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 64.101.176.143 (talk) at 03:09, 28 May 2011. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


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]
Considering that an organizations place on the political spectrum is arbitrary, I doubt you could find a single article that "proves" anything of the sort. Wikipedia editors these days are really gotten to be sub par, pretentious and left leaning. Kinda annoying...

Muslims Against Crusades

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Both Stellas4lunch and Bobadillaman blocked for hoaxing, likely sockpuppetry too. Fences&Windows 22:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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 inclusion. Stellas4lunch (talk) 14:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why are the views on Muslims Against Crusades relevant, and in what way is it notable? I can see from the article that a new spokesperson is keen to get across the point that the EDL is not racist per se, but I don't understand what additional information of note you are adding. Thank you. --HighKing (talk) 15:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)You are in violation of WP:BRD. You state that there is substantial coverage in reliable sources. The only source was the Kilmarnock one, and a search on the web site did not produce any reference to EDL. Given that you talk about sources (plural) perhaps you would care to list them here --Snowded TALK 15:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P. J. Edmunds, "Peaceful resolution to MAC occupation of Kent manor house", Eastern Daily Press (Norwich, 30 April 2011) and J. Gibson, "Islamist group in Royal Wedding Stunt at Kent castle", Ayrshire Post (Ayr, 1 May 2011) give the background to the incident including references to the EDL's trenchant opposition to the group. A. Johnson, "The English Defence League and Muslims against Crusades: a brown mark on the UK", Kilmarnock Standard (Kilmarnock, 5 May 2010) has further in-depth coverage, including an EDL spokesman's views. There was substanial local coverage of this, especially in Scotland and Southern + Eastern England, much of which is unlikely to appear on-line due to the nature of local newspapers. The EDL's plan to launch a counter-demonstration at the Royal Wedding clearly shows their hostility to the group, which is confirmed in the reliable and verifiable sources above. Stellas4lunch (talk) 15:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So nothing in national newspapers or journals? If it was notable I would expect it to be picked up there. Ayrshire post has a web site, search on EDL produces no results, ditto Kilmarnock standard, ditto Eastern Daily Press. --Snowded TALK 15:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I have explained these are local newspapers, with limited on-line coverage, you appear to be implicitly questioning good faith. The idea that something must appear in a national newspaper or 'journal' to be notable is risible, especially in light of WP:Paper.Stellas4lunch (talk) 15:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you have the original articles then scan them and send so that other editors can read. I'm sorry but we don't have to take your word for it. However we have discussed the issue of notability before and generally for something to past that test it should appear in a national newspaper, and ideally one with some reputation as a Broadsheet. Local newspapers are OK as sources for local events, but not for a national organisations. --Snowded TALK 16:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You fall foul of WP:Faith and WP:V there I'm afraid. The notion that I should have to buy a scanner to overturn your assumptions of bad faith on my part is ridiculous, especially for such an uncontroversial and well-sourced edit. I think your summary of whether local newspapers are or are not 'OK as sources' misrepresents what is on this talk page. Stellas4lunch (talk) 16:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you quoted a book then it would be reasonable then I could ask you to quote the exact text here and then it might be my responsibility to go and check it. I am less sure that is the case for regional newspapers where verification might make it a lot cheaper to buy you a scanner. Its largely irrelevant anyway, for notability on a national organisation you need more than a few local newspapers. --Snowded TALK 16:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your novel theory that 'for notability on a national organisation you need more than a few local newspapers' is interesting, and seemingly of your own creation rather than rooted in the bedrock of Wikipedia policy. In any case, scanning an article without permission would be a flagrant contravention of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, and as attractive as your inducement sounds, I have no intention of being prosecuted! Stellas4lunch (talk) 16:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not my invention, its come up in multiple discussions here at the UAF article and also at various notice boards. Either way lets see what other editors think. --Snowded TALK 16:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed Stellas4lunch (talk) 16:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I would have to say that I agree with Stellas4lunch on this issue in that he seems to comply with Wikipedia policy and best practice and his edits do appear to meet notability criteria in regards to the merits of encylopaedic content. However, I think we are right to be cautious when monitoring material appearing on a page as contentious as this but Stella's comments seem unlikely to be inflammatory in any regard. I do believe that Snowded makes a good point in that citations included by less well-respected wikipedians than yourself should be subject to "reasonable" levels of scrutiny in order to determine validity. In this instance I am reminded of one of my favourite quotes from Shakespeare, “Our doubts are traitors and make us lose the good we oft might win." Bobadillaman (talk) 16:47, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's potentially dangerous to add anything that can be taken in a negative light to an encyclopedic article *without* a high standard of verifiability. In order to state that the an organization is *against* something, the reference should be watertight - preferably official and verifiable. I came across this BBC article stating that the EDL would hold a counter-demonstration to a MAC protest and there's a couple of other mentions throughout the BBC news website about counter-demonstrations and clashes. --HighKing (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would add that the EDL's own website states their own intentions towards MAC and further articles can also be found on The Telegraph. If Stellas4lunch wanted to include this material in his edit then I think we could declare the matter closed. Bobadillaman (talk) 19:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide the Telegraph references The EDLs site is not a reliable source. Please also explain why you think this is notable. If it can be verified and if notability can be established then we can discuss wording --Snowded TALK 19:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to be so blunt but your claim there is patently absurd; how can their own website not constitute a reliable source for their own opinions on MAC - it might not be a reliable source for any other content but for their professed beliefs it is the MOST reliable! Telegraph link contains similar information to BBC ones in regards to EDL's intent on holding a counter demonstration if one was held by MAC. In regards to notability it is perhaps the largest press coverage the EDL have received in recent months and is therefore not just notable but positively essential to this encylopedia. Bobadillaman (talk) 19:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You need to read up on WP:RS, we have to be very careful of any claim on the web site. Check out the debates on the lede where the EDL's statements are not accepted as we rely on third party reliable sources. Your telegraph source is a blog which talks about what might happen. Its not sufficient. The BBC report simply has a one liner saying that the EDL say would counter demonstrate, its speculation at best. We need a lot more than this. --Snowded TALK 19:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please also see The Mail, BBC (same one but has more than one sentence), International Business Times (even more detail about another incident), Channel 4, Asian Image, East London Advertiser, Evening Standard and finally, video evidence on YouTube - happy now? =D Bobadillaman (talk) 19:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So we have a series of reports about something that might happen, two references to a previous demonstration in which Lennon was charged which I think is already in the article and a video taken by an EDL supporter. If you have some reports on what happened (as opposed to what might) then there will be a case for including it in the table as another demonstration. Its not notable in the sense proposed earlier. --Snowded TALK 19:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The wealth of information that Bobadillaman (talk) has produced surely settles the question of inclusion in the article. A consensus has emerged here. User:Snowded should be consulted on the precise wording in advance, provided that the general principles agreed by consensus remain intact. Stellas4lunch (talk) 20:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please, you have two new editors, both created within a few days of each other and editing the same articles arguing for inclusion of material. So far there are two other editors who are asking for some more information. You really can't use speculative reports of things that might happen to justify inclusion and you don't have a consensus --Snowded TALK 20:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
HighKing implied that BBC articles were sufficient and since then far more information has been found. And I would please ask you not to cast aspersions on my own person, please see WP:NPA. Bobadillaman (talk) 20:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to read High Kings comments again. I see by the way that the pair of you are using the same dubious sources on a similar subject here we could do with some other editors taking a look at that article as well. --Snowded TALK 20:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't take this the wrong way but I suspect that we may be dealing with a WP:COI in this instance and I would advise Snowded to be aware of the statement that, 'Any editor who gives priority to outside interests may be subject to a conflict of interest.' Bobadillaman (talk) 20:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regrettably, I feel duty bound to agree with that statement given User:Snowded's repetitious edits today which have tended towards vandalism at times, and his repeated implications of bad faith on the part of me and others, wilful disregard for Wikipedia policy and other serious editing violations. Stellas4lunch (talk) 20:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

EDL not Far-Right just right

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

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:English_Defence_League&oldid=431280659"