sources indicates that secondary sources are always preferred. Second of all, whether or not Breivik's journal is instantly ruled out, the situation is more complicated than you're making it out to be. If you'll recall the original motivation for this discussion thread, it was that one editor wanted to use Breivik's own words to show that he actually wasn't that close to the EDL. This is problematic, and tricky ground - in general, it's best never to use a figure's own account of their politics to illustrate their politics. We've had this discussion on this page before. If political affiliation were as simple as self-identification, then we could just quote straight from the EDL to show that they are not racist. Clearly, one can see that it's not that simple. Breivik's journal may shows that he had some criticisms of the EDL - but to move from there to a characterization of the relationship between them is inference and analysis, although it seems fully transparent to you. We don't use primary sources on Wikipedia where we can avoid it because, surprise surprise, any statement can have differing interpretations. Critical thought, not to mention responsible editing, entails being aware of implications, assumptions, inferences, and entailment. I agree with you that reading is a good thing. Critical reading is much better.

I asked you again to indent your posts because you still weren't doing it properly, not to be petty. Any more questions? Sindinero (talk) 12:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, I might ask whether you are reading carefully. Look back at Snowded's comments - Snowded never says that primary sources cannot be used "full stop." Just that it's not desirable, for the reasons we've been trying, apparently unsuccessfully, to convey here. Sindinero (talk) 12:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

That is a different point and is indeed correct, secondary sources are preferable to primary sources, however it is still at the editors discression. Using a loose interpretation of WP:PRIMARY to promote your own adjenda is questionable. I understand that the use of Ander's journel is complicated, and that was the point I was making, it was in opposition to snowdeds comments that said "Also you need to read up on WP:RS, primary sourcing (i.e. his manifesto) is not desirable, we need reliable third party sources to make a statement" which trys to paint it in a simplistic way and infers that it cannot be used. I do strongly suggest that you both re-read WP:primary.198.28.69.5 (talk) 13:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I've reread it, but thanks for the suggestion. I didn't read Snowded's comments as implying (not "inferring") that a primary source couldn't be used, but simply that in this case it was not desirable. Please see my comments below on the difference between a personal political view and an editorial POV. I don't have an "adjenda" with regards to this article, other than to see that it's accurately written and in line with the best sources we can find, according to wikipedia policy. For the third or fourth time, WP:PRIMARY is clear that secondary sources are preferable, and since we have a secondary source on the topic in question, we can hopefully end this discussion soon. Sindinero (talk) 13:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Again you are showing a worring lack of understanding of WP:primary. WP primary states that "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully" As the topic is mainly composed of seconday sources, the use of a primary source in the article should actually be open for discussion. I don't read this as saying secondary sources are preferable to primary ones, only that an article should mainly be composed of secondary and tertiary sources, but can have primary sources included within it aslong as they are used carefully. Further more I did mean inferr rather than imply, the link you provided didn't really show anything other than perhaps your loose grasp of some english words, by saying "we need reliable third party sources to make a statement" that quite clearly infers that a statement cannot be made unless third party sources are used, which is incorrect. At the same time, I do appreciate the time you have spent typing your messages, thankyou.198.28.69.5 (talk) 13:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The policy also states this: "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." Instead of this circular haggling, why don't you suggest the specific change you'd like to make to the article? Wouldn't that be more productive? Sindinero (talk) 13:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeed it does, however it is open to debate whether the initial quote is actually any of the 4 actions you list. Ander's is clearly stating his views on the EDL in his journel, these views are then being lifted and debated about whether they should be included in the article. This is not an interpretation of his views, or a synthesis of his views, or any of the other items you listed. However I do agree that this would be open to debate. The main point I was making was that Snowded instantly dismissed the comments made as they didn't have a tertiary source, I was trying to clear this up and point out why this behaviour was incorrect and somewhat unhelpful. I would hate to see this attitude adopted by other editors on this site. Thanks again for the time you have taken to engage with me on this.198.28.69.5 (talk) 14:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I do think it's important that editors make the effort to arrive at understandings, if not always agreement. I think you might have misunderstood Snowded, however. Unless I'm wrong, he was referring to third-party sources but not to what Wikipedia calls tertiary sources. I believe he meant, simply, that with something as contentious as extremist politics, a secondary source is generally preferable to a primary one, a point with which I agree. Sindinero (talk) 14:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I suppose there is a remote possibility that someone might confuse third-party and tertiary but I'm surprised to see it. Sindinero is correct --Snowded ^TALK 16:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Guys, before you finish, as a new contributor, I have a question on this policy. SPS#Self-published_sources states "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, ..." This seems to have some relevance here. Comments? Now, I think a tome as large as Breivik's puts an undue burden on any editor. How would any know if an item is cherry-picked? A summary secondary source is much better. Jason from nyc (talk) 19:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

If it was appropriate to say something along the lines of "Breivik's manifesto said ..." then we could use it. However we are encouraged not to do that but to find a secondary source which references the manifesto. Using a primary source can easily lead to original research etc. etc. --Snowded ^TALK 19:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I second Snowded's comment above. But I'm a little confused as to why it would be necessary to cite Breivik's journal - I think the New Yorker link suggested twice now quotes the passage in question, and I do think that the New Yorker certainly qualifies as a reliable source. But when including the "distance" between Breivik and the EDL, let's not cherry-pick. After all, the New Yorker piece concludes thus:

No, the E.D.L., which bills itself as “a human rights organization that exists to protect the inalienable rights of all people to protest against radical Islam’s encroachment into the lives of non-Muslims,” does not condone the murders of civil servants and summer campers. But the E.D.L. and groups like it do contribute to the creation of worlds, online and actual, in which people like Breivik find reinforcement. They foster a community in which openness and tolerance are called treachery and threats to the nation’s well being. They gather kindling, but shrug when there’s a fire.

Sindinero (talk) 12:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: "The reality of bias in the English media makes finding neutral and reliable sources difficult". Whether or not that is true, Wikipedia policy on reliable sources and neutrality require us to use those sources and reflect the view of the EDL that they present. TFD (talk) 05:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Is that a NPOV application of RS? If the selection of RS (as chosen or as available) is patently biased shouldn't the article be balanced with differing points of view as available from any RS. And I think we know left-leaning sources are less likely to be vigorously challenged than right-leaning ones? Somewhat off topic for the article, but what possible credibility could propaganda rags like Mother Jones and Harper's have? Sources need to be balanced to meet NPOV unless there are only dubious opposing POVs. Obotlig (talk) 06:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

We don't know any such thing, you believe it. If you have specific examples where you think a source is not reliable raise it. If you have specific sources and amendments to the article based on those sources, propose them. Otherwise stop wasting people's time with general statements and accusations --Snowded ^TALK 08:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be some fundamental confusion on Obotlig's and 86.26.129.46's part as to what constitutes "NPOV." Let me quote from WP:NPOV:

Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is non-negotiable and all editors and articles must follow it.

Two points need to be stressed here.

1. First, NPOV does not mean that we need to depict every subject as a neutral thing, but that we need to depict it neutrally. Do you see the difference? So that, to pick a random example, if reliable sources X, Y, and Z say that the EDL is largely xenophobic, that emphatically does not mean that we need to go and find a source, even an unreliable one, that says that they are not xenophobic. This is the Fox News version of balance, where every claim can be met with a "no it isn't." If the reliable sources characterize the EDL in a certain light, then being neutral does not entail challenging this characterization, but presenting it clearly to our readers. Do you understand this?
2. Secondly, there is a huge difference between having a personal political opinion and editing to uphold a particular POV. As I've said above, people who don't understand this distinction have no business using any human language on a regular basis, let alone editing Wikipedia. Everyone has a personal political opinion, whether they're aware of it or not, whether they can clearly articulate it to themselves and others or not. The solution is not to hunt for ideal editors with no personal politics at all, but to uphold a standard of professionalism that dictates that one always edit according to policy, always present the subject in accordance with the best reliable sources, whatever the subject, whatever one's private opinion. I may think the EDL are saving Albion from Sharia and jihad, I may think the EDL are a bunch of ignorant little racists—it's totally irrelevant. If I want to edit Wikipedia responsibly, I have to do so by presenting the views of the best reliable sources. When I edit on groups or causes I may personally be unsympathetic to, I strive to do so by the same standards I use when editing on groups or causes that have my political sympathies.

What is really alarming is that two editors here seem to think it's just common sense that this group needs a more "sympathetic" presentation. The last thing this article (let alone Wikipedia) needs is editors who edit out of a sense of "sympathy" to fringe extremists. Besides the obvious reasons for alarm, this suggests that you cannot see the difference between a personal political opinion and a POV that you deploy when editing. Please think about this.

Finally, I'll repeat what I said earlier. Rather than insulting other editors en masse, make specific suggestions with specific sources. We can move on from there. Sindinero (talk) 09:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Let me propose a constructive edit in response to the above discussion. I propose a very brief note summing up what Collins has found. I propose the following at the end of the Breivik paragraph:

While Lauren Collins quotes Breivik’s repudiation of the EDL--“The EDL, although having noble intentions are in fact dangerously naïve. ... we are miles apart ideologically AND organizationally ...”--she nevertheless says the EDL created an inflammatory environment. [ref]

This would seem a fair use of Collins. Comments? Jason from nyc (talk) 15:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Excellent proposal, thanks for taking the initiative. Perhaps it might be helpful to specify, and modify your sentence so that it reads, "...created the inflammatory environment that encourages such actions as Breivik's." I think that would be an accurate reading of the last paragraph of that article. Sindinero (talk) 16:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand what Sindinero is saying about altering the end of the sentence, but i think the way he suggested doing it isn't great. I suggest the following "Which had the potential to encourage his actions" or simply "created an inflammatory environment in which people like Ander's can find re-inforcement." She did say that he found "re-inforcement" for his actions, this is subtley different from "encouragement".198.28.69.5 (talk) 08:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Works for me. Sindinero (talk) 08:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, she uses the word "reinforcement" while the word we used "encouragement" does suggests something slightly different. I think a change might make it more accurate to the author's intent. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The areas of biased that need addressing consist of the the mainstream media who far too often use opinion rather than fact. This opinion is then used as fact to disgrace the EDL. Jeremy Paxman qusetioned Tommy Robinson from the EDL on newsnight and stated that pictures of muslims were placed on the EDL website in the cross hairs of gun sights, this is FALSE. Are the BBC researchers so poor they cannot tell the difference between FACEBOOK and the official website of the EDL. Anyone could put up a page on facebook about the EDL and it is only in the control of FACEBOOK, for all we know this page could have been put up by islamic extemist Sayful Islam.

The media seems to have an agenda to paint the EDL into a far right racist organisation without any real evidence of that in order to stop their support from increasing. The facts are that you cant join the EDL and get a membership card, its very unclear on the supporters racial and political views as whole and they appear to be varied. It's also clear that the members who front the EDL state they are not racist and are against racism. Black support of the EDL is clearly there and a sikh gentelman was introduced to a crown at a rally in the north of England, some supporters were clearly racist at that point and were forcibly removed by the EDL. The EDL clearly state that Black, Asian, homosexuals and indeed any colour or sexual orientation are welcome to support the EDL. Their only mission seems to be to counter FAR RIGHT islamic extemisim, if that makes the EDL a FAR RIGHT organisation then to Anti Facist League must be FAR RIGHT on that basis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shammie62 (talk • contribs) 09:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Arrests

I'd prefer it if the content in this edit were removed. Being arrested on suspicion of having done something is not reliable evidence of culpability, since people can be wrongfully arrested. Therefore arrests are not reliable evidence for the violence and anti-social behaviour of the EDL or UAF. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 22:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I would think that arrest statistics have some relevance. However, I don't understand how "believed to be heading to the protest, had earlier been arrested" is relevant to the demonstration in question (the person never arrived) and the arrests at the demonstrations. Jason from nyc (talk) 23:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Actualy there is some merit to this point. Unless they were charged its not evidacen of anythying. Also it says nothing about this being an arrest for violence. Slatersteven (talk) 13:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Anent this - are any sources about disposition of the cases available? Sentences etc.? Collect (talk) 13:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know. In my view the disputed content should be removed until such citations are found. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 13:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The fact of the arrest is not in doubt. That the result of the arrest is not known is another matter, but the article does not make any conjecture on this. More mischievous is the inclusion in the edit referred to above of UAF leaders being arrested and charged with conspiracy to commit violent disorder. This should definitely be removed (or at least amended) since all charges were dropped ("Anti-fascist protesters to avoid charges after EDL clash", Manchester Evening News, 19 November 2010. The article also reports that police were to be investigated when footage was found of a 63 year old being hit by arresting officers; charges against him were also dropped.) This is not unkown to Wikipedia; it is clearly detailed in the Unite Against Fascism article and referenced (#35). Emeraude (talk) 13:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but the section is abuot violence, so it should only include proven examples of violence.Slatersteven (talk) 14:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The nature of the arrests is an indicator of violence though, surely?--Snowded ^TALK 14:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree its not always the case, but in these examples I think it may be. Not the biggest issue on the article however. Charges being dropped against named individuals might indicate deletion, but we need to look at the sources to see what reason was given. --Snowded ^TALK 14:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me but are you guys talking about the proposed removal of: "Greater Manchester Police confirmed a man, believed to be heading to the protest, had earlier been arrested in Birmingham on suspicion of distributing racially aggravated material." Surely this isn't a case of violence at an EDL demonstration. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but the section is abuot violence, so it should only include proven examples of violence; not according to the section title. 109.156.150.100 (talk) 14:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Outcome of this discussion

The above discussion featured several people agreeing that material relating to arrests should be removed. Can I, therefore, interpret this as consensus in favour of removing the material? Also, given that several people have raised objections -- and given that the material concerns living individuals -- my view is that the material should be removed until a definite consensus in favour of including it has occurred. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 19:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Breivik

Why two seperate mention of him, indeed his membership of the NDL is irrelevant.Slatersteven (talk) 13:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

It might be better to combine the two paragraphs - list the NDL and then make the Brevik link a part of it. ----Snowded ^TALK 13:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Possibly, but I still don't see the relevance of Brekils membership.Slatersteven (talk) 13:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

It provides context, he was a member of the NDL (established by references). His expulsion is also only a claim by the NDL leader so I don't think the paragraph can stand without some reference. I suggest you revert or modify. Otherwise we can just delete the whole paragraph (per WP:BRD while we sort out what it should contain. ----Snowded ^TALK 13:25, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that mentinng that the EDl and NDL have links is worthwhile. I just don't see what this had to do with Brevik. His membershio of this organisation is certianly a patern of actiosn involving anti-Islamism, but this page is not about him (or the NDL), its about the EDL.Slatersteven (talk) 13:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

And the fact that the EDL is linked to an organisation of which he was a part is significant. It tells the reader something about the organisation and it is a significant part of the NDL's history and identity. Including the assertion he was expelled would make sense to provide more balance but its relevant. ----Snowded ^TALK 13:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The identity of the NDL belongs on the NDL page. Where's the evidence that Breivik's connection to the EDL was via the NDL? Jason from nyc (talk) 14:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Not sure why that is relevant. The point is that he was a member of the NDL, therefore its appropriate to say that given the NDL/EDL linkage ----Snowded ^TALK 14:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. The current version has “who was, using a pseudonym a member of the NDL” as a modifying phrase for Breivik and should be on the Breivik page. Unless I missed it, the sources do not make it clear that he was a member when he had contact with the EDL and, more importantly, whether he had contact as a member. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree any mention of Breviks realsionship with the NDl belongs on his or theire page, its not our job to draw links.Slatersteven (talk) 16:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The preoccupation with Breivik is not really relevant to this article if covered at any length - we should stick to one sentence, and leave details to more apt articles. Right now "coatrack" seems entirely too present here. Collect (talk) 17:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Our purpose here is to provide full context to readers and its incongruous to mention NDL without that link in my view. However lets see what other editors think, its a judgement issue rather than one which is absolutely right or wrong. I've attempted a compromise in that last edit ----Snowded ^TALK 17:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Breivik appears from the available information to stand as a possible bridge, or bridgehead even, between the EDL and the NDL, not merely a tangential connection. With Breivik's self-proclaimed extensive contacts with the EDL AND its leadership coupled with the facts that a) he is the first person ever documented to have advocated the establishment of a Norwegian offshoot of the EDL (as he did on December 6, 2009) and b) he was according to two of the early leaders of the NDL a member of that organization before being evicted in March 2011, this entire complex needs, in my opinion, to be fully elucidated in the present article. __meco (talk)

A brige that operated under an assumend identiy in the NDL. Moreover no link has been made between his operations in the NDL and any contact he may have had with the EDL. Any such links are synthasis. The only link is that he claimed to have contacts with the EDL, the EDl has contactsd with the NDL, and he was a member of the NDLSlatersteven (talk) 21:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Its a simple fact that he was a member of NDL using a pseudonym. Its difficult to see how that is not a relevant fact to any mention of that organisation - My moving it into the Breivik section I think we overcame any issue there ----Snowded ^TALK 06:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The references tell us he was at one time a member of the NDL. It tells us very little about his activities as a member. Thus, you are right that “having once been a member” is part of Breivik’s identity but it is one fact among many that can be singled out to remind us who Breivik was. It takes several inferences, speculative at best, to reach the conclusions that it is as a member of the NDL that he is important to the EDL.

Worse of all, the way you left it (“who was, using a pseudonym a member of the NDL”) and the position of that modifying phrase suggests he was a NDL member at the time of the Norway attacks. The references imply he was expelled at that point. This is the problem with mentioning arbitrary isolated facts about Breivik in the EDL article that are better off left in the Breivik article. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Happy for you to modify it to remove that implication. I would not read it like that, but if there is a danger of confusion fine. ----Snowded ^TALK 15:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

It would still leave the synthesis problem. Jason from nyc (talk) 02:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Racist

I would like to put forward a motion that we include the adjective 'racist' in the introduction. This group is painfully racist and a large amount of evidence can be found to support this, such as this youtube video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2VrK8EAHuU and this one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8j7IX_5a_9M and also this one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w132VRGGglU&feature=related. Please say what you have to say but by my power those words will be in the article uncontested by this weekend. Inshallah =)IraqiLion (talk) 07:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Youtube doesn't really work as a source. Please read WP:RS and WP:OR. Sindinero (talk) 08:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Thankyou brother =) Would a newspaper article from England do?IraqiLion (talk) 08:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I have found one, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/30/let-english-defence-league-march, I can find many more. What are peoples thoughts to this information being added to the article as empirical and indisputible evidence?IraqiLion (talk) 08:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

You should read up on reliable sources, and also check out the article's history and the talk page discussions. For one, comment is free can be used to demonstrate the writer's opinion, but not facts or analyses. For another, you'll see that the current lead is the result of a lot of haggling and compromise; radical new changes will be difficult to effect, especially if they seem to be motivated by a particular WP:POV. Also check out WP:LEAD - the lead needs to summarize the article's content. Sindinero (talk) 08:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Rather than use simple labels like "racist" why not just describe what they believe in, their actions, etc. Then let the reader decide if the group is, for example "racist". That's generally how wikipedia implements its WP:NPOV policy. --Merbabu (talk) 09:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but criticizing Islam is not racism. Blanket-calling them "Racist" is not neutral, even though they obviously have racist elements. It's a bit like calling all the members of the IRA terrorists. --Nutthida (talk) 19:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

They are not Racist, in any way. If the English Defence league can be seen as racist because of their formation reason to stand for the rights of the indiginous Englishman. Then the Black Police Officers Assosiation are racist for the same reason!English n proud (talk) 17:31, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

---

wikipedia is now an extension of the mainstream media, where media opinion is used as fact within Wikipedia, regardless of wether it's true or not. The EDL website has nothing racist about it, there is very little organisation within the EDL, no real membership or control of policy. The mission statement is to counter FAR RIGHT ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISTS. The EDL accept support from any colour and their only agenda is stop Islamic fundamentalists from fullfilling their agenda of making the UK an islamic state.

This country is supposed to be free and fair, well it's hardly fair to label the EDL, RACIST of FAR RIGHT at this stage. Although some supporters are claerly racist and far right they do not seem to be running the EDL. The world as his brother could turn up and and EDL protest with an EDL shirt they purchased over the internet and commit violence or racist abuse and the EDL would get the blame, for all we know members fo the Anti Facist League and the BNP infultrate these marches in order to disgrace the EDL and I am sure on occassions they do — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shammie62 (talk • contribs) 10:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure members of the "Anti Facist League" [sic] are quite willing to act like racists just to discredit the EDL *rolls eyes* 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 10:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks to Shammie62 for providing me with my biggest laugh of the year! Multiculturalist (talk) 20:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Multiculturalist, it is your posts that have all been of the comical nature! You have come here not to enter facts about the subject matter, the EDL. You have come here for one reason and one reason only, to make assertions about the EDL that are simply not true. Unite against Facists HAVE been under cover in the EDL ranks. They have been caught in the act on a couple of occasions. One such occasion they actually stood out in their use of deregortory words of a racial nature, they stood out because it was a peacful demo and it was only the UAF members who were making the most noise, of a racial nature! Carried out for one reason and one reason only- to breed hostility towards a growing movement of Englishmen sick at what their country has turned into. May i suggest you stop you're maniacle laughing (at a comment which bears no comedy) and wake up!English n proud (talk) 17:45, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

"wikipedia is now an extension of the mainstream media, where media opinion is used as fact within Wikipedia, regardless of wether it's true or not." That comment is not only true but is enshrined in Wikipedia policy called neutrality. Instead of complaining here, you should raise the issue at the policy page. TFD (talk) 00:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the point about the mainstream media is that wikipedia allows the views of mainstream journalists to validate articles within wikipedia. Simply because someone has the outlet of a national newspaper to voice their opinions doesnt make it fact, however wikipedia will clearly accept that newspaper article as proof of fact within wikipedia but would not do so with Joe Publics opinions. The EDL are not proven to be an organisation in the true sense let alone a far right organisation as stated within wikipedia. Thats the point wikipedia allowing the EDL to be tarnished with the label racist and far right with mainstream journalists articles(opinions) being used to justify this. I thought the idea was the articles are based on fact, this one seems more fiction than fact, just as well read about the EDL in the newspaper as on wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.221.98.153 (talk) 01:46, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

No the idea is not that articles are based on fact, but that they are based on what mainstream sources say. (See Wikipedia:Verifiability). You can either ask Wikipedia to change its policy or persuade journalists to change their reporting, but unless you do one of those, there is nothing we can do to change the article. TFD (talk) 05:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Regarding labels

The insertion of "islamophobic" is absurd and it would be like using "judeophobic" in place of "antisemitic" (the absurdity of Jews claiming exclusive rights to the label Semite aside). As to to "racist" that is a very crude and vague assertion. Racism has many possible meanings. If the goal of the group is to attack Muslims that is not racism (Persians are quite ditinct from Arabs and there are Muslims of many ethnic groups). If the group is anti-nonwhite then a label lke "nationalist" or "white nationalist" or something would apply but it does not appear to given membership of Jews and Indians. If some elements of the group are racist then that deserves specific mention but doesn't cover its activities on the whole. Let me ask, what "race" is the target of the EDL? Caucasians? Obotlig (talk) 19:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Well the second source quoted in the lede statement marks them as anti-islamic and then in the conclusion outs all those movements into an islamophhobic category described as the new racism. The third reference says the leadership is less overtly islamophobic than its memberships. I think there is at least a case for the inclusion ----Snowded ^TALK 20:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

'Islamophobic' and 'anti-semitic' are equivalent terms, with WP giving very similar definitions for both in the relevant articles. Your complaint about this and the use of the word 'semite' seems a little bizarre, as language is a messy business and words generally take their meaning from common usage rather than strict etymology. The original point about racism is fair, we should expect more clarity from an encyclopedia, but 'nationalist' is too vague and 'white nationalist' fails to take into account the overtures that the group has made to non-white groups such as Sikhs and Hindus. A careful examination of the incidents to determine the extent to which the EDL itself distinguishes between Muslims and other races/religions/nationalities that could be mistaken for Muslims would add weight to the case for including the term (at least a couple of the incidents in news reports cited in the article refer to the victims as Asian, rather than Muslim, and pro-EDL editors on this page have failed to make the distinction between Hindus and Muslims in the past).Snumbers (talk) 01:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

That's correct: there has been at least one incident of the EDL attacking a Hindu temple, making them anti-Indian. Further more, their marchers regularly perform the Nazi salute, making them anti-Jewish and anti-Semitic. Plus, of course, they are anti-Muslim - which in practical terms makes them anti-Pakistani. But of course most EDL members do not understand the difference between an Indian and a Pakistani, and regard the two terms as interchangeable.Multiculturalist (talk) 20:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Help request from Talk:Norwegian Defence League

A content dispute has been lingering at Norwegian Defence League. It relates to whether a discussion about Breivik's connection to the organization should appear early on in the article. It has been tried solved through both a third opinion and an RFC, the latter was called six days ago and remains unanswered. If someone from this place could look into that dispute and possibly weigh in that might help resolve the stale conflict. See Talk:Norwegian Defence League#RfC: Breivik's "role in founding" __meco (talk) 08:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Far-right?

The 5 sources that are used to support the statement that EDL is far right, do nothing else then just claim it is. They do you explain, WHY they are far-right. These can not count as sources.

A groups political status is not determined by what the majority of people think about it, it is defined by its own stated ambitions and goals. EDL is a single-issue movement, it does not have any other political agendas. EDL is a pro-democratic organization, how exactly is it far-right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.171.168.146 (talk) 02:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Definition of far-right from wikipedia:"In politics, the Right, right-wing and rightist has been defined as the support or acceptance of social hierarchy.[1][2][3] Inequality is viewed by the Right as inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable,[1] whether it arises though traditional social differences,[4] or from competition in market economies.[5][6]" The EDL is only opposed to the spread of political Islam and sharia law. It is not about making muslims second class citizens, changing the social hierarchy or creating inequality. Unless people can point to specific political goals of the EDL that fit into a far-right spectrum of politics, it cannot be fairly viewed as a far-right group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.171.168.146 (talk • contribs) 02:42, 10 April 2012

"A groups political status is not determined by what the majority of people think about it, it is defined by its own stated ambitions and goals". No. Not as far as Wikipedia is concerned. We base articles on published reliable sources - and these describe the EDL as far right. So we will too... — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyTheGrump (talk • contribs) 03:21, 10 April 2012

The classification of groups is determined by how informed sources view them, not by how they view themselves. As the sources show, informed sources consider them to be part of the far right and group them with the BNP, etc. No group calls itself far right, yet far right groups exist. That anyway is Wikipedia policy. Other Wikipedia articles cannot be used for this article. TFD (talk) 03:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

   "A groups political status is not determined by what the majority of people think about it, it is defined by its own stated ambitions and goals". No. Not as far as Wikipedia is concerned. We base articles on published reliable sources - and these describe the EDL as far right. So we will too... — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyTheGrump (talk • contribs) 03:21, 10 April 2012

   The classification of groups is determined by how informed sources view them, not by how they view themselves. As the sources show, informed sources consider them to be part of the far right and group them with the BNP, etc. No group calls itself far right, yet far right groups exist. That anyway is Wikipedia policy. Other Wikipedia articles cannot be used for this article. TFD (talk) 03:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC) 

Informed is the key word. If the sources provided can not sufficiently back up the claim with evidence, then they should not be regarded as evidence at all. The sources so far provided do not substantiate the claim that the EDL is a far-right movement, they simply assert it to be true. They make no reference to the definition of right-wing politics and how it relates to the EDL. Unless more credible sources can be found, the far-right description is unjustified and misleading.

Anti-Muslim?

EDL has muslim members, an anti-muslim group would not have muslim members. Tommy Robinson, the leader of the EDL. Has always said that the EDL is anti islam, not anti mulsim. To describe the groups goals as anti-muslim when all their documents and leadership say they are not, is a false representation of the group. The 3 'sources' used to support the claim of anti-islam are completely superficial. 1. Repeatedly calls the EDL a anti-muslim group, with out ever refering to them as a anti-islam group, even through in nearly all interviews given by EDL leadership, they calm they are anti-islam. 2. Only claims the group is anti-muslim in the title of the article. Does not even explain how it is, just speculation. From that article "The organisation, which denies it is racist and insists it is only against Islamic militants rather than all Muslims, has set up a wing north of the Border called the Scottish Defence League. " This source could be used as evidence that EDL is anti-islam just as much as it could prove its anti-muslim. 3. Is an opinion polls of EDL supporters. While it is likely true that many EDL supporters are anti-muslim, this does not mean the group is anti-muslim. We do not define a group's goals by the opinions of some of its followers. If opinions of their followers count as group goals, then we should also say they are a pro-drinking organization, or a pro-pub organization. Goals are stated by their group leaderships, and their groups official documents, NOT by their followers.

Lets remember people, that this isn't a majority rule contest, even if 90% of the articles online say EDL is anti-muslim, it does not mean they necessarily are. We should listen to what their party leadership makes clear, over and over again, that they are anti-Islam, not anti-Muslim, not just there detractors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.171.168.146 (talk) 02:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

"That's correct: there has been at least one incident of the EDL attacking a Hindu temple, making them anti-Indian. Further more, their marchers regularly perform the Nazi salute, making them anti-Jewish and anti-Semitic. Plus, of course, they are anti-Muslim - which in practical terms makes them anti-Pakistani. But of course most EDL members do not understand the difference between an Indian and a Pakistani, and regard the two terms as interchangeable.Multiculturalist (talk) 20:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)"

It is absurd to claim the action of one EDL member towards at Hindu temple means the group as a hole is anti-indian, its the same as suggestion Christianity is anti-children because a few priests are pedophiles. It is also equally absurd to claim that the EDL is anti-semetic and anti-jewish because of a few members. The EDL has continually tried to remove Nazi elements from its rallies, their leader has headbutted a nazi at his really, their leader receives death threats from Nazi groups, their leader repeteadly references the Jewish community as evidence of group fitting in. There is no official document or words spoken by the EDL leadership that supports your claims that they are anti-Semitic or anti-Indian, your purely basing it of the actions and views of only a few of their members. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.171.168.146 (talk) 02:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are based on published sources. They aren't based on the self-serving assertions of fringe political groups. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

":Wikipedia articles are based on published sources. They aren't based on the self-serving assertions of fringe political groups. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)" Surely it is based on the evidence found within those sources, not the fact that the sources exist. If there is 100 sources that just claim a group is anti-Muslim without backing it up, then surely it doesn't matter that there is 100 of them. Media interviews and official websites are published sources, and in all of them the EDL makes it very clear it is anti-Islam. Unless the sources provided contain actual evidence they are anti-muslim (leaked documents, videos of group meetings etc) then we cant claim its anti-Muslim simply because of plurality of bad sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.171.168.146 (talk) 03:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

We use reliable sources, as defined in policy and do not check that they have evidence. If you do not like the policy then get it changed. In the meantime, you are wasting our time, and could you please sign your postings. TFD (talk) 04:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

"We use reliable sources, as defined in policy and do not check that they have evidence. If you do not like the policy then get it changed. In the meantime, you are wasting our time, and could you please sign your postings. TFD (talk) 04:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC) " So the content of the source is not important. So there is no point in pointing out that the sources dont prove what they are being used to prove? It seems the only way to prove that the EDL is not far-right is to get a bigger list of sources (regardless of their quality) saying it isn't? Is that how Wikipedia sourcing works, just a numbers contest?