Talk:English Defence League

Neutrality

This article is biased, with the constant references to "right wing", and being categorized as "Islamophobic". In fact when I attempted to remove said categorization, it was reverted by a user whose talk page lists themselves as a socialist who "doesn't like Nazis". It is clear evidence of political bias in the articles editing. Clown666 (talk) 17:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

That's a serious accusation to make. If you have evidence there are channels to go through to get neutral comment. I'd be careful though, assuming good faith and no personal attacks are key tenants to being a wikipedia editor. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 18:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

As Gimli said, please assume good faith. And the article (including the things you removed) is supported by evidence. Please discuss it further here and reach a consensus before further edit warring. – Richard BB 18:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Is Clown666 seriously suggesting that someone who doesn't like Nazis cannot edit this page??? Presumably, only those who do like Nazis are acceptable! Emeraude (talk) 12:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, his edits seems to suggest a serious lack of good faith, possible tin-foil hat conspiracy theories about people who oppose him having an agenda (something I've found very, very common on any article about a right-wing subject), and ad hominem assumptions. – Richard BB 12:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I just want to add two errors. First- "true national socialism, nazism" cannot by it's own definition be anything else than German. This is very clear to all that has red "Mein Kampf". And surelly not the even the most far-right man in the Kingdom would like England or Britain to become a German province or colony even !? And second- Adolf Hitler (just like Kaiser Wilhelm II) had nothing in perticular against islam, and in f.i. Yugoslavia Waffen-SS had a muslim brigade that hunted the partisans. This is atleast stated by the German anti-nazi wrighter Guido Knopp in his book which in Swedish is called "SS - ondskans redskap", a litterar translation is approx "SS - the tool of evil". An entire chapter deals whith this issue. So German anti-nazis and former "true" nazis do agree when it comes to the subject of islam. I think there is a long-term danger in using the word "nazis" too lightly. "Fascism" or "Neonazism" are better terms, I think. And those terms may also apply to other nations than the German. Boeing720 (talk) 21:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

If you consider that Nazism can't be used because its so closely connected with Germany, then you should also stop using Fascism as that implies Italy. The two terms started and were created in the respective countries, but it doesn't mean that similar thoughts and theories in different countries and times can't be covered by the terms. They are words used to convey a meaning, a description that everyone agrees on. 79.70.78.26 (talk) 10:20, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

...Including the Italian Foreign Ministry under Mussolini which publsihed a report on "Fascist Parties" in other countries. Emeraude (talk) 12:46, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I concider true national socialism, or nazism, as it's founder Adolf Hitler writes in "Mein Kampf". Please read it before accusing me. Mussolini and Franco - and later Papadopoulos in Greece, Videla in Argentina, Pinochet in Chile are all good examples of facsists. Between late may 1940 and september 1943 Mussolini fought as allied to Nazi Germany, but whithout support of the "Grand Councul" that fired Mussolini in the late summer of 1943. Franco never trusted Hitler. And true nazism is about German BLOOD not "glorious" hisotory (as in Italian Fascism). Anyone that suggests that Japan was "nazi" aswell ? They also fought on the same side as Hitler (and Mussolini for a while). And how about Mannerheim, the great Finnish Field Marshal that managed to keep the Red Army out of Finland, and that after the USSR-Nazi break 22.June 1941 also fought along with Hitler. Was he a nazi aswell ?? Finland got not western help. And the enemy of your enemy may become your friend. This doesn't imply that all who (short och longer) fought with the nazis, where nazis themselves. If so - also Stalin would be a Nazi - atleast from 23.August 1939 until 22.Juni 1941. It's more complex than so. Far more complex. And nothing is gained from simplification of true national socialism, Nazism. Boeing720 (talk) 14:44, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you are correct. The designation National Socialist or Nazi may not be appropriate for the EDL. Neo-Nazi on the other hand fits pretty well. Most neo-nazi organizations don't subscribe to classic-nazism's pan-germanisn or metaphysical/whacky scientific beliefs. Neo-nazis are more about racism and couldn't care less about National Socialist economic policy, etc...ThePedantryTortoise (talk) 00:16, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it's appropriate and maybe it isn't - that would require a detailed analysis that is difficult because of a lack of reasoned sources from the EDL itself. But the term "neo-Nazi" is not the most useful in political science (and neither is "classic-nazism"), assuming as it does that all manifestations of a political movement should be identical and never change with time or place. It's as if we must refer to Roosevelt as a Democrat and to Obama as a neo-Democrat. Emeraude (talk) 06:10, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

BIAS

Personally I have nothing to do with the EDL, but I thought I would look them up as they were in the news recently. Despite my lack of knowledge about the group, it’s clear that this article isn’t encyclopedic at all. I am not defending the EDL, I am defending the notion of Wikipedia being a neutral well of information. Firstly you should outline the basic details about the organization, brief history, structure and stated goals, just FACTS nothing else, then as a separate paragraph, a critique of the group, with quoted sources, and then maybe a similar sized paragraph with supportive counter-views, with quoted sources - dare I suggest. Why not just quote the EDL themselves: "The EDL is keen to draw its support from people of all races, all faiths, all political persuasions, and all lifestyle choices. Under its umbrella, all people in England, whatever their background, or origin, can stand united in a desire to stop the imposition of the rules of Islam on non-believers. In order to ensure the continuity of our culture and its institutions." Taken from the mission statement on their website, - they are obviously nationalistic in outlook [which isn't a crime by the way] but these are hardly the words of neo-Nazi white supremacists!

Instead, this article is simply a long condemnation on the group, with copious quotes from well known leftist sources. Does the group deserve to be condemned? Maybe or maybe not, that’s not the point. The point is that the article is blatantly biased. "That's a serious accusation to make." somebody said above - it's also an extremely obvious and self-evident statement to make! Firstly, it has been filed under “Project on Islamophobia” - a phobia means an irrational fear of something. With numerous anti-terrorism arrests and many serious incidents over the last 12 years involving the UK’s Muslim community, and a persistent extremist minority within that community being verbally confrontational, is a protest group against the spread of Islamic influence in the UK, inspired by an “irrational fear” of Islam? Maybe it is or maybe it isn't; it’s really a matter of opinion, a point of view. But by classifying the EDL as Islamophobic, means a definite point of view has been adopted here.

The group seems to make energetic claims that it’s not racist, and indeed, the target of its presumed ire: Muslims, are not even a race, people of all races are Muslims. So are they racist? Maybe, maybe not, but the article is plastered with the words “racism”, “racist” – so it obviously makes a very strong point that they are. Again, the article carries a strong point of view. Can we not have an informative article that gives facts and an outline of ALL VIEWS that prevail about the group and its objectives? Can you treat your readers like intelligent people who can weigh things up for themselves?

TB 121.217.206.196 (talk) 05:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Policy requires that we represent the EDL as they are portrayed in mainstream media and academic publications. If you think that the article does not do that then please provide sources that paint a different picture. If you disagree with their portrayal in the mainstream, then write to the newspapers or ask Wikipedia to change the policy. Also if as you say you "lack knowledge" of EDL why would you believe the article is biased? -TFD (talk) 06:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure that TFD meant to say provide reliable sources. Emeraude (talk) 11:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

As to "Islamophobia": 121.217.206.196 is correct on the derivation of the word, but that is not the same as its meaning. To quote the Oxford English Dictionary, "Islamophobia, n. Intense dislike or fear of Islam, esp. as a political force; hostility or prejudice towards Muslims." That seems about right to me. Emeraude (talk) 17:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The EDL does NOT fear or dislike Islam, they have stated it time and time again, what they dislike is Fascist Islam thats entiorely different, look demonising and promoting hysteria about what is essentially a small protest group has no place on Wikipedia, I suggest we refer the issue to senior admin. Twobells (talk) 11:11, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

OK point taken, but the accusation that the EDL is racist is just repeated over and over, won't a representative quote do with a note that this is a commonly held POV in the UK press? Quote: "Also if as you say you "lack knowledge" of EDL why would you believe the article is biased?" - because anybody without an axe to grind can see that the article is heavily padded out with 'righteous' editorial quotes and given opinions, and any article that does that (about almost any subject) is obviously pushing an agenda. I don't want praise for the EDL, I would just like real information, instead of righteous hot air. The article at best verges on preaching, at worst, patronizes the reader. Neutrality does not mean that "both sides of any argument" need be explored, nor that "justification" need be discussed, neutrality is best expressed by a simple delivery of data, facts and figures - if such real information is ditched in favour of repetitious quoted journalistic opinionating then something has gone wrong. Obviously a major source for the article should be the EDL itself, how it publicly defines itself and what its mission statement is - I would expect that treatment for any political organization, far left or far right, and anywhere in between. The fact that this has not been done, is a clear sign that the article is really a long repetitious critique of the EDL rather than an informative overview. I want to know, who they are, what they think they are doing, what they are saying, their numbers and organizational structure (quite reasonable I think)-- but instead the writers think I am better off being told how journalists think they're a bad bunch - in short, it's a really bad article. TB 121.218.102.152 (talk) 14:55, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The group's self-perception is stated at several key points. You raise an interesting question about the best sources for fairly and accurately representing the views of political groups, and it's important to note that it's not just "journalistic opinionating" that sees the EDL as racist, but considered scholarly opinion as well, as cited in the article (Garland and Treadwell, Jackson, Allen). In general, it is a characteristic of much of the contemporary far-right that racism and Islamophobia are cloaked in the rhetoric of liberal inclusion and tolerance (as the cited sources variously indicate). EDL's stated platform is that they are not racist; reliable sources disagree, and furthermore, they show how this claim not to be racist is actually an integral part of the way the EDL's Islamophobia functions. In a word, that's why it would be misleading and highly irresponsible to make their self-description the centerpiece of this article. Sindinero (talk) 15:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy requires articles to rely on secondary sources. The effect is that articles should read very much like one would expect to find in an article in a quality newspaper or textbook. TFD (talk) 14:21, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

This article is indeed biased due to the use of adjectives projected upon the EDL. Within the wiki talk page there appears to be sufficient evidence that the characterization of the EDL has not been fact-based, but in some cases the opinion of opposition groups. This very argument is taking place on the talk page of the UAF where they have successfully garnered favorable edits to their own description with the omission of the term left-wing, yet the EDL ‘s group type currently stands as “far right-wing”. Even when the nature of a topic is agreeably abhorrent, the moment one describes said topic with words such as atrocity or (insert)phobic, the subject has become tainted with opinion. As the world descends upon Wikipedia to learn about these groups due to recent events; it is vital that factual information be provided. I’ve never heard of the EDL until a few days ago, yet someone like myself, untainted by prejudice; can see this article is biased at face-value. Lacking an omnipotent author, the introductory description of the EDL should largely come from how the EDL describes itself. Any evidence to the contrary should be cited properly where Wikipedia provides. I don’t see how journalistic opinionating and scholarly opinion is anything more than just opinion.67.168.126.47 (talk) 17:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Then you don't understand how wikipedia works. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 18:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Nor scholarly research, for that matter, which is not really a matter opinion but of research, analysis, and interpretation. Sindinero (talk) 18:26, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

too complex formulation ?

Cite "The EDL originated from a group known as the "United Peoples of Luton", which itself was formed in response to a March 2009 protest against Royal Anglian Regiment troops returning from the Afghan War[20] organised by the Islamist group Al-Muhajiroun and including members of the group Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah." Can this not be rephrased ? At first reading I thought that this EDL was against that the regiment in question did return from Afghanistan. My suggestion is only to make the centance more easy to read. Or am I the only one that at first reading have becomed a bit confused for a while ? I realise that this article may be sensitive or a delicate subject, and hence do not myself want to make any changes, specially since I'm not from the UK and have never before heard about EDL. Boeing720 (talk) 19:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

You have a point. The sentence is perfectly understandable if read extremely carefully, but one should never have to read extremely carefully! However, looking at it for ways of getting some simplification, and going to the two sources given, there are some inaccuracies/inconsistencies that need addressing. Wikipedia says, "organised by the Islamist group Al-Muhajiroun and including members of the group Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah." The The Daily Telegraph article used as a source does not say that. Instead it says, "The demonstrators included members of a group called Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah, whic is thought to have been formed by former members of Omar Bakri Mohammed's radical Islamist organisation al-Muhajiroun." (my bold) The point being

1 the demo was not organised by Al-Muhajiroun and

2 the relationship between the two groups has been reversed.

My suggestion is this. Minor rewrite of the first part to more closely reflect the BBC News story and less detailed allusion to the involvement of Islamic groups in the anti-war demonstration (this article is about the EDL after all, not the "United Peoples of Luton", the demonstration, al-Muhajiroun or Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah. I offer the following:

The EDL originated from a group known as the "United Peoples of Luton". This was a response to a demonstration, organised by al Muhajiroun, against the war in Afghanistan as the Royal Anglian Regiment marched through the town after a tour of duty.

That can all be sourced to the BBC.. Emeraude (talk) 09:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

This seems far more easy to read, I think. Boeing720 (talk) 11:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Leaked membership list

The following statement, namely,

"Nigel Copsey notes that "There is no official membership card, or fees/subs as such". This, he suggests, allows the advantage of not having a membership list to leak."

seems to be invalid in light of the publication of a list which apparently shows the contact details of English Defence League members.

Such invalidation is contingent upon the validation of the list. 86.29.0.55 (talk) 16:48, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

A suggestion.

In the section entitled "Formation", the phrase "the organisation has been described as islamophobic" appears. I suggest that this phrase, which, being the first to mention islamophobia, is of some importance to the article, be relocated to the opening section. My reasons for making this suggestion are thus:

• The information, as written, has no connexion to the subject of the section, which is the group's formation.

• The theme of islamophobia is prevalent enough in the article, to warrant a mention in the opening section.

• The phrase, as written, is very awkwardly inserted and has the appearance of an afterthought. A superior passage might read "Due to the nature of its activities/past statements &c., the group has been accused of Islamophobia. At this time, it bears the stamp of bias, stylistically if not thematically (i.e, as if some person, wishing to insert material relating to Islamophobia, but not being committed to inserting the said material in an elegant or encyclopaedic manner, simply tacked it onto the end of the paragraph).

Therefore, I reiterate my desire to relocate the phrase, or have it rewritten. Ordinarily, I should do this without consultation, as it is a trifle, but those with vested interests (masquerading as moral obligations or otherwise), have often used pages such as this as battlegrounds (try relocating a comma on Hitler's page!).

User: I, Englishman; from a portable device. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.0.55 (talk) 16:45, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that's particularly contentious, so I've made the move. Emeraude (talk) 08:52, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I've read a new backronym for the group's initials on Yahoo! Answers, 'English Drunken Louts'. Maybe this could be added to the article where opposers views are discussed. Sheogorath31.111.125.172 (talk) 09:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

No, as random people on Yahoo! Answers aren't considered reliable sources or in any way notable. — Richard BB 10:06, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Significance of Anonymous threat in lead paragraph

It was revealed through twitter that the leak of EDL members was compiled by a British Islamist in 2010, who was investigated by police at the time. Their attempt to crash the site was successful, but did not last. Anonymous' attempts to consistently oppose the EDL are as strong as David Cameron's Indiasummer95 (talk) 15:42, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

so Twitter revelations are reliable sources??? Emeraude (talk) 15:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

No experienced editor will use Twitter. See WP:TWITTER for reasons. JRPG (talk) 17:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

That's not the point. The point was that Anonymous' assault on the EDL was a damp squib and not notable in the lead. Indiasummer95 (talk) 20:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Another thing...

The Somali centre in north London had EDL graffiti sprayed on it. Shall I add the graffiti on the Bomber Command memorial to the Islam article then? Indiasummer95 (talk) 15:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

You should discuss the content of other articles on their respective talk pages, not here. TFD (talk) 15:51, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

That was clearly just evidence to why an attack with 'EDL' graffiti is not worth mentioning until a real link is found. Indiasummer95 (talk) 20:58, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The Muswell Hill mosque burnt out with EDL graffiti on it needs to be here. The suggestion that it shouldn't because "it shouldn't be mentioned until it is proven that they were responsible" is palpable nonsense. The fact is it happened. Now, there are three possiblities: 1 EDL members were the arsonists and wrote EDL on the mosque. 2 Vague supporters of the EDL did it, without the EDL's blessing. 3 Someone completely unconnected with the EDL did it but wrote EDL there, for some reason unknown, perhaps to get EDL some bad publicity. It doesn't matter which scenario is correct: the facts as stated in the article, sourced, are straightforward; they make no assumptions about any person's or group's invovlvement and do not speculate. To suggest that this arson/graffiti should not even be mentioned until there is a conviction is ridiculous, given the current high profile of the EDL and its anti-Moslem activity. Emeraude (talk) 07:08, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

NPOV

Citing the Jewish Chronicle as a source to declare the EDL as 'islamaphobic' is hardly neutral, I suggest editors find another more neutral source to cite from, lets give it four weeks before removal okay? Also, I am a little concerned about the general neutrality of the article, it seems to be trying to demonise what is essentially a small protest group.Twobells (talk) 22:57, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

on checking the cite it turns out the JC was not accusing the EDL of Islamphobia anyway, it was accusing The British Freedom Party, subsequently I'll remove it until a real cite is forthcoming, I've also removed the 'islamphobia' template for the time being as well for obvious reasons. Twobells (talk) 23:02, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

From the source cited: "the Islamophobic and violent English Defence League". Please read sources before deleting material. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:23, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Why would the Jewish Chronicle not be a suitable source for this? Formerip (talk) 23:36, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Bundling references

The article begins: "The English Defence League (EDL) is a far-right^{[5][6][7][8][9]} street protest movement....." The five consecutive references do not make for readability. There are similar examples of multiple references throughout the article. I know it's possible to bundle the refs together so that, for example, it will read "The English Defence League (EDL) is a far-right^[5] street protest movement....." and footnote 5 would list all five refs together. But I can't find a way to do this when some of the refs use the <refname> format. As an example of the effect, I have bundled the first set of refs (in the infobox) so that ^[1][2][3] now appears as ^[1]. Anyone got the skill to do this? Emeraude (talk) 07:41, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Practically the entire page is badly biased against the EDL. It looks like the UAF wrote it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.77.31 (talk) 00:04, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what that comment has to do with what Emeraude asked. The page only contains that which is demonstrated by the sources. — Richard BB 07:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Demonising The EDL On Wikipedia

The EDL does NOT fear or dislike Islam, they have stated it time and time again, even Muslim members of the EDL categorically state that, what they dislike is Fascist Islam and what they perceive as it's agenda to introduce sharia law into the UK and Europe, that is entirely different to labelling them 'islamaphobic', the lede needs to be put into context. Look, demonising and promoting hysteria about what is essentially a small protest group has no place on Wikipedia, I suggest we refer the issue to senior admin if we cannot get agreement on something that is glaringly biased. Twobells (talk) 11:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Just to point out, the video doesn't show what you claim it to. The guy being filmed is an Arab but states that he is not a Muslim and also states his view that the EDL recognises that "the problem is Islam". Not "Fascist Islam" or "fundamentalist Islam", but Islam. Formerip (talk) 14:05, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Just about everything in the first paragraph above is itself glaringly biased, as is this editor's edit to the article ("The EDL has been described by some as Islamophobic.). The intention is clearly to have the description of Islamophobic appear as if it is a minority opinion, held by few observers and practically without foundation. This is not the case. Neither is it the case that ALL commentators say that EDL is Islamophobic, which is why the key phrase is has been described as opposed to, simply, is. It is no good to just accept the EDL leader's claims, how ever categorically they state them, that they are not Islamophobic (this would apply to any group, but given the nature of the EDL's leaders and their history it is even more important). By all means take it to senior admin, but before you do, find an independent reliable source that says the EDL is not Islamophobic, as opposed to claiming they are not Islamophobic. Emeraude (talk) 11:45, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Not so, the description is what is is, clearly stating that some believe that the EDL are Islamophobic, if it was a general wide-spread view then it would be different; however, that is not the case. Nick Cohen's piece in the Guardian (26th May 2013) lays out the fact that the EDL's raison d'etre is that Islamists disparaged British troops not a fear of Islam or Muslims. There are numerous sources that lay out the EDL's raison d'etre and I'm happy to supply them so we can take down that hysterical, incorrect label and template. Twobells (talk) 12:43, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

This article is well sourced, and represents fairly the consensus amongst the media and academia that the EDL is an Islamophobic extremist organisation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:50, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Nick Cohen's piece does indeed say that the "founders of the English Defence League were inspired by Islamists who disparaged British troops"; so what? It does not say that EDL is not Islamophobic; indeed, Cohen's article isn't actually about the EDL. On the other hand, David Miller, in an earlier article in the same paper, wrote about Islamophobia and specifically mentioned "racist and Islamophobic groups such as the EDL". Emeraude (talk) 15:19, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I have never, ever, seen a biased and untruthful article your article on the EDL. Here is why

I have never seen such a biased and lying article which throws the Wikipedia’s claim of impartiality and truth out of the window. Here are the points. Possibly I missed some.

Intro: 1. Anonymous are a bunch of internet nerds so the EDL had no actual confrontation with them. Formation: 2. Claims that the EDL is organised around figures in hooligan firms is just plain slander. 3.The Wikipedia site on the British Freedom Party has nothing about being affiliated in any way with the BNP. 4. The claims of a far left hate organisation like “Hope not Hate” are irrelevant. Membership and support:

5. On the EDL forum, membership figures are given, at the top of the page.

6. A lying link to the BNP, a racist group that only allows whites claiming EDL is the same. 7. Lying claims of racism. The EDL is against muslims taking over Britain. Islam is a religion and you cannot be racist against a religion, so just hearsay lies 8. Trying to link them to a racist organisation like Stormfront is just a filthy, dirty, trick. Activities: 9. Cost of policing EDL demonstration costs £1 million (Link 44). That is a few hundred policemen who presumably got £3,000 to £4,000 each for the hours spent there? 10. Journalists who covered marches received death threats? From who? UAF maybe? Any evidence they did? Normally such threats would be printed in newspapers, so lefty NUJ lies. We know such organisation fund the UAF who start the trouble off. Yellow journalism. 11. Parkinson claims a death threat but has no actual evidence it came from the EDL or anyone else. We know his newspaper is pro UAF and anti EDL. So just hearsay. 12. Four special national police units investigating the EDL? That was FOUR years ago, and how many arrests made? 13. AC Chief Sharon Rowe should know better than to indulge in empty speculation which amounts to slander. 14. Link 49. There was never any evidence that this man belonged to the EDL. Probably just an opportunist, and a smear tactic. 15. Link 50. It is strange that the far left wing Guardian who supports the UAF talk of Nazi salutes but in their tiny article can produce no evidence. One would think they are lying yet again. 16. The paragraph that starts “In January 2010” shows clearly that the EDL were hardly at fault and it was their detractors who were the guilty lot. Then later in the paragraph it talks of violence and damage but not who did it, as though it must have been the evil EDL. 17. Link 70. The group attacked a passing bus full of black youths? Do you realise how crazy that sounds? There were many blacks about in the area if they wanted to attack them. They didn’t. 18. Links 73, 74. Anyone can spray EDL on a mosque. The paint quickly washes off so s some claim, maybe it was the muslims themselves who wanted to make the EDL look bad since none were caught? 19. Link 75 not found. 20. Link 76. The police are anti EDL as in while they stood there recently letting someone attack Kevin and walk away, then arresting Kevin Carroll (and Tommy Robinson.) 21. Link 77. Two FORMER EDL members. What do you not understand about FORMER? 22. Link 78. They chanted EDL but no evidence they were members. 23. Link 79. Thugs ALIGNED to the EDL? So, not the EDL. 24. Link 80. No EDL members arrested. Anyone can claim to be a member. It could even have been muslims wanting to drum up support by using sympathy. 25. Link 81 is to London Underground, so no evidence. 26. Links 82,83. Lots of pictures of people online posing with weapons, real and fake. Has any EDL member used these at a demo or in anger? Thought not. 27. Link 84. Beech has been a member of the BNP and EDL but there is no evidence that either told him to do what he did, so another lying link. 28. Link 88. Again anyone can put EDL graffiti on a mosque, even muslims. Links 89 and 90 say it all. Views and reactions. 29. The article quotes communist hatemonger Nick Lowles who on BBC Asia recently made a series of nasty allegations against the EDL and when challenged, could back none of them up. It is on you tube. The man is a LIAR. A vile LIAR. 30. Shami Chakrabarti can make what vile lying slanders she wants but if you repeat them, you may find yourself in court, like the McAlpine slanders. 31. Link 104. Jon Cruddas of the Guardian, one of the far left organisations behind the thugs of the UAF. Why would you repeat his hateful and lying slanders? Do you think you are beyond British justice if the EDL decide to sue you? 32. We know Cameron is anti-EDL and pro muslim as are the stooges under him. Their hate speak is as vile and irrelevant as that of the left wingers as they do everything for muslims and nothing for the rest. A Tory MP suspended because he used free will. 33. The police will let thugs attack the EDL and do nothing but when the EDL defend themselves, they are immediately arrested. There are a number of you tube videos showing this. So the lies of a largely corrupt police force (as we know from their antics in the news) are worthless. 34. Link 119. Another left wing fanatic in the Guardian. 35. Link 125. Another empty allegation without evidence. 36. Lies by Brevik are used to smear the EDL then in his trial testimony he admits they are lies. 37. Lennon admits the false passport bit but where is the evidence for drug convictions at the bottom of the page? Public order offences? Like when there was some violent muslims outside his house on 9th May 2013 and he called the police who did not touch them but arrested him? The police are as pro muslim as they are pro corruption.

I ask that you rewrite the whole article to reflect the truth, or at least what can be proved true and take out the vicious lies, unproven allegations, the slander and libel, the slurs, and the left wing bias and hatred and try to bring it up the the standard of almost every other article in the Wikipedia. This awful article shames the whole Wikipedia site.

I do not want to have to spread the above information on my forum, my Facebook page, my Google+ site, a number of forums I know of and so on to show the Wikipedia up, so don't make me.(Cyberia3 (talk) 18:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC))