Jump to content

Talk:English Defence League

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Stellas4lunch (talk | contribs) at 14:43, 19 May 2011 (→‎Muslims Against Crusades: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Table again

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

This seems to be the best approach. Delete the table, note anything really notable. Dougweller (talk) 12:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Comment moved down from above.) I would say a new page should be created as the list in the article makes it look rather out of place. just make a new page and transfer the list directly and link it in the main EDL article.Johnsy88 (talk) 19:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're on the right track. Just to bring attention to your proposal, even though you know my opinion, I'll say "do it". It's not about what you say, but how you say it (talk) 19:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Doug, I don't see any notability is a page which lists demonstrations --Snowded TALK 11:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why does the table exist in the first place? it doesn't really seem relevant in the article? Johnsy88 (talk) 16:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine the article created as a stub and there wasn't much to say about the group so people added stats instead, perfectly normal, but it's got out of hand now. I think only marches like last weekend should be noted from now on. Alexandre8 (talk) 16:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ok then lets trim it down Johnsy88 (talk) 20:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guramit Singh

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


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

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

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

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

I don't see what's new since the last discussion. He's been in the media and he's certainly notable for inclusion in the article. But there is no evidence that he has sufficient status to be included in the infobox as one of the chiefs of the organisation. Clearly, the EDL would like him to be mentioned as prominently as possible so as to prove that they are not Nazis, but that isn't our job. --FormerIP (talk) 20:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree, a spokeman is not a major posiiton within any organisation. We would need a source that says he is a major figure.Slatersteven (talk) 20:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok how do you guys think he should be included in the article, where is a sensible place to put him, and in what way is it best to describe him? We can't just say "He's Asian to stop the tag of fascists being applied to the group", despite that quite possibly being the aim. Alexandre8 (talk) 21:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with FormerIP and Slatersteven on this: Guramit Singh has no formal status in the EDL, and is being used as window dressing to try and persuade the population that they're not racists. It is not the job of Wikipedia to act as a propaganda tool for this or any other organisation. Having said that, if Singh's name ever is included in the box listing their "key people", then we must immediately insert the word "Islamophobic" in the opening sentence - for Singh's rhetoric is without doubt virulently Islamophobic (and if he is one of their key people then it necessarily follows that that term must also logically apply to the group as a whole). Multiculturalist (talk) 21:17, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Multi please read the discussion, I know it's long and boring, but it's important since we've moved on from the original point. We've accepted that he isn't fit for the key people box. If you'd like to suggest how to add him into the main body somewhere as a notable person, I'm open to sensible ideas. Please remember that it's not propaganda to list facts. Alexandre8 (talk) 21:29, 12 February 2011 (UTC) P.s yes, he was arrested for anti islamic sentiment. This will be included somewhere don't worry. Alexandre8 (talk) 21:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Organizations may have many spokesmen, we need a source that explains his position better to mention him in the infobox. TFD (talk) 21:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, people don't read discussions, just the first point lol! Alexandre8 (talk) 22:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Spokespeople are not prominent in any way. The other three are listed as co-leaders or funders in reliable sources. The only reference here is a provincial newspaper quoting him as a spokesperson. Its just not enough, he has no status given any reference or research report into EDL --Snowded TALK 14:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree I can't think of any other example of some one who is just a spokeprson (and has no apperent offical capactiy) is regarded as an offcier.Slatersteven (talk) 14:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Protest in Hinkley, Lesictershire

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

Man banned from trains after racially abusing family on platform

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

Think your link has gone wrong: [1]. I think the fact that EDL membership seems to be categorisable as anti-social behaviour for the purposes of a CRASBO is significant for inclusion in the article. I'm unsure whether the details of this particular case are though. Has it received any other coverage?
PS, I think I'm right in saying that the Sheffield Star takes its content down quite quickly, so you may want to archive it before it disappears. --FormerIP (talk) 15:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I had mistyped the link; now corrected. Sheffield Star keeps its stories in archive, so it shouldn't disappear. I expect this will appear in other papers, including nationals. It's on The Star 's website because it today's news related to a local person in a local court; others will pick it up if they haven't already. Emeraude (talk) 16:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, they have already :

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

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

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

Sweden Democrats

Sweden Democrats are described as far-right in multiple news sources [2] and a Google Books search shows up similar descriptions, please stop removing this. Sweden Democrats avoids mentioning this, a pov problem there. --Dougweller (talk) 19:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, its also a very badly written article! --Snowded TALK 19:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Many sources also do NOT describe them as "Far Right" - probably because, conventionally speaking, they aren't! Look at the article on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden_Democrats It does not use the "Far Right" label, which is normally reserved for fascistic groups. AFolkSingersBeard (talk) 11:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The WP article does say things like "introduced a uniform ban in 1996", "in 1999 they rejected Nazism", "influenced by the French National Front", " Expressen ... retains the ban on Sweden Democrat advertising". This doesn't make them sound very MOR. Why their article isn't very clear about how they are viewed in terms of political position I wouldn't like to say, but Wikipedia is often not very accurate on these matters. --FormerIP (talk) 11:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is why I do not like non-slef applied lables. There seems to be a few sources that call the SD far right, but its not in the artilce and most sources seem to avoid callinig them anything they do not call themsleves. But i tink the SD artciel needs lookinig at.Slatersteven (talk) 12:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We may call them far right if there is academic consensus to describe them that way. It is important to use good sources however, because the term far right can be used very loosely, for example to describe UKIP the the U.S. Tea Party. However I have not found any sources for this. It may be that they are too obscure. TFD (talk) 14:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Too obscure? they have more support then the BNP and EDl combined. How much less obsure do you want?Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit lost. Numerous sources describe the SD as far right. We can qualify and say 'described as far-right', but we certainly have the sources. Dougweller (talk) 14:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well provide them then. The BNP got 563,000 votes in the 2010 election, compared with 339,000 for the Sweden Democrats and has a rich history which traces back to the NF and the BUF. Also, the Swedish may not gain the same attention in literature on right-wing politics. TFD (talk) 14:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thye SD got 5.7% of the vote and 20 MPs, how many has the BNP got? I think thats my point. Its not that they are less far right then the BNP but that the BNP have been targeted for that accusation.Slatersteven (talk) 15:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
" merely put back in what your far-right ally 86.96.227.90 had taken out" This is completely unacceptable as an edit description Mutliculturalist. And you know it. Alexandre8 (talk) 19:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Edit request from Brown2695, 7 May 2011

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

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

 Not done 4 sources say it is. CTJF83 22:14, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I expect there are far more than four sources that prove it is far right! By the way, Brown2695, "Peaceful" only has one "l". Multiculturalist (talk) 14:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And "People's" has an apostrophe. Emeraude (talk) 16:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Muslims Against Crusades

I am not at all sure this material is notable and I can't verify it. Even if a Kilmarnock newspaper reports it, for it to be notable I would expect it to be in a national newspaper or a journal. --Snowded TALK 14:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Muslims Against Crusades

Recent edits that I have diligently made have been continually reverted by Snowded (in violation of WP:3RR, I hasten to add) in relation to the EDL's views on Muslims Against Crusades and the St John's Jerusalem incident. Both of which have attracted substantial coverage in reliable sources which were footnoted, and I believe are notable. After all Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopaedia and I believe content of this sort is notable, reliable, and indicative of the EDL's views on MAC and therefore merits conclusion. Stellas4lunch (talk) 14:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:English_Defence_League&oldid=429889656"