Talk:English Defence League

Far right?

They have jewish, pundshabi and black members how can they be rigthwing extremists, the most rightwing extremist are antisemitic?--95.114.78.147 (talk) 12:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Already discussed. That is how they have been categorized in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 12:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

You mean revert warred and bullied through by the consensus among the numerous islamophiles around here? Business as usual on this crappy website, where almost no-one read the controversial articles anyway. (Even I didn't read the vast majority of it, because it wouldn't be worth my time.) EDL disagree with the "right-wing" label, so obviously it shouldn't be stated as a fact, if the "article" is to be taken seriously. You don't care about that though, because like everyone here, they only care about their agenda and they write sad, crappy articles, that are just useless. Anyway, enough ranting and time wasting and off to a better website! -- angrydanishguy

Right Wing and Racism are not always synonymous. Edit: your attempted spelling of Punjabi is astounding, please see correct spelling lol. Alexandre8 (talk) 13:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Left wing newspapers are not a reliable source. In my opinion, the best source for the EDL is on thier website. It quite clearly states what they belive they are about.

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.129.46 (talk) 15:58, 28 August 2011 (UTC) 

Do you think the Daily Telegraph (reference [4]) is a left-wing newspaper? Do you think any far-right organisation would describe itself as "far-right" (or a far-left organisation describe itself as "far-left")? -- Dr Greg  talk  16:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

For a start, the EDL is predominantly 'white'. Secondly, its Jewish Division is run by a woman named Roberta Moore - a Far-Right Kahanist and self-confessed Jewish Racial Supremacist. Thirdly, I've seen a lot of racism in the EDL by non-white members. That the EDL has non-white and non-christian (and maybe even a couple of Muslim) members does not have any sway over its political position, or racism or Islamophobia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.217.166.32 (talk) 10:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia's own definition of "far-right" is "a belief that superiority and inferiority is an innate reality between individuals and groups — and a complete rejection of the concept of social equality as a norm". Membership of a religious group cannot constitute "an innate reality". "Innate" means "existing from birth". No-one is born a muslim, and people can cease being muslims. Furthermore, EDL's stated opposition is not to muslims per se, nor even to islam, but to islamic extremism. The National Domestic Extremism Unit of the British Police force has twice said that the EDL is not a far-right organisation. . Clearly the political identity of EDL is open to dispute. Dematamoros (talk) 10:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The references provided say Detective Chief Superintendent Adrian Tudway wrote: "In terms of the position with EDL, the original stance stands, they are not extreme right wing as a group …”. (Grauniad), and “On the one hand, they are seen by many as the single biggest threat to community cohesion in the UK, but they are most certainly not extreme right-wing organisations.” (Morning Star). That says (in Tudway's opinion) the EDL are not an extreme right wing group. They do not say he said the EDL are not far right. Daicaregos (talk) 11:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

In what way is the Police National Domestic Extremism Unit only expressing a POV? How does that differ from journalistic sources (who may have no qualifications whatosever in which to asses these things, and may be relying on the circularity of "Wikipedia say EDL are far-right"? Also, you need to explain in what way "extreme right wing" differs for "far-right". As I have pointed out, Wikipedia's own definition of "far-right" would not apply to the project in which EDL are engaged. The 2nd Pillar of The Wikipedia 5 Pillars says that WP entries must be impartial. You are ensuring that this article remains biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dematamoros (talk • contribs) 14:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

"Flogging a dead horse" springs to mind here. There is quite clearly a distinct difference between "extreme right-wing" and "far right" and it behoves Dematamoros to find out how they differ - it is not the job of other editors to educate him in either political science or basic English vocabulary. (S)he suggests that journalist may have no qualifications whatsoever in which to assess these things, so let me break an otherwise personal rule. I have a degree in political science; I wrote a thesis on extreme and far right groups in Britain; I have taught politics and related subjects in one form or another for 40 years. So, I am probably qualified to say that the EDL is most definitely far right! Emeraude (talk) 17:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_right-wing Wikipedia's own entry on "extreme right wing" redirects to the entry on "far-right". Therefore, to WP they are equivalent terms. And your claims concering your own education is a logical fallacy, called "appeal to authority". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority. This article is biased, and violates Pillar 2 of the WP 5 Pillars. The bias has been pointed out to you. Dematamoros (talk) 10:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

"Appeal to authority" - quite right, and precisely what I said I would not normally do. However, it was you who questioned the qualifications of journalists - you can't have it both ways. Incidentally, any political scientist, yet alone member of the public with an ounce of common sense, will read nothing signifcant into Wikipedia redirecting extreme right wing to far-right; it has as much signifcance as redirecting dark blue to blue! There is a clear difference, but not enough to warrant separate definitions. Emeraude (talk) 10:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

We call them 'far right" because that is the description used by social scientists in peer-reviewed literature. TFD (talk) 12:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I wonder then what social "scientists" label themselves when they peer review each other. Rhetorical question. Obotlig (talk) 04:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Nazi EDL

The EDL are Nazi scum.

Surely it is time that we inserted, in a prominent position in the article, a sentence highlighting the obvious fact that the EDL are Nazis. For those who doubt this, I suggest you take a look at the official UAF website (which is, I would contend, an excellent and impartial source for all things related to fascism). The UAF website bears a photo which shows very clearly an EDL thug doing a Nazi salute. What more evidence do we need? Further more, I would like to suggest that we import the said photo and use it as the main picture at the top of the EDL article, as it illustrates perfectly who the EDL are. I am just trying to be helpful without any particular bias. Multiculturalist (talk) 14:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Is this some kind of a joke? How do you think Unite Against Fascism is an impartial source in this instance and how do you think a photo of one person performing an action is a suitable reliable source that can be used to support your assertion?--Pontificalibus (talk) 14:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

A photo is not a reliable source and to draw an implication from it original research. There is a body of material in Searchlight's latest edition that we may want to think about at some stage regarding funding linkages. --Snowded ^TALK 15:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

You've been here long enough to know what constitutes a decent source. Why are you wasting time? Alexandre8 (talk) 16:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Where is your comment on this sindinero? Alexandre8 (talk) 16:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

[1] Sindinero (talk) 16:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

:-) --Snowded ^TALK 17:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Gotta love the double standards ;). Learn to take take it in ones stride )))! Alexandre8 (talk) 18:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I see that in the EDL's latest unlawful attack, they vandalised a Luton mosque with a swastika symbol - yet more evidence that they're Nazis. Multiculturalist (talk) 09:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

So because one of their members (presumably, how many people does it take to spray paint a cross on a wall?) did this, they are all Nazis? That's a very thick wedge you're trying to shove in there. On that basis we can presumably henceforth label any organisation/religion by the actions of one of their members/adherents? Just checking because that seems to be what you are saying. danno 21:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I have to step in here Multi as you are seriously misguided. Do you know what a Nazi actually is? Do you know its history and are you aware that Britain lost many, many lives trying to fight off the Nazi's? English Defence League....clue is in the name. I am not a member of the EDL nor support them but do you know what the movement is about? Read the article - they oppose Islam. They do not support Hitler. End of. Just because Neo Nazis infiltrate the organisiation does not label them all as Nazis does it...you have to use NPOW here dude. This is Wiki not a sandbox.

I guess you are for multiculture, as are we all. Yet some are not and just because an individual chooses to oppose multiculture it does not make them a Nazi. A person who supports the ideals of Hitler is a Nazi in the same way you cannot be a Marxist if you do not follow Karl Marx. Otherwise, by your own admitted logic, Islam is a Nazi organisation! http://islamwatch2010.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/muslim-antisemitism.jpg http://lh4.ggpht.com/_qbT9lfmNQI0/Sjnw8W_B6TI/AAAAAAAACIs/xmEXmaiKn8Y/islam19.jpg http://www.anorak.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/nazi-islam.jpg http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_u-AKWDZaYso/SA4KKaCK23I/AAAAAAAACNE/gqdltWv6sfA/s400/God+Bless.jpg http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_mveHL3n_4ME/TM8wh2RFuAI/AAAAAAAAEGc/JCRK_niArfM/s1600/islam_holocaust.jpg http://www.womanhonorthyself.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/anti-semite-signlowed1.jpg

I think I have made my case clear. If one is to judge an entire group of people by the actions of the few, then applies to everyone not just select groups. There should be no double standards, none whatsoever.

Normally I would not write such things, but it really gets my goat that people who oppose Islam in any fashion are labelled Nazi's all the time. DarkMithras 26/08/2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.246.254 (talk) 11:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Britain lost many lives fighting the Nazis. But there were also British Nazis, both before and after the war. And Islam is not an organization. — Red XIV ^(talk) 17:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

How many "isolated incidents" of the EDL using Nazi symbolism in their actions does it take before it's not "isolated incidents" and instead is representative of the group? — Red XIV ^(talk) 17:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

When it can be shown that a majority of its members cary out such acts.Slatersteven (talk) 12:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Guys, I can't see any current proposal to change the article so can we have less soapboxing please? --Snowded ^TALK 12:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of labelling every far-right group as Nazi. But to attempt to claim that somehow the EDL is any better than any other Far-Right group simply because it has replaced a predominant anti-Semitism with a predominant Islamophobia is sickening. The EDL still has its share of anti-Semites by the way.....and homophobes, who march right alongside its few LGBT Division members. There's even a video of Neo-Nazi Wayne Baldwin embracing "EDL Abdul" (who the EDL refer to as "Paki Abdul). In fact, the EDL tolerated the presence of the Racial Volunteer Force - even giving a few of them official roles at demos. And it was the RVF who left in the end over the Richard Price incident - they were not kicked out. Between the EDL burning the Swastika and the RVF members burning the EDL flag 15 months passed. To think of the EDL as 'not as far-right as other far-right' groups is misleading. They have the same MO. They have simply replaced Jews with Muslims. And quite frankly, anti-Semitism and Islamophobia are both as bad as each other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.217.166.32 (talk) 10:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Guys, please, don't feed the trolls. – Richard BB 02:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

A screenshot archive of Nazi and Anti Semetic sympathies within EDL: http://www.twitpic.com/e/1fnr — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.19.30 (talk) 21:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

BNP

This article mentions BNP three times. I tink this is excessive and disproportionate per WP:UNDUE, especially since no explicit link has been established. Do you agree? Signing contribution from User talk:PassaMethod 13:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

It actually mentions it four times. However two of them are quotes, so I am not sure it is undue.Slatersteven (talk) 14:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't see how WP:UNDUE has any relevance - it's to do with balancing views and opinions in an article. Emeraude (talk) 14:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I think we should delete at least one BNP related sentence. Pass a Method talk 16:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Interesting use of the word "we". What you mean is that you think you should. There is no earthly reason why the article Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable.

By clicking the "Save Page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.

Edit summary (Briefly describe the changes you have made)

  Cancel | Editing help (opens in new window) 

If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here. All text that you did not write yourself, except brief excerpts, must be available under terms consistent with Wikipedia's Terms of Use before you submit it.

InsertWiki markupSymbolsLatinGreekCyrillicHebrewArabicIPA (English)IPAMath and logic – — ‘’ “” ° ″ ′ ≈ ≠ ≤ ≥ ± − × ÷ √ ← → · § Sign your posts on talk pages: 90.217.166.32 (talk) 10:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC) Cite your sources:

Please note:

When you click Save, your changes will immediately become visible to everyone. If you wish to run a test, please edit the Sandbox instead. Please post only encyclopedic information that can be verified by external sources. Please maintain a neutral, unbiased point of view. Please do not copy and paste from copyrighted websites – only public domain resources can be copied without permission. This page is a member of 1 hidden category:

Category:Automatically assessed Politics of the United Kingdom articles Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:English_Defence_League" should have fewer mentions of the BNP (and all in relation to the topic anyway). Come to that, there is no reason why it should not have more. Emeraude (talk) 17:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

BNP members frequently go on EDL demos. Further more, wasn't one of the EDL leaders himself active in the BNP? If there really is no link between the BNP and the EDL then it's strange that both groups seem to have the same apologists on their respective discussion pages. Multiculturalist (talk) 09:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Founders were both BNO, funder previous BNP involvement all of which can be supported by citations. If anything we need more of the background here not less --Snowded ^TALK 19:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Stephen Lennon and Kevin Carrol were both active in the BNP before they formed the EDL. Carroll is alleged to have even wanted to become an election candidate, but was talked out of it by his wife/girlfriend. Same for various other members. One regional Organisor named Alan Spence was even a BNP election candidate. The leader of the Chelmsey Wood Division is a former soldier that was exposed by the press for having Neo-Nazi sympathises The EDL are known to share a support base with the BNP, and this has been confirmed by both BNP and EDL supporters alike. Support of the BNP and support of the EDL are not mutually exclusive. More still - the EDL is simply former BNP activists taking the BNP's policies towars Muslims, isolating them from the other policies and using them as the backbone for a new Far-Right nationalist movement. Remember, dozens of splinter groups have formed from the BNP in recent months - but all went down the Party Politics line and became insignificant. the EDL took a different approadh - street marches - and for that reason they survived. The EDL is a continuation of BNP policies; and the EDL is the most prominant of many BNP-splinter groups.

EDL threatens ALL Muslims (evidence)

The claim that the EDL and are only against Muslims extremists has to be seriously questioned. In the name of honesty and evidence. Here is quote from Tommy Robinson, the EDL leader from his Tower Hamlet speech:

“…every single Muslim watching this video on YouTube, on 7/7 you got away with killing and maiming British citizens…the Islamic community will feel the full force of the EDL if we see any of our citizens killed, maimed or hurt on British soil ever again.” Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8j7IX_5a_9M S

This is not Anti-Islamization, this is 100% Islamophobia in every sense of the word. If you swapped Muslim for Black he'd be called an racist for what he said. If you swapped it with gay he'd be called homophobic. Erzan (talk) 08:45, 11 September 2011 (GMT)

• • Wikipedia is a place for articles written from a Neutral Point of View. Our hatred of despicable groups can not be allowed to influence the editing of any articles herein. The 7/7 attacks were, as far as I know, carried out by a group with a specific agenda - and I suspect that the sentiments against those terrorists (I suspect many would have, indeed, called them "extremists") would be held by a great many people you are not racists. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:21, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

If Wikipedia is a place for articles to be written from "a neutral point of view" then why do you keep pushing your POV? Multiculturalist (talk) 09:24, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• • • I know what Wikipedia it is suppose to be a place for, but it hardly lives up to it. Hence my desire to join and help edit it. I have not used my emotions to argue my point, and you have no idea of my politics. So save me the lecture. It does not matter if a sentiment is held by a great many of people. Millions of people could share the same sentiment, but that does not stop it from being a bigotry sentiment. If a White man stood up in the streets and argued that every black person will fill the full force of his organisation, regardless of their innocence. That is a direct threat and also intimidation. The said person has a clear desire to mistreat people on the basis of their characteristics, in my example that is being Black, and in this case being a Muslim. The original point still stands, this was a speech that targeted not guilty Muslims of terror, but every single one. Which is a direct contradiction on the claims of the EDL only disliking extremists. Cheers. Erzan (talk) 17:18, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Completely out of context. Why do you people feel the need to do this in order to make a point?

In the same speech he clearly was talking about militant Islam and on (2:20). Over and over again he clearly stated islamist which is a general term for militant Islam. The whole speech he kept referring to extremist in one way or another.
Yes, I will give you this much to be more consistent with the rest of the speech he could have said, "every single mulsim involved..."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWBRmuqsl5Q

--OxAO (talk) 16:34, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

"you people"..? Sindinero (talk) 19:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

• What exactly do you mean by you people? The extended version of the original video depicts Tommy, the leader of the EDL using the following words repeatedly: Militant Islam, Islam, Islamic community and Muslim. Attacking Islam is attacking Muslims, as Muslims are simply people who follow Islam. If you don't follow Islam then you are not a Muslim. It is that straightforward. Just as if you don't follow Christianity you are not a Christian. Now If Tommy was only addressing Militant Islamic people, then explain why he said every single Muslim and threatened to unleash the full force of the EDL onto the Islamic community. Why is he threatening the entire Islamic community? the Islamic community are Muslims, remember. So when one threatens the Islamic community, you are threatening every single Muslim. Erzan (talk) 12:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

*you people* was used referring to a number of people on this site that likes to take things out of context in order to make a point. It seems to be a common occurrence on this site and it shouldn't be allowed. You are missing an important part of your argument. What about those that call themselves Christians or Muslims that don't practice their religions? Under the Islamic belief one must mimic the prophet Mohammad life completely Islam calls that Iqamat-ud-Deen or a complete system of life. Which means Islam requires the adherence to the Iqamat-ud-Deen but most Muslims can not or will not for the simple fact we are all human, thus Islam and Muslims are not the same thing.

--OxAO (talk) 09:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

This material suggest by Erzan is a good primary source. Since it clearly belies information currently included in the article, it would be right to include it. --FormerIP (talk) 00:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Let's try to all remain calm about this, guys. I can see this descending into an edit war on the article and a flame war on the talk page. Let's just try to stick to WP:COOL. Richard BB 01:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the evidence has correctly mounted up to suggest that the EDL is vehemently Anti-Muslim, rather than just anti Islamism (the revivalist political aspect of Islam) it's evident in radio interviews and speeches held by key people of the EDL. I believe a section must be incorporated to include islamophobia and anti muslim rhetoric within the EDL and projected outwards.

--elcor101 (talk) 11:52, 03 November 2011 (UTC)

Exposing Racism and Intolerance Online

Exposing Racism and Intolerance Online is a facebook-based group of volunteers that for the last two years has actively and consistently monitored and scrutinized the EDL's online activities. Expose is widely known within the EDL, and it is only fair they are given a mention. Expose works simply by monitoring the EDL's online activity and keeping a record of 'problematic postings' which can range from Islamophobia and racism to advocation of murder and arson. While Expose is rarely named in public, some of its work was used by Jeremy Paxman on Newsnight and indirectly by a number of other journalists. Expose is also in regular contact with British police, as much of what Expose finds has aided in preventative security measures (threats of arson attacks on Mosques, for example) Expose contributors have a unique understanding of the EDL's internal structure, and what it finds is objective and credible - much of what Expose finds comes from the online activity of senior EDL members including Kevin Carroll, Jeff Marsh, Roberta Moore, Pat Whitehouse, Guramit Singh, Alan Lake and Hel Gower - and all of these people know of Expose.

Considering that the EDL is a predominantly online-based group (with street protest being only one of its methods) I think its only fair that Expose gets a mention in the EDL article. Numerous journalists have claimed that people need to look beyond the official EDL press releases and statements, and look in towards the EDL as a group to see what happens outside of the public eye - Expose has been doing this since the EDL's formation.

Here's the blog: http://exposingon.tumblr.com/archive Here's a associated twitter account: http://twitpic.com/events/everythingedl Here's an intro on the Urban Dictionary site: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Exposing%20Racism%20and%20Intolerance%20Online Here is an article in which Expose was mentioned: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/oslo-killer-anders-behring-breivik-the-son-of-a-diplomat-inspired-by-the-unabomber/story-e6frg6so-1226101265687 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.217.166.32 (talk) 04:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Matthew Taylor: "I think we have to look beyond what the website says in its formal statements and listen to what its supporters say and do." http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/oslo-killer-anders-behring-breivik-the-son-of-a-diplomat-inspired-by-the-unabomber/story-e6frg6so-1226101265687

Peter Guest: "The failure to address the founding myths of anti-Islam and other far-right groups and confront them on their increasingly overt racism and intolerance has encouraged them to the point where they are both a frightening political force and a credible security threat.....The online presence of supposed Islamic extremists is closely monitored, and more attention may now be placed on far-right groups' activities on the internet." http://www.cnbc.com/id/43881297/page/2/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.217.166.32 (talk) 04:59, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

What sort of mention would you like to see? I am not entirely familiar with the "reliable source" standards of wikipeda or how including your blog as a note or reference might come into play. If there is significant enough documentation of the interactions between the groups why not include it here... Obotlig (talk) 05:29, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Not sure this is really notable enough for inclusion, when we have moe then oone source maybe.Slatersteven (talk) 10:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd be happy to see a brief mention - a link perhaps. As said, the EDL is predominantly an internet-based movement. Exposing Racism and Intolerance has been around since the EDL's beginning and has found literally tens of thousands of posts covering a variety of issues from racism, Islamophobia and anti-Semitism to threats of violence against the EDL's political opponents, Muslims, Mosques, etc. And as said - Expose is widely known (and thus hated) throughout the EDL. Unfortuently, Expose has no way to get the info out there by itself other than through twitter, the blog, etc. Surely, for a group as successful as Expose it would be unjustified to sidestep them? I invite anyone to take a look at the blog; the associated twitter account; even just to type in "Expose EDL" into Twitter and see the posts. Expose has the capacity, with people's help, to bring the EDL down - and the EDL knows it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.217.166.32 (talk) 10:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Just to update: Expose was referenced in the recent study of the EDL by the university of Northampton. It was also Expose contributors who found the EDL Support Group photo of Joey Barton (it was taken by Searchlight from the twitter account - Barton has refuted the EDLs claim's). Our work makes the press, even if the group doesn't get the recognition it deserves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.217.166.62 (talk) 04:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

EDL and weapons (new development)

This may deserve a mention.

Many photos have appeared of EDL activists posing with offensive, and often illegal weaponry. Among these have been Regional Organisers, founding member and EDL Youth Leader Joel Titus, and other confirmed EDL activists. The photos are beyond doubt valid.

Some can be seen here:

http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/blog/article/1341/the-guns-of-the-edl

Yet, this week the EDL released a statement on its website claiming that the photos were faked. To 'prove' this, the EDL posted disucssions on the message board 4chan which showed users (possibly even EDL members) in the process of faking pictures with guns. None of the photos used by the EDL are the one's that have appeared in the media. And as said; all the photos of EDL members with weapons are proven to be genuine as the identities have been established and tied to the EDL. Also, the photos on the EDL article are dated after the above photos were published.

http://englishdefenceleague.org/faked-shocking-photos-of-armed-edl-members-revealed-to-be-fabrications/

I believe this deserves a mention for two main reasons: Firstly, it shows beyond doubt that the EDL website is not a reliable source of information - that the EDL are actively engaged in disinformation not only about Muslims but about themselves. Secondly, that even after events in Norway the EDL has failed to take any action against its members with malicious and violent intent - prefering instead to deny any problem and use existing problems to attack 'Liberals'.

For an explanation, please see this link:

http://www.edlnews.co.uk/edl-news/edls-gun-denial-story-fail

Again, I'm not certain on the criteria on wiki. But in the interests of objectivity, I think its fair to give this a mention. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.217.166.32 (talk) 08:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that the EDL leadership is now actively attempting to conceal potentially illegal activity involving its activists and the possession of weaponry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.217.166.32 (talk) 10:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Um -- please read the talk page guidelines - article talk pages are for discussions as to what should be in the article, and not for diatribes against despicable groups. In addition, to the extent that living peo0le are mentioned, any edits regarding them must conform to the policy at WP:BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm saying that it should go in the article - EDL leadership denying the validity of genuine photos is a major thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.217.166.32 (talk) 21:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Then lets have some RS reporting it.Slatersteven (talk) 22:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree these are not reliable sources and the photographs if genuine appear to depict airguns, hunting rifles, replicas and the like and it is not for us to determine if the weapons or phtotos are real, illegal or "offensive" - let te press and Britsh police sort it out and come back with reliable verifiable information. Obotlig (talk) 04:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I find it interestingm that neither rifel appear to have a magazine or feed action.Slatersteven (talk) 11:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Whether the weapons are real or not isn't the point - the point is that they are verified EDL activists holding weapons (replicas or real) and the EDL has released a statement claiming that the photos are photoshopped and do not show EDL activists. EDL doing one thing, EDL saying something completely different. Completely discredits the EDL's .org site. Time and time again the EDL have been challanged for what their members say on facebook and other sites - and the response is always the same "its not our .org site. Go there for real news and opinions." And this time, it is the .org site and the EDL have been caught out openly lying.

And with all due respect to the person above, its impossible with some of the photos to say whether or not the guns are fake or real. Some are probably replicas, others rimfire or pellet guns. But again, its not the point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.217.166.32 (talk) 22:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

This is your analysis which is prohibited as original research. As you point out the reliability of the sources you mention does not meet the standard of a reliable source for this article. Until some legitimate news source reports on it I don't see what you'd want included here. A + B may = C to us but until a valid source reports it it's not fit for inclusion - especially if it might be potentially libellous. Obotlig (talk) 01:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

No reputabel news organisaton has picked this up. All we have is a blog (not RS0 and the EDL) not RS).Slatersteven (talk) 10:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The Daily Mail isn't the best kind of source, but it's a formally reliable source, and it has reported about the weapons (not the denial) [2]. This was also taken up by an opinion piece in the blog of ABC's "The Drum" programme. [3] And it was previously reported by Press TV. [4] Altogether that seems to make the information that EDL members like to pose with guns noteworthy. Unsurprising though it is for those familiar with the group, it's an important detail that can help readers to develop an accurate impression from this article. Hans Adler 12:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

OK with have some RS for this now. So it could be included, but wording needs to be carefull.Slatersteven (talk) 12:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

At least you can say the EDL has denied they are their members other wise your pushing thin ice as far as defamation. I see it is very carefully worded but it is still poor form. NRA doesn't deny they show weapons it wouldn't be libel to say so. But none of these pictures have any faces so there is no way to verify or deny the allegations even if other news sources have used them.

http://englishdefenceleague.org/faked-shocking-photos-of-armed-edl-members-revealed-to-be-fabrications/

--OxAO (talk) 03:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Screenshot archive of EDL and firearms, knives, etc. http://www.twitpic.com/e/1fmj — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.19.30 (talk) 21:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Use of Searchlight

The magazine searchlight is not a neutral magazine as it is the magazine of the opposite side and therefore should not be used as much in this article. C. 22468 (talk) 11:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

This has been discused at length at RSN, its been considrd RS. If you feel this is not the case re-raise it.Slatersteven (talk) 12:41, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

By which Slatersteven means raise it in RSN, not here. Emeraude (talk) 17:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Image gallery

I suggest that the "Image gallery" section should be deleted. The two pictures should either be placed somewhere in the article where they are actually relevant and complement the text, or else just deleted, if they cannot be relocated. A separate image gallery containing pictures that don't seem to fit elsewhere in the article is pointless and unencyclopedic. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 02:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The @everythingedl screenshot archive, which catalogues the streams output from October 2010 - Present: http://www.twitpic.com/events/everythingedl — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.19.30 (talk) 21:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Police National Domestic Extremism Unit

Last time it was discussed at Talk:English Defence League/Archive 4#Morning Star there was no consensus for inclusion, and as pointed out by Daicaregos above they don't say the EDL aren't far right. Now that the comments have made their way into the Guardian there may be a case for inclusion, but since he's only reiterating his previous point I don't see how anything has changed. I suggest those who want to include this material gain consensus for inclusion here. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

And the mormninig star is not the only source. What does nock Knowles say http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/blog/archive/11/2010How about hope not hate itslef http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/news/article/1944/muslims-criticise-scotland-yard-for-telling-t are reapoting the gaurduian story. Question asked in the Lo0don assembly http://mqt.london.gov.uk/mqt/public/question.do?id=37589.Slatersteven (talk) 11:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I refer you to the last sentence of my post. I decline to try and decipher your ramblings. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Lay of the PA's, OK. And the morning star is not the only source. What does Nick Knowles say http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/blog/archive/11/2010How about hope not hate itself http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/news/article/1944/muslims-criticise-scotland-yard-for-telling-t are reporting the guardian story. Question asked in the Lodon assembly http://mqt.london.gov.uk/mqt/public/question.do?id=37589. This is reliabley sourced, from multiple RS. Slatersteven (talk) 11:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Slatersteven, i dont think that was a PA. I agree that it is hard to decipher what you are saying in your previous post. I recommend spellcheck next time. Pass a Method talk 01:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

If they user had said sorry cant read what you have said I would agree, the user described it as ramblings, implying no coherency to the argument (rather then saying it was badly spelt). Does it occur to you (or him) that I may not realise my spelling is not always that good? Perhaps a bit more understanding and less judementalism is needed here.Slatersteven (talk) 12:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Membership / support

Just skimming that article and am wondering about the membership section. the EDL has no formal membership procedure and therefore could be said to have no "membership" as such. It certainly has supporters, albeit in numbers that are hard to fathom. As the article says it has several hundred who can be mobilised (estimates differ) and then if one takes facebook, there are thousands of supporters, but again it's hard to see these converting to actual active participants. I'd suggest that the section be restructured to make it clear that there is no formal membership and that those who claim so to be are actually supporters. What do we think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by S ellinson (talk • contribs) 19:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know that much about the EDL but from this page it looks like they have a few hundred signed up members.

http://englishdefenceleague.org/tag/divisions/

It took me a few seconds and lot more time to write this to see how many members are signed on. Why didn't you look before you post?

--OxAO (talk) 03:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Key people

Someone just added a coment describing Guramit Singh and Kevin Carroll as "key people" in the EDL infobox. These two men have made a couple of speeches for the EDL, but besides that are insignificant figures. Should everyone who made an EDL speech be added as a key figure of the EDL? Pass a Method talk 17:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

What does "key people" mean in this sort of article? Is there guideline or precedent? Obotlig (talk) 04:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

It is determined by what reliable sources say. For example the fact that Singh is a key figure is supported by a reliable source that says, "One of its [EDL} leaders is Guramit Singh...."[5] TFD (talk) 05:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

It might be best to support this with more then one source.Slatersteven (talk) 11:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

is N Copsey a notable expert

http://www.tees.ac.uk/sections/research/on_research_story.cfm?staffid=5 http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=nolge%20cosey&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a&source=hp&channel=np#pq=nolge+cosey&hl=en&sugexp=kjrmc&cp=10&gs_id=16&xhr=t&q=nigel+copsey&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=4ST&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&channel=np&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbm=bks&source=og&sa=N&tab=wp&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=dfbe623b05a9ce51&biw=1421&bih=711 http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?pq=nolge+cosey&hl=en&sugexp=kjrmc&cp=10&gs_id=16&xhr=t&q=nigel+copsey&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=4ST&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&channel=np&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&um=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&biw=1421&bih=711&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=ps So yes he is.Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Opposing what "some" believe

... is a far-right street protest movement which opposes what "some believe" to be a spread of Islamism, Sharia law and Islamic extremism in England.

What does "some believe" even signify? That only some people believe that the EDL is against those things? Or some people believe that the spread of those exist? Either way, I think we have to go with what the EDL stands for in its mission statement.

Half the references provided are dead, by the way.

Proposed : What their manifesto says. If there are sources which dispute this claim, a more constructive and objective way of putting it would be : "movement which opposes the spread of Islamism, Sharia law and Islamic extremism in England" (, although this claim is disputed by...)

Ecthelion 8 (talk) 19:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the wording is there because the idea that there is a "spread of Islamism, Sharia law and Islamic extremism in England", or what exactly this means, is contentious. --FormerIP (talk) 21:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I think this should be what the EDL says.

Eg. "the IPCC opposes what some believe to be climate change.." seems silly, since this seems to cast doubt as to what the organization stands for. There are countless sources btw that validate that Islamism and Sharia ARE spreading in England. Seeking for complete media consensus for an issue will lead to everything being "what some believe". Review of the proposed change?

EDIT: This will also conform to EDL where :

"English Defence League, a British far-right single issue organisation, opposed to the spread of Islamism, Sharia law and Islamic extremism in England"

Ecthelion 8 (talk) 06:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

What sources say that Islamism and Sharia Law are spreading. --Snowded ^TALK 11:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd call the establishment of Sharia-controlled zones the spread of Islamism and Sharia law. This (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2019547/Anjem-Choudary-Islamic-extremists-set-Sharia-law-zones-UK-cities.html), for starters. I take it you haven't been following this issue too closely?

So if it's ok, I propose changing the lede to :

""movement which opposes the spread of Islamism, Sharia law and Islamic extremism in England"

if you have sources which doubt either the EDL's mission, or the spread of Islamism/Sharia law, then :

"although this claim is disputed by (insert here)."

Ecthelion 8 (talk) 16:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, its absolute nonsense. For who doesn't remember all the Anjem Choudarys, Al-Muhajirouns, oppressive Islamic schools, attempts of establishing "Sharia-controlled zones" and terrorist attacks of the, say, 1960s. —Filippusson (t.) 18:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not too good at getting sarcasm over the internet, but that's just me.... If you could clarify your stand for the lesser mortals.

what "some believe" sounds like a joke. Who is this "some" anyway? How is it not "most" or "few" or "infinitesimally small number of"? Weasel words?

Ecthelion 8 (talk) 19:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

You'll have to do better than a Daily Mail piece reporting one extremist. Try and find a body of material in academic articles or the quality press and you might be able to make the case. We are not here to validate the view of EDL or its supporters, but to report on reliable sources. --Snowded ^TALK 19:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2019547/Anjem-Choudary-Islamic-extremists-set-Sharia-law-zones-UK-cities.html

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-07-30/uk/29833064_1_sharia-law-poster-campaign-zones

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/features/3718799/London-suburb-put-under-Sharia-law.html

Are you actually disputing that Sharia law is spreading in England? Please stop making straw man arguments. Just how many sources do you need till "some" becomes "more than a few" or "quite a moderate number of" people believe to be the spread of ...?

This is sounding idiotic. I noticed your edit, where you reverted the anti-Muslim claim. EDL always claims that they are NOT anti-Muslim but against the radical elements. Or maybe that should be "some believe them to be anti-Muslim" and so on?

Ecthelion 8 (talk) 19:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

My comment was sarcastic in nature, yes. Since Islamism didn't even exist (by reasonable measure) in the UK some decades ago, it is inherently a fact that Islamism has increased, since there exist Islamism today. How else could you possibly explain that fact? —Filippusson (t.) 19:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing that up and noted. This article does not have a NPOV. The EDL is portrayed in a pretty (consistently) negative light. It implies that the EDL was involved with Anders Breivik, for starters. Reverts are being made with hardly an explanation.

Ecthelion 8 (talk) 19:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Adding the Sun as a source! Please, please realise that the purpose of this page is not here to propagate the views of the EDL but to summarise RELIABLE sources. --Snowded ^TALK 20:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2010/jul/05/sharia-law-religious-courts

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2957428/Sharia-law-courts-operating-in-Britain.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196165/Britain-85-sharia-courts-The-astonishing-spread-Islamic-justice-closed-doors.html

Again, how many sources do you need before you decide it isn't "some" but "a tad less than many"? Please realize that the purpose of this page is not to cast doubt in a biased manner either. I can't believe a line like this is being likened to a UFO sighting. Funny how them being an "anti-immigration" group, which they have denied, requires a single source.

Ecthelion 8 (talk) 20:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

An opinion column and a report that there are 85 courts then the Mail. Sorry it does not support the EDL claim and none of those a the sort of sources we would need - i.e. third party commentary --Snowded ^TALK 20:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The EDL sees itself as opposing the spread of Islamism. Unless you can find a source that says that Islamism has not increased (spread), there is no grounds to outright dismiss it as just being something "some believe". (And even then, it should be put in another sentence, as a conflicting view.) —Filippusson (t.) 20:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

THat is called proving a negative and there is also the clear question of context. The EDL's statements about the spread of Islam are very different from (to take an example) the Archbishop of Canterbury. The EDL position is to make claims about the spread of Islamism etc. If those claims are supported by reliable sources then we can included them, if not then we are not here to be a propaganda vehicle for the EDL. We have to be very careful on these issues not to endorse an extremist position. --Snowded ^TALK 21:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

First, I hope you agree that Wikipedia shouldn't endorse any position. Whether a position is considered extremist by some, or not, every issue is to be treated with NPOV. Nevertheless, I agree with the issue you point to about the EDL's possibly deviating considerations about what the "spread of Islamism" is. Therefore, I would suggest changing "what some believe to be" in the lead with "what it considers to be". Both the "some" and "believe" parts are anyway vague and pov. —Filippusson (t.) 22:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Again, Mr. Snowded, how many sources do you need once you decide that "some" becomes "more than some"? How did you agree with "some" in the first place? As Filippusson noted, we are not here to endorse any position, so whether or not they are extreme is not a factor in this discussion, or even Wikipedia's business.

Again, you are making a straw man argument. You have not responded to the fact the "some" itself is a weasel word. You have not clarified their "anti-immigration" stance either, since I can quote the same arguments you are quoting. Maybe it should "some believe that they are anti-immigration" (changes made by PassaMethod as well). If the claim is disputed, then those sources can be added as well, as in the proposed change.

I would think that the point of this article is to describe them fairly. If that's not the case, please don't waste the time of others.

Ecthelion 8 (talk) 05:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Filippusson, Wikipedia is not required to be be neutral on the EDL or any other issue, but to reflect reliable sources. I am happy with "what it considers to be" as the issue here is to qualify an EDL claim where that claim is not supported by reliable sources.

Ecthelion 8, you need to read up on what a straw man argument is, the wikipedia page is not a bad place to start. I also suggest that you stop wasting the time of others by using unreliable sources such as the Sun. You also need to be slightly more temperate in your remarks and edit summaries if you don't want to seen as a protagonist for EDL apologia. --Snowded ^TALK 08:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

When since the start I was opposed to the use of the word "some believe", you twisted it into saying Wikipedia should not endorse an extreme position. And there I was thinking that was a straw man. My bad.

Again, how many sources do you need till there's a consensus that Sharia law, Islamism et al IS spreading in England? Just curious. In fact, do you have any (stringently reliable) source to claim that it isn't?

The sources I provided were the first few after a simple Google search. If you notice, the Sun wasn't the only one I posted. Anyhow, I'm unable to find out why the Sun is not a reliable source. There are obviously several sources, but you ignored all of them because I included the Sun.

If you applied your stringent views on sources to yourself, I would definitely want anti-immigration to be as "the EDL are as some believe anti-immigration". Move on.

Ecthelion 8 (talk) 09:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Funny, for mr Snowded no sources are good enough to prove that Sharia law and islamization are spreading in the UK whilst any source would do for supposed 'anti-Muslim' orientation of the EDL.Estlandia (dialogue) 09:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I commented on all your sources (except the Times of India which is a one paragraph take from a news wire not a considered piece) - please read what other editors say. I suggest you also read up on reliable sources and generally on how to edit here. You might also want to read up on proper behaviour. If you can't do that then you will get no where. --Snowded ^TALK 10:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Reverted "some" back to "it", which was the consensus wording (changed without discussion by Mostleydead on 7th October), and added multiple sources that frame the EDL's opposition in terms of the EDL's own beliefs or perceptions. These were brought up at previous discussions about this, but never added to the article for some reason. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:21, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm unable to find out why the Sun is not a reliable source or discussions regarding the same.

There are plentiful sources to indicate that Sharia law, Islamic extremism et al IS spreading in England.

So, since the EDL is opposing those things, which are by no means imaginary or a minority view considering the media coverage, I proposed :

"movement which opposes the spread of Islamism, Sharia law and Islamic extremism in England"

"what it considers" implies a fringe view. The EDL is not the only source which claims their spread.

I see no reason to believe Sharia law et al is NOT spreading in England since I see no sources saying so.

Ecthelion 8 (talk) 12:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

How about "opposes what is percived as the spread of Islamism"?Slatersteven (talk) 13:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Your suggestion violates synthesis, it would be taking one source saying that the EDL believe Islamism is spreading and combining it with another that says Islamism is in fact spreading. And saying "perceived" violates WP:WEASEL. TFD (talk) 16:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

So is there any actual source that tells us Sharia law et al is NOT spreading in England?

"opposes the spread of Islamism..."

Any actual arguments against this change?

Ecthelion 8 (talk) 06:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Again that is OR. Sharia law btw is not "Islamism", it is Islam. TFD (talk) 06:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2011/July/Muslim-Extremists-Seek-Sharia-Law-in-UK-Towns/

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,330193,00.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7488790.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7238890.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7233040.stm

My point was "what it perceives to be the spread" is implying that this is solely held by the EDL, whereas there are several sources to support the view. My understanding of Islamism was the political aspect, and so spread of Sharia law and rejection of Western laws would be Islamism. Not too clear about this though. Is EDL opposing Islamism? Or Islam?

Ecthelion 8 (talk) 06:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

None of those stories support the EDL position and you are attempting a synthesis anyway. --Snowded ^TALK 10:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

None of these stories indicate Sharia law is spreading in England?

Ecthelion 8 (talk) 11:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Most of them pre-date the EDL. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:52, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The first source says, "Extremist Muslims in the United Kingdom are calling for the establishment of Islamic states complete with Sharia law.... Some government officials in the towns also agree that the... proposal doesn't represent the wishes of most of the Muslim population there." It does not support the assertion that the "spread of Islamism" is a mainstream belief. TFD (talk) 16:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Hpw about "it claims to oppose the spread of islamism and sharia law"?Slatersteven (talk) 14:12, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The fact that not every one on this page necessarily agrees that there is a "spread of Islamism" proves that it is a value judgement, therefore the word "some" is entirely appropriate. If the EDL's proponents wish to argue about what is the consensus or mainstream belief on this, then they would be advised to understand that mainstream belief is that the EDL are a Nazi organisation: and the internet sources for that assertion are plentiful (just see how many photos of EDL members doing the sieg heil salute you can find in a brief surf of the net). Multiculturalist (talk) 21:42, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

EDL stages roof-top protest at Fifa headquarters over poppy ban

Two members of the EDL climbed on to the roof of Fifa's headquarters in Zurich with a banner protesting against the ban. The two protesters displayed a banner with two poppies which read: "English Defence League. How dare Fifa disrespect our war dead and wounded. Support our troops."

This protest is being well reported and shows that the organization protest in multiple ways apart from marching, possible addition? Off2riorob (talk) 22:40, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Add it to the table maybe? --Snowded ^TALK 10:22, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Table of demonstrations

We have talked about this before but its getting excessive. Options are to summarise it, or create a separate article. Thoughts? --Snowded ^TALK 10:20, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing that can't be summarised in a few paragraphs. I don't see the need for a separate article, since it will just be a list of stats that usually vary little except for number - EDL demo, UAF and others counter-protest, arrests on one or both sides yadda yadda yadda. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:23, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

suggest to summarize. the table is indeed excessive.-- mustihussain  12:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I dont think the table is excessive. There are larger tables on wikipedia. It is fine as it is. Pass a Method talk 12:11, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Definitely summarise. The table was okay when there were five or six items in it, but it now represents an unnecessary level of detail for the general reader. No strong feelings about creating a separate article but, since we have the sources, why not? --FormerIP (talk) 14:06, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

A summery might wirk as this is prety much trivia, maybe the major demos only.Slatersteven (talk) 14:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

a summary should rather include the (violent) nature of these demonstrations. the demonstrations in support of geert wilders, and the ones attended by "defence leagues" from other countries and anders behring breivik should be mentioned.-- mustihussain  14:28, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Why os the Gert Wilders demo notable? amd we do have a sction on violence already15:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I have just created EDL demonstrations Pass a Method talk 15:16, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

lol, great! suggest you summarize as well.-- mustihussain  15:18, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I think a summary would be enough, but will not gain consensus so lets accept the table. I have hazarded a one line summary --Snowded ^TALK 18:38, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

why should the table be retained when another article concerning these demonstrations exists? be bold, and remove the table. take it from there.-- mustihussain  18:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

btw, you messed up the references with the removal.-- mustihussain  18:57, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

not seeing much of a consensus for a table. I don't think its necessary. What policy is it based on? Leaky Caldron 19:06, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Redirect SDL

Do you agree that Scottish Defence League should be redirected? Pass a Method talk 16:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

YesSlatersteven (talk) 16:50, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed --Snowded ^TALK 18:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Probably - see my comments there if I ever find may way back to the RFC. Rich Farmbrough, 19:44, 12 November 2011 (UTC).

Same rubbish, no redirect. Alexandre8 (talk) 20:16, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Members

Having read that EDL does not have members, much of the article uses the term. This really needs to be corrected one way or another. A user referred to the memberships of the on-line groups, this would require more research to see if it constitutes membership of EDL any more than having a log-on here constitutes membership of anything. Rich Farmbrough, 19:44, 12 November 2011 (UTC).

There is a Guardian article somewhere which basically points out that a lot of the online members are journalists, anti-EDL activists etc. So I think you are right, membership is inappropriate. They have activists and passive followers as far as I can see. Given that the article references activities, maybe activists is the better word? --Snowded ^TALK 19:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Supporters?Slatersteven (talk) 19:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)::

I would have thought either term, depending on the context. This kind of article is very hard to edit well, page regulars have my respect. It would be good also to have more than just one BBC article which says

This in turn sparked a counter-demonstration by a group called the United Peoples of Luton.

Racial tensions

This group became the English Defence League (EDL),...

to source the transition between one group and the other. It looks like there is a lot of coverage of United Peoples of Luton and the transient (I assume) group might be worthy of a section or article of its own. Rich Farmbrough, 20:03, 12 November 2011 (UTC).

Fixing citations

Several changes were recently made to clean up the citations in this article. I agree that the citations need a lot of work, and that the article as it is now suffers from citation clutter, but I don't think we should actually delete any references unless they're completely extraneous, and this is for two reasons. First, a lot of discussion and negotiation has gone into working out some very contentious terminology here, and eroding the base of textual, RS support for these words could leave the article even more open to endless repeats of the same terminological battles that already fill the archives. Second, and more immediately, the whole-sale way that groups of citations were removed led to several citations (like the Garland and Treadwell article, which is one of the academic sources referenced) disappearing entirely due to misformatting.

I think the citation style should be standardized (so that we're either always using <ref> or <refname =>, and not a mix of both. And second, cite clutter should be cleaned up by bundling citations, not deleting sources unless they're totally extraneous or misplaced in a given instance. I used to know how to bundle citations, but I've since forgotten, and it looks like the WP page on this has been changed. I'll look into it. Sindinero (talk) 23:28, 19 November 2011 (UTC)