Talk:English Defence League

You don't make sense

Ggoere, You say to did'nt mention Dudley in the main page because it was much smaller protest. Well here is the proof what happened in Dudley deserves to be mentioned in the main page. It was'nt a smaller protest. http://www.birminghammail.net/news/black-country/black-country-news/2010/04/03/edl-dudley-march-protesters-fight-among-themselves-as-2-000-descend-on-town-97319-26170561/. Do you notice it says 2000 EDL attended the demonstration at Dudley.

You don't mention usernames in titles. Ggoere (talk) 10:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, my mistake! But it still doesn't get its own article. Ggoere (talk) 10:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I did'nt want its own article, I just wanted it to be mentioned in "Activities". Anyway it is now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.67.133 (talk) 15:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

edl website

It would seem according to the guardian [[1]] that there may be more then one EDL website.Slatersteven (talk) 17:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

See my comments at the BNP article. This should be deleted --Snowded ^TALK 22:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Also see mine. Its sourced, and its from an RS. Moreover its quite clear from sources that there has been some kiind of falling out. Ther is a statment that the EDL have been (or that there was an attempt) Hijacked by BNP supporters. Moreover the EDL (and indead searchlight) have said that Mr Renton has no longer any offical connection with the EDL. Also hopenothate states tghat the website in quesation was taken down. Is there any evidacne that the curretn website has any connection to Mr Renton?Slatersteven (talk) 22:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Confused, mess and no reliable sources, time to delete --Snowded ^TALK 22:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about, Snowded? This is adaequately sourced. It is by its nature confused, but that doesn't make it unreportable. --FormerIP (talk) 00:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree with FormerIP. If a national newspaper isn't a RS what is?!  Francium12  02:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Its trivia, but lets have the discussion in one place, over to BNP --Snowded ^TALK 05:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

What is trivia, the link to the BNP or the fact that Mr Renton has been accused of trying to Hijack the EDL. Moreover the BNP seem to be claiming that the EDL is some kind of zionist consproacy to undermine them (I kid you not)[[2]].Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

"A Zionist false-flag operation". Wow, that's definitely notable. --FormerIP (talk) 14:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

See BNP talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 14:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

A zionist flase-falg operation claim is notable, no argument on that. A squabble over a web site, no. --Snowded ^TALK 13:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Given that this "A squabble over a web site" is the main evidance provided that there are links between the two groups it seems to me far from trivial. Its at the heart of the dispute between theee two groups.Slatersteven (talk) 13:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Then show me some more material on the subject, we have hardly anything that shows it was ever a real issue (beyond a mix up in the formation period), or much on any dispute. If its relevant, then it needs something more than the current, if the current is all there is then its trivial. --Snowded ^TALK 13:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Well we have this [[3]] it does not mention the website but does reference the attempts by the EDL to distance themselves from accusations of links to the BNP. Then the Guardian article [[4]] Talks about two websites. [[5]] says that it was taken down to conceal the link We have the time article [[6]] Which also reference two sites, and that one was taken down. Almost all of these reference the attempted Hijacking. So it is clear that the EDL (or an, depending on source) website was set up by a BNP member and when this was revealed it was removed. alo that there is a dispute over which website is the 'rea EDL' [[7]]Slatersteven (talk) 14:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

BLP violations removed

The BNP are not a reliable source for any claim about a third party per various policies such as WP:V and WP:BLP, and their views are also WP:FRINGE. I will avoid repeating the exact claims here, but the incredibly controversial claims that apply to the founders of the EDL are a massive violation of WP:BLP. As is usual with BLP removals, they do not get added back without consensus here. And before anyone asks, I've seen the thread asking if they are a reliable source and nowhere was it agreed they are a reliable source for the claims they are making about a third party, especially when policy says they are not. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

This is about an organisation not about one person. Two the BNP are RS for thier views (and this was quite clear that this was only thier accusation, it was fully attributed). Three this was discused on the RS page[[8]], this was about the BNP not EDL but the point remians that they are RS for thier views.Slatersteven (talk) 13:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I do think that material was valid, it was a direct reference to their statements, not a commentary on those statements. --Snowded ^TALK 14:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The EDL are not a living person and the material is reliably sourced in any case. You appear to feel quite strongly, though, so I would suggest posting on WP:BLP/N. --FormerIP (talk) 14:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

There are some fundamental misunderstandings of BLP here. BLP applies to organisations when they are founded, run and consist of a membership of living people, especially when the allegations apply to those people. Furthermore if someone believes it is a BLP violation, they are not required to post on BLP/N before removing the information, it is removed without discussion and not added back unless there is consensus that it is not a BLP violation.

It's probably my fault to some extent for not pointing out the exact problems there were, so here goes:

• Questionable sources "should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves . . . Questionable sources are generally unsuitable as a basis for citing contentious claims about third parties"
• Red flags, "surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources", "claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community" and "Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources". Does a single reliable source actually agree with the BNP's view? Not that I can see, so in addition to being unreliably sourced it's also an extreme minority fringe view.
• Reliable sources for BLPs says "Material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used anywhere in the article".
• Self-published sources for BLPs says "Never use self-published books, zines, websites, forums, blogs or tweets as sources for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject". Just in case anyone wants to say The Star are reliable, read the section more. "Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g., "Jane Smith has suggested...")". Neither Nick Griffin or Simon Darby would meet the standard of "professional", as neither are professional political commentators or analysts.

The material is only sourced to the BNP who are an unreliable source for controversial claims about third parties, especially living ones. No reliable source is repeating these claims and giving them any credence, only attributing them to the BNP. These claims fail WP:BLP, WP:V and WP:FRINGE, and should not be added back to the article without clear consensus. If you want to start a new discussion that includes the points I've raised here go right ahead, but I don't need to start a discussion to remove this information and people who persist in adding it back until there is consensus for inclusion can be blocked from editing. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

No the material was also sourced from the daily star, as such the material was not soley sourced from the BNP. So they were reported (and commented on) by third party sources. Here is another source for it (are these unreliable?)[[9]]. RS does not mean a source has to agree with a view, just report it (or shall we go thru this article (and others) removing any material where a newspaper does not express an opinion as to the faculatiy of the material?).I would point out that the material removed (and the sources used) make no mention of any living person, they talk about the organisation, they do not name any one. Also the Star is not publishing Mr Grffins opinions its reporting on them. Mr Griffin is a profesional politican commenting on an organisation he has been accused of secretly being linked to, as has the party he leads, as such his views on this organisation are not fringe they are very pertinant.Slatersteven (talk) 14:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)Slatersteven (talk) 14:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

No, the Star was not the source of the allegations. Griffin and Darby are the source of the allegations. The Star did not say "The EDL etc etc", the Star said "Nick Griffin says the EDL etc etc" which is not the same. The allegations of extremists being reported in reliable sources does not make their allegations reliable. The Guardian is far more reliable than the Star, and they reported that according to David Icke a number of world leaders and other prominent people are reptilian, child-sacrificing paedophiles. The Guardian is a reliable source, David Icke isn't. Being quoted in a reliable source doesn't make the person being quoted a reliable source.

The BNP's denial of involvement with the EDL is already in the article, there is no need for Griffin's ZOGesque allegations to be included when they violate three policies. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The Star was uused as a source for this article, as such its thye source we used. It does not matter where a claim origionates if its reported in RS tyhen they have reported it. The section you removed made it clear that these were Mr Griffins claims. The David Ike artcile does refer to reptilian, child-sacrificing paedophiles (well actauly ""seriously reptilian." All have taken part in Satanic rituals, paedophilia") so we do in fact quote loonies when they are an involved party. When an RS reports something we can use that. This does not breach any of Wiki's rules. It has been reported by an RS (well 2), it is by an involved party, and it was attributed to the person saying it (though this could be re-worded). In addition it puts both the the EDL/BNP relasionhship and Mr Griffins attitudes into perspective. This is not a denile of involvment this is a serious (if very silly) accusation that needs to be mentioned.Slatersteven (talk) 19:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• Explicitly attributed to Griffin it probably does not inherently violate WP:BLP, since people can easily make up their own minds about Griffin's reliability as a source regarding a related organisation that casts his own politics in a bad light. However, we must also guard against WP:UNDUE. The sources are not good quality ones. If this was reported in the mainstream press then it would be easier to defend, but a blog and the Daily Star do not really cut it for me. The removed text is not something I'd want to see reinserted without much better sources for its significance. Guy (Help!) 20:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by "mainstream press", Guy? Do you mean to say "highbrow"? I tend to sympathise with this POV, but it is not policy.

The claim of WP:UNDUE does not hold water here, IMO, and your reasoning does not seem to me to be correct. Where something has been published, all else being equal, has no bearing on whether it is fringe etc or not. Something may fail WP:V because of where it has been published, but that is a different matter. In this case, there is no issue as to verifiability.

Nick Griffin is the UK's most prominent anti-muslim politician. God help us, he is actually an elected politician. His opinion about another anti-muslim politcal movement cannot possibly be considered WP:UNDUE. --FormerIP (talk) 02:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I mean press that rises above the level of toilet paper. The Daily Mail might just count, the Grauniad, Telegraph, Independent or Times are acceptable, BBC News is good. A story that's only covered by one tabloid is not, I think, a significant story, and what one bigot thinks about another bunch of bigots is not significant unless it gains significant coverage in publications known for their good judgement of what is and is not significant. I call WP:UNDUE here in the absence of more and better sources. Guy (Help!) 09:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

David Icke's comments linked above are widely, widely reported. Are you suggesting I can add Icke's views to Prince Philip's article? Surely the whole point about WP:FRINGE is how accepted a viewpoint is, not how widely reported it is? There's also the "Questionable Sources" part of WP:V, which says they are unacceptable for making claims about third parties. When a particular person is making a claim or allegation, the question is how reliable that person is not how reliable the source reporting the claim is, especially (as in the case of The Star) when they say the person making the claim is "bonkers" and that it's a "loony conspiracy". 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

One Night in Hackney: when you set up a discussion thread it would be helpful if you described the content you are removing. I do not see any problems with quoting the BNP here. We are not treating the BNP as an authority on EDL. Rather we are reporting what BNP says about EDL, viz., that EDL is not associated with BNP and that it is a false-flag operation. We are not implying that these statements are true. The Four Deuces (talk) 11:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Erm, wrong as wrong can be. The whole point of removing BLP violating material is that it is removed from Wikipedia as a whole. Therefore moving it from the article to the talk page defeats the object. Also try reading the source properly, you will find if it had been cited accurately in the first place that the allegations go beyond the EDL. Questionable sources such as the BNP cannot be used for allegations about third parties, it's right there in black and white in WP:V. Does anyone actually hold this viewpoints other than Griffin and Darby and the rest of the BNP? If not, it's a fringe view. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Which has been reported in RS, the BNP is not the source (I will ask you again is Stopthehate blog RS or not?). Moreover this page is about the EDL not anyone else, so there is no need or requirment) to include material about any one else. Nor is it a fringe view, minority perhaps, but not fringe. After all he has been accused of links to the EDL, so hi8s views on it are very significant. As I said if his views o9n the EDL are fringe so are his (and his parties) links to it. You can't have it both ways. you can't have his links to the group being notable but his views on it not being notable.Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Not sure about this, but it does mention the quoted material [[10]]. Also Mr Ike had not been linked as a member of the Royal family by any RS. If he had (and this was a commonley accepted acccusation in mainstream RS) then his views on the Royal family would be notable. But he has no links to either the Royal family or the Duke of Edinburgh, as such his views are fringe in that respect. Mr Griffin has beenh linke dby RS the the EDL.Slatersteven (talk) 16:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC) As no one has objected to hte new source I will re-insert the material usinig the new source as well.Slatersteven (talk) 19:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I shall ask again does any one object to this new source?Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

BNP links and smearing

This article does not come up to Wikipedias usual high standard. Unfortunately, it would take too long to deal with all the errors thru the proper process. That is a fundamental problem in Wikipedia, that if a bad starting entry gets in, then its practically impossible to correct all of it, so the defective entry will stay. Here's just three in one small section.

Smear 1: "the EDL website was developed by Chris Renton, a British National Party activist." Well I have seen a copy of the official letter from the BNP stating that Chris Renton is no longer a member, so what's that about? And if he was an activist (not just a member), then what verifiable 'activities' can we point to? It reminds me of the quote "Don't try confuse me with facts, my mind is already made up!"

Smear 2: "In September 2009 the BNP officially declared the EDL a proscribed organisation, and made it a disciplinary offence for any BNP member to be involved with the EDL.[16] Searchlight has said that proscription is BNP standard practice when attempting to establish 'deniability'.[7]" Even Stalin did better propaganda than this! If Searchlight has said it, it must be worth quoting, yes?

So lets see, a woman is brutally raped by 4 men who say in their defence that she 'came on to them' and was wearing 'seductive clothing'. In response the woman reminded the court that even neighbours and passers-by heard her screaming "Stop! Leave me alone! Someone help me please! Call the Police!". She confirmed to the court the police report which shows she was wearing low heel shoes and a skirt which came to just below the knee at the time of the attack.

However, Searchlight has said that this type of denial is standard practice when an 'alleged rape victim' is attempting to disprove culpability or complicity in the sexual intercourse which took place. Such is the logic behind Searchlights attempt to smear the 'proscription' action. If the BNP endorse EDL they're guilty. And if they reject EDL they're guilty too! Those intellectual goliaths running Searchlight should really dig out their witch dunking stools and start the inquisition again, to free us all from such heresy!

Smear 3: Finally, as a general point of logic and balance, is it a good idea for Wikipedia to take such a lot of input from an organisation X (Searchlight), which is an avowed enemy of organisation Y (EDL)? I know there is this attempt to quote from 3rd party sources, but, lets at least have the semblance of balance shall we? AA747 (talk) 05:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The question of Searchlight as a reliable source has been discussed elsewhere and its use accepted. You need to pick up on that discussion if you want changes. As it is any article on the far right will contain Searchlight material as that is one of the main research entities in the field. That covers Smear 3. Your smear 2 is a balanced entry, it reports the BNP proscription, but also reports a counter position and in any case it is based on the same anti-Searchlight proposition as your other material. Smear 1 is more interesting. As far as I can see there were various land grabs on EDL from the far right and this appears to have been one. Its notable but the language needs improvement and more citation --Snowded ^TALK 07:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

(sorry if this is in the wrong place, this is my first time reply)

Smear 2 - For someone interested in complexity theory, you seem pretty happy to burden this topic with unnecessary complexity and obscurity. This is going to be a long and tedious discussion because you are forcing me to revert to first principles, as you pursue your personal political agendas.

The Searchlight statement is NOT a counter position. The allegation is that "The BNP supports the EDL". Their statement merely attempts to reinforce that allegation. Yes, their statement is a counter to the statement made by the BNP in refutation but please, this is tedious. All the 3rd party quotes (WP:truth) you are allowing here are supportive of one side.

Furthermore, their allegation is illogical, its a version of the witch dunking theory, they are guilty whatever they do or say, the 'fairness' of which I demonstrate by the rape victim example. By behaving in this way and quoting statements which do not allow of a sensible interpretation, you give the impression that you are doing all you can to support the left wing agenda, instead of trying to give the reader a balanced quick assessment of what's going on 'out there'. You can clearly support whichever point of view you wish by selective quoting.

If you really wish to quote that Searchlight statement, then it would be more rational to state: "Searchlight has said that proscription is BNP standard practice when attempting to establish 'deniability'.[7] Searchlight did not clarify by what means, in principle, ANY organisation can establish deniability of ANY given claim." Otherwise, how is the reader supposed to understand that statement? I don't see how they can deny anything, according to this framework? The rape victim can't deny being raped - thats a ploy. The BNP can't deny involvement - thats a ploy. And if there is no method of denying an allegation, then at best, that Searchlight quote is an irritating tautology.

At the moment it reads like this: 'The BNP denied involvement. But Searchlight says they are still guilty, and we like that statement so we are quoting it here, even though it doesn't add any facts to the discussion or even make logical sense. There is simply NO WAY the BNP could deny involvement in any of these allegations, they are just guilty. Deal with it.'

So, your next objection is to assert that 'The BNP assertion being a ploy is a reasonable possibility in this circumstance, therefore we quote the Searchlight warning on this'. Yes, and how convenient for you :-)

However, that possibility is a possibility of ANY assertion of ANY group or person. So will you now go thru Wikipedia and allow to be placed a warning against ALL assertions from every person or group, that that statement is a lying ploy? Of course, one has to find the media quotes, but I'm sure that's possible for the majority of the assertions.

And once we've posted 100,000 of these quoted warnings (from whatever source) denying 100,000 denials or assertions, will Wikipedia be any more informative?

AA747 (talk) 06:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Searchlight is considered a reliable source and is frequently used as a source for articles about the far right because it writes extensively about them. Please read the essay WP:Truth which explains how Wikipedia articles like this one are written. The Four Deuces (talk) 07:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

You are not responding to the point I am making. I am not denying the validity of Searchlight as a source, I agree with its use as a source, it has validity (for the reader) whether it is 'true' or not. I am saying that Searchlight is being used too often in this case. There has to be a balance. This is not about truth, this is about helping the reader. It does not help the reader gain a balanced view when you even push the boat out to having nonsensical quotes from Searchlight, because you love it so much.

AA747 (talk) 06:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Searchlight is not used because we "love it so much" but because it is a reliable source and provides more extensive coverage on the far right than other publications. It is also often used as a source for articles that appear in the major broadsheets. If you have reliably sourced material from other publications you think should be included then it would be helpful if you would provide it. It may be that the mainstream media treats EDL unfairly, but there is nothing that we can do to redress that problem here, since these articles reflect what is written in reliable sources. The only possilbe redress is either to persuade the media to change their reporting of EDL or to persuade WP to change its criteria for reliable sources. The Four Deuces (talk) 07:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

"If you have reliably sourced material from other publications you think should be included then it would be helpful if you would provide it." Fair enough. There seems to be a bit of a gap in the market/coverage in the UK, but I'll do my best.

  AA747 (talk) 03:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how "Searchlight" can be considered any more reliable than the BNP or EDLs own sites. It claims to be anti-fascist but is anti-right wing. Searchlight takes out the bulb when it comes to looking at the rise of far-left anti-semitism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.72.209 (talk) 08:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a grotty thiing I am a police

Why is the police community hand out not RS?Slatersteven (talk) 20:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: The Political Stance of EDL. Are they really far right?

From the article, it says that the EDL has a right-wing stance. It's obvious that they ARE right-wing, but could one really say they have a far-right position? From what can be seen, it is near-impossible to tell if the EDL have a stance like that of the BNP (racist, religiously prejudiced, etc.). I know a few fringe members are BNP ex-members but that's all we really know, isn't it? So my point is that the ONLY thing definite about the EDL is their opposition to Islamic extremism -- whether they are opposed to Muslims in general is something else and too ambiguous too tell.

In short, if the only thing we know about them for definite is their opposition to Islamic extremism, can we really call them far-right, based on that fact alone? Many people from all across the political spectrum feel opposition to Islamic extremism. after all. Personally, I don't think we can tar them with the same brush as the BNP (the term "far-right" often is used as a label for racially prejudiced (or in this case, religiously prejudiced) bigots)?

Just a minor point I felt needs to be discussed and cleared up.

Cheers

86.185.71.129 (talk) 18:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC) Sentreh

We go with what the sources say rather than do our own analysis. See WP:Verifiability. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

And who/what are the sources? Left wing journalists and newspapers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.123.101 (talk) 19:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Im not associated with the EDL or any other group (in fact Im a member of the Liberal democrats). I do feel however, that this article which has been locked to prevent editing, is very one sided and I would utterly dispute its neutrality. it is more opiniated than informational. It starts by stating the EDL is a 'far right political group' and there are more facts to suggest they are not. The article seems to concentrate on anti EDL sentiment rather than explanation or information. also the rather sleezy mention of 'many of whom had been drinking', as this is not substantiated by any clear facts.

This article should be challenged on the grounds of bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.254.227 (talk) 01:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

This article shows clear bias. It states as fact what is at best an assertion i.e. "far-right". The EDL itself says "We set out our stall very early on, we are not racist, we don’t like Nazis, we don’t want Nazis joining our demos. We embrace patriotism as something that transcends race, religion, creed and colour." http://www.englishdefenceleague.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=124:who-are-the-edl-exposing-the-myth&catid=42:feature-stories&Itemid=56 It would be nice to see some evidence to support the contrary view held by the editor of the current Wiki entry. --Flexdream (talk) 20:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The sources for this page are demented. I thought the whole point of Wikipedia was to create a source of accurate and unbiased information? If so, why is it that the vast majority of sources are left wing? The Guardian is a left wing paper that plays to its readers with little concern for the truth or facts. The BBC is essentially the broadcast version of the Guardian. An example of bias today is the BBC using a headline on its website for a video: "EDL protesters clash with police", and then the video contains scenes of the police dealing with UAF protesters. Under that headline it says "police have arrested more than 50 demonstrators...", but the truth is out of the 67 arrests, 55 of those were UAF thugs. But the BBC doesn't see fit to inform its readers of this fact. Why? Well, the BBC is a left wing organisation, so it isn't likely to go for honesty when it can go for spin. Using the label far-right for a group that is a non political single issue group is a complete and total nonsense. How can it possibly be far-right simply for opposing violent extremists? Whether some of its members are racist or not has nothing to do with it. For one thing, racism is neither left nor right, it is simply racism, and for another thing, the aim of the group is NOT racist. Taking issue with the actual aim of the group because of the personal traits of some, or even all of its members is a logical fallacy; Ad Hominem. The left wing organisation calling the EDL far-right does not make it so. Who ever has the authority to sort this intellectual vandalism out, please do so, and get on with it. --86.182.141.84 (talk) 23:58, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree - there are no valid sources that the EDL are right-wing, left-wing or any-wing. This seems to be a clear case of bias, and the fact the page is protected makes it even more dubious. 83.170.103.223 (talk) 00:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The left-wing press brands all critics of Islam as right-wing, fascist, and racist. If a left-wing press makes such claim, but does not provide the evidence, the claim should be rejected. Compare this article with the Wikipedia articles about Adolf Hitler. The article about Adolf Hitler is much more favorable than the article about the EDL.Quinacrine (talk) 16:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Articles must be based on reliable sources. Even if all reliable sources are biased and left-wing we cannot conduct our own original research. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

True but if they are biased then we cannot say (or imply) its a fact. We have to say (or imply) its an accusation.Slatersteven (talk) 13:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be that you are arguing they are biased because they don't agree with you. A tirade against the supposed left wing press is pretty much par for the course for the far right. The BBC and the Guardian are reliable sources, long established in Wikipedia. You can challenge that in the appropriate forum if you want, but for the moment in respect of this article they stand in preference to any perspective you have, --Snowded ^TALK 13:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I was pointing out that if they are aknowledged as biased then we cannot use them wihtout a caveat.Slatersteven (talk) 14:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Well they are not, so that solves that one --Snowded ^TALK 14:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The standard is verifiability not truth. If reliable sources say the sky is green then that is what we say. If we want the article to say the sky is blue then we must first persuade reliable sources to say it's blue. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

And it's not just "left wing" sources that describe them as such. The Telegraph, Express and Star among others all refer to them as a right-wing group, sometimes more specifically as far/extreme right. As do most mainstream politicians and observers. I think there's an arguable case that the article should attribute that description somehow, rather than stating it outright as objective fact without qualification. But that description is nonetheless pretty unanimous. As explained, if people don't like that, they need to take it up with the rest of the world, not with the wording of this page. And, while we're on the lead, the statement that the "political direction of the group is being debated" is a bit pointless surely. I think it was sourced to what is now quite an old Newsnight report, and even if still accurate, it says nothing much of substance. N-HH talk/edits 08:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The reason I have reinstated the lead to the October 2009 wording is due to the extensive debate that took place in arriving at an acceptable consensus here. While not personally sharing the entire perspective it gives on this organisation, it is all the same the consensus and the entire lead, including the so called “political direction”, was the subject of many weeks of heated debate, including references to ANI. Until a more reliable source is identified we should therefore leave the lead exactly as it is. Leaky Caldron 14:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

But the statement was made about where the EDL supposedly was in October when the group was more or less first coming into view. The assertion is by its nature out of date. As it happens, six months later, the group's activities seem anyway to have settled into a fairly predictable pattern. Consensus in 1944 would correctly have identified the Second World War as an ongoing event, but you couldn't rely on that to say the same thing in 1946. I have no doubt debates of some sort are indeed going on within the group, but that's kind of a "so what?" statement for a lead, which just reads a bit oddly. Also people have gotten a bit too hung up on the "political" issue as a whole. The term can mean 101 things, and to say a group is political is not to claim that it is a party that wishes to contest elections. I don't think it matters too much either way whether the organisation is described as "political" or not. N-HH talk/edits 16:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

No, but you were not involved in the disputes about it! Can you provide a more contemporary, acceptable source indicating that EDL is either more or less political now than it was then? If things have changed the sources should be available, otherwise the consensus on the lead does not need to change and doing so will just stir things up unnecessarily. Leaky Caldron 17:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, my point is not about whether they are more or less political now, indeed it's more that this is all a bit of a non-issue, especially for the lead (and btw, I have commented briefly in the past here - my username has changed slightly since then). Nor do I want the lead to say "their political direction was being debated [source 1] .. but now it's not [source 2]". As I said, I don't think it matters too much either way whether the organisation is described as "political" or not, hence there's no need anyway for a somewhat clumsy compromise about its "political direction being debated" to vaguely cover the point, even if it were still accurate. That just seems to be common sense, really, and doesn't seem to require inch-by-inch sourcing. Is it really going to be that controversial? Someone can find a source that says "The White Album is the Beatles' best album" or "Hitler is deciding whether to invade Poland" - I don't have to find a contrary source that says it isn't, or that he has subsequently made that decision, before we make an editorial judgment about whether it's appropriate or necessary to include those statements.

An opening sentence saying something along the lines of "The EDL is a single-issue English right-wing organisation, whose stated aim is to oppose radical Islamism. Since its formation in 2009, the group has organised a series of small but controversial protests in English cities, several of which have ended in violence and with the arrests of EDL members or counter-demonstrators. Mainstream politicans and media usually characterise the group as far right or fascist [although the group itself says that it is open to people of all races and faiths]" would seem to cover the key facts about the group, and to deal with the right wing issue fairly and neutrally as well. N-HH talk/edits 17:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I fully support your suggested wording. It is an improvement. I would however have an issue with the insertion of "political" since I think it is sufficiently implied in the description "right-wing" without its specific inclusion and because I have seen no source that attempts to describe this bunch of protesters as explicitly political. Leaky Caldron 17:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I would stay with "far right", since UKIP and the Conservatives could also be described as right-wing. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I accept that could be an issue, but I was intending it to mean genuinely on the right in the broadest sense - ie one that includes the far right as a subset - rather than with an implicit "moderate" or "mainstream" attached. That way people can take what they like from it when they read it, and it might also just stop the constant battles over the description. It is the way media sources often refer to the group, presumably with similar reasoning, eg here in the Telegraph, or here in the Independent. N-HH talk/edits 07:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

ps: my wording excludes the "political" issue of course. As I've said, I don't see it as an issue one way or the other, although the EDL is clearly "political" in the wider sense of the term. I do think though that the demo issue should come up in the first sentence/paragraph of the lead. It's what they're mostly known for, far more than their internal debates, such as they are.

There are regular editors who will point blank refuse to accept a change involving the removal of "far" right. It is all contained in the archive_2 debates and from what I see elsewhere it is not likely that they would sign-off on a change here, now. Leaky Caldron 08:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The article says EDL marches have been banned? Which ones? The problem seems to be that local councils/police cannot simply "ban" either the anti-Islamic EDL or anti-Jewish UAF when they announce marches/countermarches! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.72.209 (talk) 08:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Interview with Trevor Kelway, one of the leaders of the English Defence League: http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2010/04/interview-with-trevor-kelway.html#readfurther EXCERPT: The far right now brand us as “race-traitors” — they have repeatedly threatened and physically attacked us.Quinacrine (talk) 16:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

ANTI-EDL BIASED ARTICLE

This article is so biased it's untrue. The EDL is not a far-right political group, it's NOT far-right and it's NOT political either.

Read, Who We Are: http://www.englishdefenceleague.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=124:who-are-the-edl-exposing-the-myth&catid=42:feature-stories&Itemid=56

We, the English Defence League, are a grass roots social movement who represent every walk of life, every race, every creed and every colour; from the working class to middle England. Our unity and diversity is our strength.

Please, please, please stop using references from left-wing sympathising publications to edit this article it makes a mockery of Wikipedia. Thank you.

Wikipedia requires that all articles be written from a neutral point of view, and not introduce bias or give undue weight to viewpoints. This article about English Defence League blatantly violates this requirement.Quinacrine (talk) 19:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Articles must be based on reliable third party sources. If you have any reliable sources (other than EDL publications) pleased tell us what they are. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Merge in 2010 Bolton protests and riots

I'm proposing that the article on the 2010 Bolton protests and riots is merged in here. It was a minor event, and the protest and resulting event would be better covered in a paragraph or two here. Warofdreams talk 11:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• CONCUR --Snowded ^TALK 11:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support merge - there is already a paragraph at Unite Against Fascism. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support The Four Deuces (talk) 15:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support Seems fair enough.Slatersteven (talk) 15:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support A relatively minor event that's better written up as part of a series of incidents/demos. N-HH talk/edits 08:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support I have added this event to EDL, regardless of the merge/delete decision. It was already in UAF and is consistent with the recording of previous similar EDL/UAF protests. Leaky Caldron 14:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
• Disagree - Keep This definately was a major event and deserves it's own page. Ggoere (talk) 08:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support merge This was not a major event that deserves its own page. There was a lot of POV-pushing there too, including the innaccurate title (which I have remedied).Spylab (talk) 13:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support per WP:NOTNEWS. Adambro (talk) 14:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support merge, as it is a rather minor event, and as such it sets a poor precedent for it to have its own article. Centrepull (talk) 08:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support It makes far more sense under the EDL article. The support's overwhelming, who's going to do it? Alistair Stevenson (talk) 20:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Robert Spencer endorsement

Can you please explain why this should be deleted? --95.148.159.110 (talk) 18:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Blogs and similar web sites are not generally considered a reliable source. Even if it was, then I see no case being made for notability of the individuals endorsement of the EDL. So you have to establish the source is reliable and that its relevant. You also need to read WP:BRD--Snowded ^TALK 18:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Spencer might be unreliable but his statement of endorsement isn't. It's his own bloody website after all. For the record I'm a UAF supporter. --95.148.159.110 (talk) 18:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Who you support is irrelevant. A blog is not a reliable source and you have made no argument as to why this is a notable addition --Snowded ^TALK 18:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

A blog is reliable if it quotes the blogger's own opinion. If you don't think Spencer is notable then nominate his article for deletion. --95.148.159.110 (talk) 19:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Please learn to format your comments. A blog may be used, but its dubious and anyway you have now shown how Spencer's view is notable in respect of this article. --Snowded ^TALK 19:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

That's your opinion. I am not vandalising this article, so please don't delete until there is a consensus here. --95.148.159.110 (talk) 19:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I formatted your comment again - you use colons to indent. Please read WP:BRD; you have inserted material and it has been reverted therefore you need tio discuss and make the case here. The onus is on you to make the case for new material. --Snowded ^TALK 19:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Again that is your opinion, please wait until there is a consensus. This material is not violating anything. --95.148.159.110 (talk) 19:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

READ WP:BRD its a basic wikipedia rule and you have violated it. You should wait for consensus before adding in disputed material --Snowded ^TALK 19:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:BRD is not even a guideline, let alone a policy. Please wait until we have a consensus. --95.148.159.110 (talk) 19:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you really a new editor or have you edited under another name? The policy clearly regards "repeatedly inserting the same content when other contributors are rejecting it" as edit waring and WP:BRD is pretty clear. If you insert contested material it does not require consensus to remove it. I note your insertion of similar material on another article has also been reverted. You are also not engaging with the argument here on the talk page. You have not made any case as to why the material is notable here (whether Spencer is notable or not is another mater) or why we should take a blog as a reliable source. I'll leave it to you tonight, but if there is no good argument here in the morning then it gets reverted. --Snowded ^TALK 19:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

"Editors typically reach consensus as a natural and inherent product of editing; generally someone makes a change or addition to a page, then everyone who reads it has an opportunity to leave the page as it is or change it." Please see WP:Consensus. --95.148.159.110 (talk) 19:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

and they also have the option to revert it at which point the obligation is on the proposer to make the case. So far you have not made that case, and you have not answered the arguments above. (and please learn to indent your comments) --Snowded ^TALK 19:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you please give a direct quote about that "rule"? --95.148.159.110 (talk) 19:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that WP:BRD is very clear and complements WP:consensus this phrase might help you "Edit wars, such as repeatedly inserting the same content when other contributors are rejecting it, lead to page protection and suspension of your ability to edit rather than improvements to the page.". The policy makes it clear that reversion is an option. In this case you have inserted a new section. I have disputed that and given arguments to support that position. You have not answered the answered those arguments, and you have reinserted deleted material. If you check it out you will find [[WP:BRD is extensively quoted in RFI reports and and other material. I suggest you (i) self revert (ii) argue your case rather trying to assert that consensus is required to remove your addition and (iii) learn to use colons to indent your comments. I'm just off a 13 hour flight so I'm going to bed. However if there is no solid argument here in the morning then I am reverting to the stable position. --Snowded ^TALK 20:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I will be bold and delete the edit. Notability has not been established and there is no consensus for its inclusion. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Spencer is the author of two New York Times bestsellers, if you don't think he's notable then delete his article. --95.148.159.110 (talk) 20:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Spencer's views on EDL are not notable, although he is a notable person. Lots of fringe writers have best-sellers but we do not put their views into articles except those relating to them. If his endorsement is notable then it will be picked up in reliable third party sources. Maybe he will set up a US chapter. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I can see some merit in mentioning this in passing, if simply to inform readers of how the various espousers of this fringe position slot together. 94.192.227.0 (talk) 19:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

We still need a secondary source reporting the endorsement, per WP:RS and WP:Notability WP:Weight. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. WP:RS allows for self-published sources to be used for stating their own opinions, and WP:Notability does include WP:NNC, I note. 94.192.227.0 (talk) 20:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

(out) "Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves." Why do you think that we should include something that has received zero attention in reliable sources? The Four Deuces (talk) 21:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm supporting a very brief mention for the reason I stated above, nothing more. The big link banner to Spencer's site on the EDL's site and sudden move to accuse opponents of being communists hints at a major interplay, even if it is original research :) If you now want to talk about WP:Weight, ( though why pop back and edit the old comment rather than raise it on this one? ), sure. I certainly agree the original mention was excessively verbose, but how does "Robert Spencer has expressed support for the group", near the bottom of the article, strike yourself and other editors, Deuces? 94.192.227.0 (talk) 21:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

If and when a reliable source decides to cover Spencer's connection with the EDL then I will support its inclusion. Undue weight says: "How much weight is appropriate should reflect the weight that is given in current reliable sources." At present there is nothing. If you want to include this I suggest taking it to dispute resolution. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Dispute resolution seems a little premature at this point. I note that SpinWatch has been used as source on numerous wikipedia articles and has a nice little piece on the matter, which demonstrates the links I wish to highlight. Any more comfortable with that? 94.192.227.0 (talk) 00:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

So far no one has questioned the reliability of Spinwatch at WP:RSN. I have now posted a query. However notice that the story does not say that Spencer endorsed the EDL, just that Richard Bartholomew reported that he met with them, but he has denied the meeting. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for double checking over on the noticeboard, given the contentious nature of this article it's probably wise. I'm aware of the content of the article, but it would support as statement along the lines of 'there have been suggestions of links between the EDL and U.S. neoconservative groups'. That would be acceptable as far as I'm concerned. 94.192.227.0 (talk) 17:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

So what exactly is the issue, now, Leaky Cauldron. Explain why the current edit is unacceptable, please? 94.192.227.0 (talk) 12:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no consensus for the inclusion of what amounts to nothing more than a rumour. The notice board is hardly fullsome in its backing and the content of the Blog is nothing more than an unsubstantiated allegation. I would like to see more discussion first. I would also like you to follow the Alternate account notification guidance raised on your talk page. Leaky Caldron 12:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree, but if the story is notable it will be picked up by MSM and then we can put it in. TFD (talk) 18:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Anti-Mosque group

Is the group not against the construction of mosques?--478jjjz (talk) 10:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be generally against anything associated with Islam which in any way differs from a very narrow definition of English culture and mores. My view is that it should be cut back to anti-islamic rather than listing everything --Snowded ^TALK 10:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

You do, then, agree that it is against mosques. Why do you want to be vague?--478jjjz (talk) 10:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Think about it. It would be more precise to write "EDL is against Islamic institutions. For example, it is against the construction of mosques."

If you need help with the writing process, then please review explanation/description by examples.--478jjjz (talk) 10:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::They may well be against Mosques. They were involved in an march against the erection of a new Mosque in Walsall I believe. I have an issue with calling that a "Mosque controversy" and adding it to that Category. It is not a controversy to be against something, and that particular Mosque doesn't have an article, so simply adding EDL to that Cat. makes no sense. As for adding it to the list of things they oppose, again, so what? Is it really notable that they are opposed Mosques, given what else they oppose? Leaky Caldron 11:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know about the Walsall mosque. I have just read in the news about the protests against the construction of a mosque in Dudley. Furthermore, the development by examples is a good writing technique. You can write "The EDL is opposed to mosques, burqas, Koranic education in public schools, Arabic education ...." I have made up the last two items in my hypothetical example to elaborate on effective writing.--478jjjz (talk) 11:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

It was the Dudley mosque I meant, not Walsall, sorry. It is the addtion to the Category I have the main issue with. Adding it to the list in the lead doesn't concern me to much, I just don't think it is a big deal. Leaky Caldron 11:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree, category is a mistake. For the lede its an issue of economy. If you end up listing all aspects of Islam that the EDL dislike then the list will end up as too long. The stanford style guide relates to something completely different --Snowded ^TALK 11:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Dispute that the EDL states that it opposes only "jihadists", not all Muslims.

On their "About Islam" [11] page, they state "People are not the problem here; the source of the problem is the Islamic ideology that demands the extermination of kuffar like you." "But this does not change the fact that when they act as Muslims, even in a courteous and friendly manner, they are participating in a system that is working toward your extermination and the destruction of your society." "The ostensible complexity of Islam is simply due to the different interpretations as to how to achieve this goal, but [all branches of Islam] involve the disappearance of [none Muslims] at some stage…without exception."

The BBC piece the article cites has one comment from an anonymous "mixed race teenager," whom another anonymous purported EDL member says is the head of the Youth Wing. The comment is "We want them back, not from the Muslims, but from the jihadist extremists that are operating in the Muslim communities. And the Muslim communities need to deal with their extremists." and this is the evidence that the article cites that the EDL is not opposed to all of Islam.

One can see that this is clearly wrong, can we change this. It is true they do embrace all ethnicities, but they are certainly not only opposed to "jihadists", as they make no distinction between the varying branches of Islam and the various Islamist schools of though (Like Qutbism, for example), tarring them all with the same brush in a clear manner.

Something that some anonymous person once said is not a source that can tell us about the policies of the EDL, regardless of whether it is on the BBC or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.175.71 (talk) 11:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

We must rely on reliable sources, which excludes the EDL website. If you have reliable sources, please say what they are. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Numbers

This wikipedia page itself states that 1500 people attended the EDL demo in Stoke and 2000 at Bolton. But at the top of the page it sugests only 300 are members. The information on numbers at the tope of the page should be changed. It should say around 1000 to 3000 are members, with a link(s) to recent EDL demos showing 1000 to 3000 members at the demos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bnnnnnn (talk • contribs) 22:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Everything runs back to source. They are sourced as having xxx members. That doesn't mean they have not got xxxx supports or other followers who attand their marches. Now please STOP introducing unsourced opinions without sources or find yourself reported and possibly blocked. Thanks. Leaky Caldron 23:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Make new page; 2010 EDL protests in the UK

I have an idea; as we have had several complaints that this doesn't deserve a page on its own if others in the UK don't, why don't we create and new article called 2010 EDL protests in the UK or something, and merge this into it? Your ideas below.

Support - obviously I support as it was my idea and I think it would work. Ggoere (talk) 10:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - wholly unnecessary WP:Content fork. If you wish to add material about any EDL-related event it can be added here, subject to WP:Notability and WP:Reliable Source policies. Leaky Caldron 10:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Oppose One should not create child articles unless the parent article becomes overly large. TFD (talk) 11:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Seems that we do not need another articel about a relativly minor group.Slatersteven (talk) 13:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The lead, again

I raised this a while back, and proposed an alternative wording, which did get some support, but I'm just putting it back up for discussion. It's an improvement in three ways, in my view -

• It provides some early attribution for the full "far right" description, stating only in the narrative voice that they are "right wing" in the broadest sense, a description often used by the media as well as the full far right one. However obvious the full far right description might be, having attribution would probably be more policy compliant, and would also help stem the constant removals of the term from the lead's first para.
• It removes the "political direction is being debated .." phrasing. It may well be true (which organisations don't have at least some level of internal debate, however unsophisticated?) but is both a little clunky and banal, and also now out of date, sourced as it is to comments from one individual in an old Newsnight interview. The "political" or not point - which in my view is something of a non-issue anyway - is more or less covered by describing it as a "single issue right wing group"
• It highlights in the first para the issue of demonstrations, and the violence at those demos, which is what the group is mainly known for.

The EDL is a single-issue English right-wing organisation, whose stated aim is to oppose radical Islamism. Since its formation in 2009, the group has organised a series of small but controversial protests in English cities, several of which have ended in violence and with the arrests of EDL members or counter-demonstrators. Mainstream politicans and media usually characterise the group as far right or fascist [although the group itself says that it is open to people of all races and faiths]

The earlier brief debate on this can be found in this section. N-HH talk/edits 11:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I would support this wording, although some work may be needed on it's neutrality since it implies that EDL have been the initiator of the associated violence, which is not the case in every demo they have been involved in. I would not support anything that further politicises the group until reliable sources clearly support it. This was at the heart of the matter last year - hence the "clunky and banal" current version of the lead. Leaky Caldron 12:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this wording as an improvement on the current lead the article has. I share Leaky Caldron's reservations, however.--Britannicus (talk) 13:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I tried to avoid the point about responsibility for violence at the demos by saying simply "several of which have ended in violence ..", which is uncontroversially true. As for the "political direction .." point, I know it was a compromise, which is probably why it's a bit clunky (I wasn't trying to be rude to those who helped write it by saying that, btw) - but I personally can't see what exact issue needs to be subject to compromise there, or that the current wording really helps or adds anything accurate or current about the group. I mean the group are obviously "political" in the widest sense of the word, but equally I wouldn't support stating that explicitly, since it's ultimately fairly vague and meaningless as a description, and adds nothing substantive to the other characteristics ascribed to them. Anyway, unless someone violently objects shortly, I'll insert the new wording, and it is then of course open to further amendement, addition whatever. N-HH talk/edits 14:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

We should avoid the expression "usually characterise" which raises doubt as to whether they are "far right". Also, the group's denial should not be given much credence. They would say that wouldn't they? Please see WP:NPOV#Assert facts: Facts which can be verified in reliable sources, and about which there is no serious dispute among such sources, can be asserted directly in Wikipedia articles. For example, that a survey produced a certain published result, that there is a planet called Mars, or that Plato was a philosopher, can simply be stated without any need for an inline qualifier of the type "John Doe believes...". TFD (talk) 22:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Understood, but it's not inaccurate as such to phrase it that way. As noted, if nothing else, it would stop people constantly removing the term. On its own that's probably not enough of a reason, and would be a needless compromise - but at the same time, "far right" is often a contentious and pejorative description, and is less of a clear fact than, say, that Plato was a philosopher, or Mozart a composer, or that Mars is a planet. On that basis attribution is arguably required. Yes, the group's denial is probably worthless, but I think it does matter (and some supporters would seem to genuinely believe it, at least until they go on a demo, from some of the coverage I've seen). Anyway, I don't see that we'd be fudging the point that much by unambiguously placing them on the broad "right wing" (not, note "moderate" or "centre-right"), and then attributing the more specific "far right", using phrasing that makes clear the description is near-universal. And the other aspects of the changes? N-HH talk/edits 10:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think they are far-right. Their stated aim is to demonstrate against Islamism, which is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.--Britannicus (talk) 16:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

We must not cast doubt on a description unless reliable sources cast doubt upon it. By attributing the description we would be implying that there is a serious opinion that disagrees with the assessment. Notice that the news media, but more importantly groups that study the far right use this classification without qualification. There are by the way groups that oppose immigration and "Islamism" that are not far right, and it would be wrong to lend respectability to EDL by confusing them with these groups. If anyone disagrees with the description "far right" please find a source that provides an opposing view. TFD (talk) 17:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

If by "groups that study the far-right" you mean Searchlight then that was founded and edited by a Communist. I'm not sure what "respectability" is in this context and I don't think it matters if they are or aren't quite frankly. Wikipedia should not be ruling which organisations are "respectable" or not. It should present he facts. I find it hard to call an organisation far-right which burns the swastika.--Britannicus (talk) 21:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you have another source that you think should be used? TFD (talk) 21:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

But whether they are "far right" or not - which remains a subjective assessment, not a fact, even if it is a broadly universal assessment - the far right is by definition a subset of the right, and hence it is not inaccurate to say they are at the least more broadly "right wing", and then that most observers cast them more specifically, within that range, as "extreme/far right wing". And for the record, here are a couple of media reports that simply use the broader "right wing" description. The Birmingham Mail, here; The Brighton Argus, here; The Times, here; The Guardian, here. I'm quite sure that most of those papers would, as I would, class them as a far right group - they often describe them as such at other times. When they use the wider "right wing" description, they are not saying they are not far right, and neither would we be. WP text would, however, be in line with what the sources as a whole say. N-HH talk/edits 18:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

ps: oddly, the police don't think they are an extreme right group, if this report and quote is to be believed. I haven't looked into this more deeply, so it may be quoted out of context, and/or the position may have been revised more recently of course. Whatever one thinks of the police's role in dealing with racism and far right groups, their official viewpoint does count.

The term is subjective and there is considerable literature about it. In the UK it refers to groups that derived from or were inspired by or are similar to the Blackshirts. Throughout time, these groups have had overlapping leadership and membership, although their ideology has developed over time and their tactics have varied. BTW here is a link to the commissioner's statement (it's on page 10). I think it also belongs in the article, although I do not see it as contradictory. TFD (talk) 20:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Drinking heavily?

This is a questionable addition.

There is a valid issue which needs to be resolved here. This issue is that the 'source' of Verbal's addition is deemed 'unsuitable' for a reference to criticise the UAF on the Wiki. page, yet Verbal thinks it is a reliable source to be used upon this page to show the EDL in a negative manner?

Of course all journalists are known to put their own spin on articles of any kind, but I doubt a journalist from the Guardian would know whether masses of EDL supporters have been drinking, and to excess just prior to a demo.

Obviously there is an issue of double-standards which needs to be resolved here. If there is an alternate source which describes this incident (and a source which has by supposed consnsus not been judged 'unreliable' on either the EDL or UAF pages previously) then Ive no issue with it being added here, but unless one can be found it should not be included here, or if it is, then I fully expect to see from another supposedly impartial Wiki. user the revert of the 22 March removal of the criticism of the UAF to apparent 'blindness to Islamist Jew hatred' on the UAF page.

Tnank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.1.235.149 (talk) 18:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you explain where it was decided on the UAF page - or anywhere else - that a news report in the Guardian is likely to be unreliable (for what such a consensus would be worth anyway)? Looking at the UAF issue, I can only assume you are referring to attempts to insert details from a blogger's guest post on the Comment is Free section of the paper's website, which were resisted. There's a fundamental difference between each of those sources. The one being used here is a factual report that was printed in the paper and also published in the main news section of the website. As a separate point, you are of course free to argue the toss about whether it's worth including the reference to drinking, but it was certainly reported in what is prima facie a reliable source per WP policy. N-HH talk/edits 18:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

If you doubt that the Guardian is a reliable source then you should challenge it at the reliable sources noticeboard. You may also write to the Guardian requesting that they correct what you believe to be an error or report them to the Press Complaints Commission. Otherwise, the Guardian's story must be considered a reliable source for the article. TFD (talk) 18:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Guardian is a WP:RS. It is one of the best UK newspapers. Verbal chat 21:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I don’t think the key issue here is the reliability of the source. That is self-evident. What concerns me is whether it warrants inclusion at all. How is it within policy to include as genuinely notable content that “(many of whom had been drinking)” and that “When the rally was over, police escorted EDL supporters to bus and railway stations”. I think this is minutiae and its purpose within the article is unclear and could be considered as projecting an intention to denigrate the subject.
The first piece, with its obvious use of () to reinforce the content, seems to be a clear breech of this policy which is fundamental and extols that even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. The second reintroduced facet about being escorted to the station again raises the question, “so what?” what does the reader gain from seeing trivia in a so-called encyclopedic article?
In addition to the discussion on a revised lead above, I would like interested, non-biased editors to consider the appropriateness of this potentially trivial/non-neutral content. Leaky Caldron 22:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems accurate and relevant to me. TFD (talk) 00:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It is accurate, relevan, and notable. Verbal chat 05:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The English Defence League

Why is the EDL being discribed has a "far right" group? It is not! This is slander, and legal action is to be concidered to prevent this kind of character assassination. This was begun by sections of the "far" left and certain left wing media outlets. We ask for a reasoned debate concerning the spread of Islam and its practises, in the UK, and the western world in general. We also ask, that the Quran and suras be subject to scrutiny in light of British law. Ref- later Quranic teaching. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.94.123 (talk) 10:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The EDL is described as a "far right" group because that's how the sources that have been cited in the article describe the EDL. This seems fairly non-contentious to me - at least in Scotland mainstream news sources use "far right" when discussing the EDL - but did you have a particular concern about any of the sources used?

This talk page is not the place to debate Islam etc, or to "subject the Quaran to scrutiny in light of British law". The talk page is where we discuss ways to improve the article (your question regarding the "far right" tag is "on topic", so I've addressed it - the other things you raise would be more appropriately discussed elsewhere).

Cheers, TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 11:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

EDL affiliations with convicted terrorists and internal disputes

According to this article: <http://barthsnotes.wordpress.com/2009/10/23/paul-ray-identifies-with-northern-ireland-loyalist-groups/ the EDL are having internal disputes and also include among their ranks convicted Nazi bomber Nick Greger. The same article alludes to another convicted terrorist, Johnny Adair, being rumoured to join. Johnny Adair and Nick Greger are known associates and there is a Donal MacIntyre documentary entitled "Mad Dog and Nazi Nick" that highlights their relationship.

Here is Greger in an EDL video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGq6_lvQ064 and he is pictured in the above article.

This, more recent, article: http://barthsnotes.wordpress.com/2010/06/08/johnny-adair-to-help-paul-ray-and-nick-greger-take-over-english-defence-league/ and the above youtube video outline some divides within the ranks of the EDL on the relations between Nick Greger, Paul Ray and the EDL membership.

In the above youtube video, as broken down in the above article dated 2010/06/08, Paul Ray discusses threats made against his family by the EDL.

Omar418 (talk) 06:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I would say that as this is a blog (barthsnotes) it fails RS. Also I wuo0ld douobt youtube is admisable in this respect>Slatersteven (talk) 15:33, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The EDL website was also moderated by one Michael HEaton, aka "Wigan Mike" a member of the Neo-Nazi organisations the British Freedom Fighters" and the Aryan Strike Force" recently sentenced to 2+ years for soliciting the murders of Jews on the Aryan Strike Force website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.167.236.166 (talk) 01:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

We must wait until this news is reported mainstream sources before adding it to the article, and of course it may never be. TFD (talk) 02:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Jewish EDL Facebook page

I have removed the following content "The EDL also incorporates a "Jewish Division" which has it's (sic) own Facebook page" as it is primary sourced. We do not know if this is an official part, and have no reliable secondary or tertiary sources that discuss it or show it is a recognised part of the "EDL". We should certainly not be including a link to the group's facebook page. It also violates WP:LEAD. Verbal chat 20:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed BritishWatcher (talk) 20:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the argument that including links to EDF web site gives this dubious (to put it politely) group publicity. The fact is, though, that anyone who is interested in the EDL, who is capable of tracking down this article, will have no difficulty in finding the EDL site for themselves. If we want to go down the road of denying publicity to this group then the more effective action would be to remove the entire article. Prunesqualer (talk) 21:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I have replaced the EDL web links with a Jewish Chronicle article (on reflection I would agree that links to EDL sites were better avoided). Prunesqualer (talk) 22:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Re The English Defence League "Jewish Division".

On several occasions have added a reference to the English Defence League's "Jewish Division". On the first occasion I had spelt Face Book as two words, and only included a link to the division's Facebook page as evidence. This was reverted (fair enough). However subsequently I corrected the Facebook spelling, and added a link to the EDL's own web site. This site has a section dedicated to it's "Jewish Division" which includes a link to the "Jewish Division" Facebook page. Please also note that the Haaretz piece, cited later in this article, also corroborates the existence of the EDL "Jewish Division". Reverting my contribution, in the face of this evidence amounts to vandalism. Kindly desist.Prunesqualer (talk) 21:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

See WP:NOTVAND, and get agreement for your edits first as this is a controversial topic. Has it been established that the EDL website is official now? There was some dispute as to that, and I can't remember the outcome offhand. Verbal chat 21:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if I am missing the point here, but isn't the Ha'aretz article source enough for the purposes of the article? There's no need to cite facebook or the EDL website, as far as I can see. --FormerIP (talk) 21:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

untrue description of the organisation

My editing of the description of this organisation has been deleted and reverted by editor Jarkeld.

He/she claims, in a message to me "as you did to English Defence League, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary". That it untrue. I clearly filled out the Edit Summary Box my reasons with the words, Editors please note.

The present description of the organisation is as follows: The English Defence League (EDL) is an English far-right single-issue political organisation formed in 2009. Its stated aim is to oppose what it considers as the spread of Islamism, Sharia law and Islamic extremism in England, although the EDL's political direction is being debated within the group.[1][2]

Both evidence cited are from a single source, the BBC. The BBC reporter tries to prove his case by stating their are football hooligans in the organisation. That does not make it Far right.

1. Neither of the reports shows any evidence that this organisation is far right.

By far right, I quote the Wikipedia definition. "Far right, extreme right, hard right, radical right, and ultra-right are terms used to discuss the qualitative or quantitative position a group or person occupies within right-wing politics. Far right politics involves supremacism, believing that superiority and inferiority is an innate reality between individuals and groups and involves the complete rejection of the concept of social equality as a norm.[1] Far right politics supports segregation, and the separation of groups deemed to be superior from groups deemed to be inferior.[2] Far-right politics and political views commonly include authoritarianism, homophobia, nativism, racism, and xenophobia.[3]"

2. It is blatantly obvious that it is not a "political" organisation.

This organisation is NOT anti islam, it is "anti-islamic jihad" group has members from multi race and religions who have one objective. To bring to notice of the public of the creeping islamisation - not just in England, but also across many countries all over the world.

Wikipedia is an unbiased encyclopedia. It should be left to the readers to read the full article to decide. The first line of this article is the author(s) interpretation and opinion and introduces bias at the very beginning.

That cannot be correct.

I have been following this groups activities for a while. I have corrected the description only, to make it unbiased. I have not changed any of the subsequent reports or references of the organisation activities.

My edits should be allowed to stand.

86.139.147.223 (talk) 13:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Awmyth (talk • contribs) 13:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources describe it as far right so it belongs in the article, i do have concerns about it being described as a "political organisation" though. That could be worded far better, even if there is a source backing up "political organisation" it does not really make sense. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Off-topic comment follows: interesting point. I've tried to suggest that EDL (a dab page) describe the English Defence League as a "British political organisation", to avoid the incessant edit warring between EDL supporters and its opposition. I think you're right, though. Any suggestions for a better term? (Probably best if we move this part to Talk:EDL though...) TFOWR 13:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec)WIkipedia works from reliable third party sources and those see it as a far right organisation. Until you can find an authoritative source which says otherwise then the current text stands. I would also say that it has a clear political intent --Snowded ^TALK 13:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

It has political intent but a "Political organisation" makes it sound rather too organised and formal. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Do RS call it a political organisation? If not then perhpas Political movment.Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

its a small p political organisation not a large P one. The formation of such single issue organisations is also a feature of extreme right wing political groups, its a form of recruitment. (Oh and extreme left as well) I seem to remember when this was discussed before that the sources did support it, but such things should always be checked--Snowded ^TALK 13:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Agree with BW. This was all gone over last year ago and a form of wording was agreed that excluded the first reference to "political", leaving the rather more oblique second reference. User Verbal:Verbal was party to this but a couple of months ago he reintroduced it and denied that such discusion/agreement had occurred. It slants the political emphasis too much; there are no RS for political and right wing is adequate to cover the inference that it is political. Leaky Caldron 13:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

FAr Right Anti-Islamic Organisation then?Slatersteven (talk) 13:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Lets give Verbal a chance to comment, I don't think its a major issue but lets not jump until we get commentary --Snowded ^TALK 13:56, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I don’t think he entitled to any more deference than anyone else here. He reintroduced political into the lead against consensus here [12] with an obtuse edit summary and then denied the consensus in this edit summary [13], despite having been heavily involved in the consensus version here [14]. Leaky Caldron 14:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it might be usefull if someone could point to which source calls them a politiccal organisation.

No one is going to die if we wait a bit and reach a true consensus. Let it run overnight and check in tomorrow to see if someone wants to argue the case --Snowded ^TALK 14:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Mathew Goodwin (in the Newsnight source) calls it a social movement. So lets call it what RS call it. you can find an authoritative source which says otherwise then we must use the phrase used by the RS in the articel.Slatersteven (talk) 14:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Its also called a street movement, and then we have this "Nick Lowles, from Searchlight, said: "What we are seeing now is the most serious, most dangerous, political phenomenon that we have had in Britain for a number of years" from here. So lets discuss shall we. --Snowded ^TALK 14:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Grassroots movement (used by Goodwin) usually denotes a political movement. Jarkeld (talk) 14:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

But does not automaticly mean that. And the ortehr newsnight source makes it claer that they are not at this time a political movement. And seems to imply this is prof Goodwins opinion. political phenomenon does not mean political organisation, nor does street movement We should remove the claimk they are a political organisation un till RS can be found that call them that, aplly the same rules to what you don't like to what you do.Slatersteven (talk) 14:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Goodwin's comment (in the early days of the EDL) raises the question of their development as a political movement. We can find sources to say they are a street movement, a social movement, a political phenomenon and various other descriptions. We really need a more recent article from an authoritative source which is more than just a recent report. I think Searchlight did an investigation but I don't have immediate access to it. --Snowded ^TALK 15:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

What the guardian sources says. It calls them a “far-right street movement”. Also your Nick Lowles quote in full "What we are seeing now is the most serious, most dangerous, political phenomenon that we have had in Britain for a number of years. With EDL protests that are growing week in, week out there is a chance for major disorder and a major political shift to the right in this country." Its obvious he is talking about a shift in political opinion, what thier danger is, not what the EDL is. So if you cannot find a source that calls them political the word should be removed.Slatersteven (talk) 15:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Slater, I am open to changing the lede, I just want us to discuss it properly first. "Far Right street movement" is one possibility. However its hard to see how a political phenomenon can be other than a political movement. --Snowded ^TALK 15:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I can agree to that wording, as to the second point. The phenomenon may be what has created the EDL, not what the EDL is. But reading Mr Lowles quote I would say the phenomenon cannot be the EDL (it has not been around for a number of years, its been around for one). It is mopst likely (as I susgest in the first sentance of this message) that he is talking about the growth of the far right in this country, and the potential danger teh EDL posses with regard to that phenomenon.Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

OK I will amend to that as at least its progress, but reserve the right to return to the political question if other editors get involved. I disagree on your interpretation of Lowies by the way, but it can be read in several ways. --Snowded ^TALK 15:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

We don't remove verified and well sourced information as a "compromise" with those that seek to bias coverage. This is a political organisation, as supported by sources and basic definition of the same (ie not synth). Verbal chat 15:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Leaky is also wrong that there was ever consensus to remove the term. Verbal chat 15:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Have you got the refs to hand Verbal? --Snowded ^TALK 15:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is one, and another, plus all the references to right wing (a political designation), and the dictionary definition of political. Google can provide many many more. Verbal chat

Lets not go down that road of do groups fit the dictionary definition shall we. Also no synthatsis please. As to the two sources, are they RS?Slatersteven (talk) 16:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes they fit all definitions simply, it is a non contentious fact and not synthesis. Please drop this flimsy attempt to claim the EDL is something other than it is. The only sources that claim the EDL are not political fail RS, yet they clearly fit the definition and we have independent news sources calling them political. Verbal chat 16:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to the statment "plus all the references to right wing (a political designation)" That would be sysnthassi to say that source a says a source b says b so c is true. Also why have the new sources not been put in teh artciel?Slatersteven (talk) 16:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

"an English far-right single-issue political street movement" Is better than political organisation but im still not sure about the first sentence. is "single issue" really needed? Could it not say something like "an English far right political street movement formed in 2009 with its stated aim to oppose what it considers ..". And is "political" still really needed there?, What about "an far right street movement formed in 2009 to...." BritishWatcher (talk) 16:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I think "an English far right political street movement formed" is a good suggestion if we can agree on the reliability of the sources--Snowded ^TALK 16:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Woould seem OK, but I thought sources had to be "Mainstream news sources, especially those at the high-quality end of the market" not sure that applies to local papers. I mwould be happier with national news sources saying this. Ther is also the issue heere of Undue. If all the national news sources do not describe them as political and two local newspaper reporters do we may be giving this far more attention then it deserves. The fact that the spources have not actualy been inluded makes me think that they may not pass muster.Slatersteven (talk) 16:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC).

Especially as one of those local newspapers is clearly from a POV of the writter. Reliable news sources tend not to start "RACIST thugs have been scrawling foul and offensive graffiti in Padgate." especially as within the article it appears its simply got the wording from the far left (and just as violent UAF), " Anti-racism campaigners Unite Against Fascism have descibed the group as racist nazi thugs." That "political" seems very problematic to me. Many groups or organisations have "Political" objectives, we do not describe them as a political movement or group. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Greenpeace comes to mind whos opening sentence just says : "Greenpeace is a non-governmental environmental organization" BritishWatcher (talk) 16:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

this however [[15]] is a better source, and words it in a way that seems to sum it up rather well (which might be a first for the Mail) "quasi-political" So the new text would read "an English far-right quasi-political street movement". With the ref added.Slatersteven (talk) 16:56, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Political in the lead is an obvious grammatical tautology - the needless repetition of an idea using different words. Right wing is more that adequate to describe their "political-ness" without the unnecessary reinforcement provided by adding "political". Leaky Caldron 17:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I think right wing is enough and we should avoid mentioning the "political" bit which is problematic. I see from their site they describe themselves as a "Movement" so we should definitely stick with using the word movement rather than organisation in the first sentence, i am ok with "street movement" although some may question if that is accurate considering much of their activity is conducted online as they organise the street protests. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure its quite that black and white. They appear to have some political potential, and perhaps asperations. But they appear to be more about the thugery. Essentialy a right wing rent a mob not dissimilar (and perhaps thats the point of Searchlights concearn about A "street army") to the left wing rent a mobs that bus around to any rally where they might get to throw chairs thur the windows off the local MankDonalds (at the saem time inflating thier apparent support). No more of a political gruop then the ALF, but also no less.Slatersteven (talk) 17:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The fact we describe it as right wing takes away the need to mention "political" because we assigning it a political ideology already. My preference is something like: "EDL is an English far right movement formed in 2009 to oppose what it considers as the spread of Islamism, Sharia law and Islamic extremism in England"" BritishWatcher (talk) 17:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

If mentioning political is so important then i would support the above with the addition of political before movement. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

In the absence of a mainstream press reference to "political" I am happy to accept "an English far-right quasi-political street movement". With the ref added per slater suggestion. If we find a mainstream reference to political then the case can be made for dropping quasi at that time. --Snowded ^TALK 18:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

"new non-political social movement".

To my previous topic, untrue description of the organisation, it has been stressed by many that emphasis is given to "reliable sources".

I give a reliable source.
A Parliament UK publication. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmedm/91102e01.htm

House of Commons, Monday 2 November 2009 Notices of Motions for which no days have been fixed (‘Early Day Motions’)

Please look at the item no: 2182 ENGLISH DEFENCE LEAGUE Dated: 28:10:09

I quote verbatim,

Mr Marsha Singh Peter Bottomley Mr David Drew John Hemming Mr Andrew Dismore Jeremy Corbyn Mrs Ann Cryer

That this House notes with concern the activities of the English Defence League (EDL), which is trying to spread fear, violence and hatred against the Muslim community; further notes that, in the light of previous EDL demonstrations, the proposed demonstration in West Yorkshire is likely to threaten race relations and community cohesion especially in a region that has in the past been blighted by riots inspired by racism; and calls on the relevant Government departments to come together to investigate and if necessary quash this new non-political social movement.

Please note the last four words as recorded by members of the parliament, new non-political social movement. They have NOT defined it as a far right nor a political organisation. And there has been no changes to the contrary.

The most approprite description should be thus: new non-political social movement with reference to this Early Day Motion. Wikipedia, as I understand, holds up the facts. Not an authors interpretation.

I request, on the basis of this reliable source that the description be changed.
Awmyth (talk) 18:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Its a bank bench motion so its not a reliable third party source. --Snowded ^TALK 18:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

That I find is unacceptable.
It is a published parliamentary document written by Members of the Parliament UK.
Am I to believe that Wikipedia refuses to accept the words of the UK parliament as a reliable document?
If you are, that will be interesting news.
Awmyth (talk) 18:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Its not law, not the offical view of parliment, its the view of those making the motion (in the same way that my views are mine not wikipedias, not matter that they are published here). Now if the early day motion passed that would be a different matter.Slatersteven (talk) 18:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

and its by just 7 out of 650 MPs. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, but it has a place in the articel though.Slatersteven (talk) 18:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

It aint signed by enough MPs to be notable. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Certainly not a reliable source for how we describe the movement in the introduction. I dont like using the term political in the first sentence but id oppose saying "Non-political" which is just as pointless. Typical of our political masters to be wasting their time on such an EDM instead of addressing some of the genuine concerns the thugs in the EDL have about the islamist threat. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Replying to Britishwatcher:

Are you saying you decide on the opening description and then look for reference from "reliable sources"? That is blatant bias.

You have quoted two refernces 1 and 2 which are a BBC journalist report. ONE person. Whose beliefs and motivation will never be cross-examined. Yet you claim, SEVEN MPs decision is unreliable.

Your personal opinion of the "EDL thugs" is not a reliable source.
Awmyth (talk) 18:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Fortunately we have several reliable sources which say they are thugs so we don't need to rely on BWs opinion. I'll leave a welcome notice on your talk page, you need to read up on some wikipedia processes. Please also indent your comments - it makes it easier to read. I have done it for you to provide an example --Snowded ^TALK 18:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is a link to a story in the Yorkshire Evening Post. Since it was an early day motion, it is unlikely that there will be any vote and it is therefore marginally relevant to the article. However the article does not pick up on the fact that EDL is described as "non-political". Using the choice of words used in the resolution to conclude that Marsha Singh, Peter Bottomley and others consider them non-political is original research. We would need a source explaining what they meant. Do they mean for example that it has no formal connection with any political party, or do they mean that freedom of religion and immigration are not political issues? TFD (talk) 18:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I do view them as thugs although i agree with their concerns about the islamification of Europe. I am not suggesting that thugs be put it the introduction so i do not need sources. 7 MPs opinions do not overrule reliable news sources. Theres no way your proposed wording will be accepted, lets focus on the above section where some progress seemed to be getting made. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:56, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Good. The sooner a decision is made, the sooner i can take it to arbitration. I can also draw the attention of the public how Wikipedia decides on the contents and then hunts around for "reliable sources". And will also highlight how the actions and words of UK MPs are considered by Wikipedia as "political masters to be wasting their time". Thanks, you guys have been very informative. Awmyth (talk) 19:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you will get agreement to mediation on that one but there are various ways that you can try and get other editors involved - however you do really need to read up on the criteria for inclusion of material in Wikipedia and the nature of third party reliable sources. I look forward to reading your views about the wikipedia in the national press. --Snowded ^TALK 19:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Those are my views not the view of wikipedia or others here. With the exception of making comments on this talk page i have played no role in writing the article. An EDM of 7 MPs is not even notable enough to be mentioned in the article itself, let alone use their description in the introduction. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

At the end of the say we can only use RS, otherwise think of what would happen to this page. There would be a revert every 5 minutes as each person who 'KNOWS THE TRUTH!' insertes theri version.Slatersteven (talk) 19:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

POV tag

Any reasons for the tag addition? --Snowded ^TALK 19:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm obviously not a party to the ongoing discussion, but I noticed the many posts on this talk page recently, and by a cursory reading it occurred to me that there was a content dispute which warranted (or would benefit from) outside input. If all parties are happy doing without the tag, then by all means, it shouldn't be there. __meco (talk) 19:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Oops, hadn't seen this. I've just removed it - the impression I have is that apart from one editor, the rest of us (well, the rest of you) are discussing one or two words. {{POV}} really didn't seem appropriate. TFOWR 19:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I would certainly welcome an outside input. I am a member of the EDL. I am also a doctor by profession, of indian origin and a hindu. Not the usual far-right thug and/or a football hooligan. I debated long and hard with myself before i joined. I will take objection to being called a far-right. There may be members from far right, just like they are in all walks of life. But Wikipedia cannot generalise the whole organisation as far-right and I will try my best to debate this point, for I find this hostility of some editors towards a logical change unreasonable. Awmyth (talk) 19:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia can't do anything but cite other sources. It's not for us to insert our own opinion about the EDL - we have to report what sources say. You'd presumably want to say that the EDL are not a far-right organisation. I'd definitely like to say things that aren't in this article. But we're both constrained by what sources say. TFOWR 19:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

But we can say that "X has said Y" which in this case may be the answer.Slatersteven (talk) 19:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The EDL claims are legitimate material if they are listed as claims not objective fact. --Snowded ^TALK 19:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

So far, Wikipedia has confirmed that it will pick and choose the sources to suit their opinion. The editors show an incomprehensible need to keep the words "far right" in the opening sentence. The 7 MPs who tabled the motion themselves have described it as a non-political and social organisation. I am yet to find a refernce that superceded the reliability of this source. The persistent resistance to make the change shows an underlying bias. Awmyth (talk) 19:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Some of us above are supporting the removal of "political" from the introduction. "Organisation" has already been changed to say movement. People are prepared to support and accept changes, but in the case of "far right" the media often describe it as such and we have to go by the reliable media sources on this. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has not said anything. The nature of reliable third party sources has been explained to you, if you want to change the content you need to find some. The fact that you don't like it, and that the article does not convey EDL's claimed position is irrelevant. Please also address content issues rather than making allegations about contributors. --Snowded ^TALK 19:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I edited the description this morning - with my reasoning. It was reverted back and I was issued a warning. I brought back documentary evidence which you refute. But others will not. What you now argue is the degree of reliability of sources. That is debatable. And needs an outside arbitration. It is Wikipedia's collective responsibility to publish a fair and unbiased information. Everything an editor says or writes on this page, Wikipedia will always be accountable for it. I suggest you discuss this with the management.86.139.147.223 (talk) 20:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I notice how several editors refer very clinically to "the media" and I think that is unfortunate because it promulgates the notion that "the media" are neutral as long as they fall within the realm of reliable sources by Wikipedia's definition. Most mass media will have a bias to support the established national perception of the domestic political landscape and side with the incumbent power structure when choosing angles and phraseology to countenance a rogue grassroots movement such as the EDL appears to be to this Norwegian. If we are truly neutral as Wikipedia editors and do not overtly or otherwise seek to function as an extension of the mainstream media's default front against socially or politically potentially destabilizing or unpredictable movements, then this perspective should be acknowledged. Such an acknowledgment would open for a discussion of how neutral for instance the major British newspapers are when covering a movement of such a nature as the EDL. Would perhaps looking to how non-British publications describe the situation, or which terms and phrases they use, be useful to help establish a non-partisan vocabulary for our article to characterize the EDL? __meco (talk) 20:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

meco, your observation that "most mass media will have a bias" is, in my opinion, true, however we are here to report how the news is seen by reliable sources, i.e., the mainstream media. If you are unhappy with their reporting then your course of action is to complain to and about them. Once you have successfully changed the consensus view of MSM, then it will be reflected here. However, this is not the place to correct media bias. If you believe that the role of Wikipedia is to do this, then you should try to change policy rather than argue here. TFD (talk) 05:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not arguing against using the mainstream media, nor am I arguing to change Wikipedia's guidelines on the use of sources. I am only encouraging that a critical mindset be employed and that ample consideration be given to which mainstream media outlets to use to support certain angles of perception or when chosing a certain vocabulary to be considered neutral. Specifically I encourage stepping back for a moment from the perspective of the immediate culture where the controversy is taking place and see if maybe more uninvolved media outlets (such as those in another country or continent) will suggest a different yardstick for what we should consider neutral language and descriptions, and that doing so might be what is needed to dissolve some of the content disputes. This is obviously a general advice that isn't limited to the current article and the present dispute. Applied to this discussion, however, my specific advice is to try and assess some articles about the EDL that aren't from the British media. __meco (talk) 06:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

And I would have no oibjection to putting in the artciel taht X,Y,and Z have said that the edl ia a non-political organisation. I would also susgest that we put the 'Accused of being' caveat in front of far right.Slatersteven (talk) 19:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC).Slatersteven

Adding in something to the body that says XZ etc makes sense. However the addition of "accused" is not justified - that has been established over multiple articles, We go with the statement given by the reliable sources. --Snowded ^TALK 19:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, no point in putting something before Far right. How about if we replaced " although the EDL's political direction is being debated within the group" with a quote from them rejecting they are far right? that might help balance the first paragraph and address concerns about the use of far right. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Obviously if the current dispute seems to one of the parties to be at an impasse, that is certainly sufficient to call for outside opinions. This can be done with the {{POV}} template which I did, and I have explained why I did it. Now, several editors assure me that the current discussion is a very minor quibble and that it has more or less sorted itself out. If that is an inappropriate description of the present state of discourse then I'd say that the banner would be appropriately employed. Of course, there are also other tools available to assist a consensus to emerge. A Request for Comments would also appear to be suitable in this situation, that is, if some involved parties believe outside intervention is called for. __meco (talk) 19:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I would urge against an RFC, which tends to mean we wait for days in the hope someone replies but on plenty of occasions there is little feedback. I think we can resolve the situation with the first sentence ourselves here. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought we had agreed it ...--Snowded ^TALK 19:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I haven't. You all have, and I perceive a distinct bias. Your suggestions are not acceptable by me. There has to be an external arbitration.86.139.147.223 (talk) 20:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that RFCs often take a long time, making for a very drawn-out discussion. But that it takes time may not necessarily be so bad. And sometimes the response isn't very high either. I think it is a tool with some usefulness though, and if you decide not to use it in the current discussion, it might be applied at the next crossroads. __meco (talk) 20:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The opening description of the British Nationalist Party, an accepted far-right party, does not have the words "far-right"!
Reading this entire discussion page, it is blatantly obvious that numerous comlaints have been made against the use of the words "far-right" in the description of EDL, but the editors have persistently been unexplanably opposed any changes. No consensus has been reached.
Britishwatcher's userpage identity is only a large Union Jack and a slogan "Long live the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland!God save the Queen!".. That is enough indication to suggest that he/she maybe a BNP member or a sympathiser. With the given BNP views of EDL, what that brings to this debate as his/her "own views" may be the BNP's perspective. A bias and an underlying motive to deliberately discredit the EDL cannot be ruled out. Similarly, bias cannot be ruled out in the strong and unexplanable opposition of the other editors to make a change.
It is appropriate that an external arbitration is asked for now and this issue resolved and done with. Awmyth (talk) 04:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You need to learn as a matter of urgency to address content issues and not make accusations against editors. You have failed to follow WP:AGF here and you have also made a personal attack on BW who os not a member of the BNP and would almost certainly be insulted by the accusation. WP:NPA is take seriously on Wikipedia and some admins would consider your comments above enough to give you a short block. If you are unhappy about this discussion then you have a range of options open to you - read up on the material I placed on your site, that will tell you how to get other editors involved. If you want to formally appeal to Arbcom (I don't recommend it but its an option) to get involved that is also explained there. --Snowded ^TALK 07:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I have read the guidelines. I have been a member for a long time. I do not contribute much primarily for the reason the "established editors" bulldoze their views, even if flawed.
Snowded wishes to impose sanctions on me because I have raised valid argument that he/she or indeed a group of editors are unable to steamroll over. It beggars belief that experience editors are quoting the words of journalists from Warrington Guardian and Uxbridge Gazette (linked above by verbal?) local papers! to push for the description of far-right remaining unchanged. But refuses to accept the words of 7MPs when they describe EDL as non-political and social movement on a published parliamentary document. I suggest Snowded as a matter of urgency reads up on the objectives of Wikipedia. To be a factual encyclopedia and not editors' soapbox. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Awmyth (talk • contribs) 11:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

It is ill-advised by Awmyth to make general statements about how Wikipedia does things or how "the editors" behave when the target of their frustration is obviously a limited group of people editing this particular article. I don't think Awmyth was out of line for bringing up the observations about Britishwatcher, though. There were no accusations nor any personal attacks made and the speculations are valid as speculations go. That is not inappropriate in the context of an online medium where identities are indistinct and people often do not state which agendas they bring with them. When Awmyth writes: "A bias and an underlying motive to deliberately discredit the EDL cannot be ruled out. Similarly, bias cannot be ruled out in the strong and unexplanable opposition of the other editors to make a change", that is a valid assessment of the landscape in my opinion, although I may not fully share in it. Now, the question becomes: is this something we can act on? Obviously it isn't. But instead of asserting that Awmyth is remiss in affording good faith and rattling disciplinary sanctions I think we should afford ourselves and the circumstances that surrounds us in this artificial environment to acknowledge that this dilemma exists – of not knowing the people whom we are supposed to cooperate with, nor their personal agendas – and validate the observations made by Awmyth without letting that obscure our perceptions of neither Awmyth, Britishwatcher or any of the other editors. Britishwatcher is free to comment on Awmyth's observations, or to ignore them. The rest of us are still responsible for countenancing these two editors on the merits of their actions and what we know for sure about them, and if we need a polite reminder if we overstep this responsibility, then that's what should be issued.

Furthermore, if Awmyth wishes to call an RFC or any of the other arbitration tools available to the Wikipedia community, including calling on the ArbCom, then that is Awmyth's prerogative and cannot be denied. However, I sense that Awmyth (talk · contribs) is unsure either of which measure to pick or how to enter the necessary procedures, and as this user is a relative newcomer some assistance may be welcomed even from someone who doesn't think that calling in any outside help is the best way to go about this dispute. __meco (talk) 08:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I think meco's suggestion is sound. I'm familiar - we're most of us familiar - with many of Wikipedia's norms, but we should have no expectation that any of us know everything, or that all of have the degree of familiarity as others.

Could I suggest the neutral point of view noticeboard? Awmyth could raise their concerns there. This would draw attention to this article, and would attract editors who do not have a strong involvement with this article.

TFOWR 08:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

That is obviously one of the routes to take, but Awmyth needs to put in some work into reading the basic protocols etc. I am afraid that I disagree with you on the NPA issue, in a British context an accusation of BNP membership is serious and even the briefest review of BWs edits would have shown what a nonsense that is. --Snowded ^TALK 08:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify: I was commenting purely on the RfC suggestion. I agree that editors should not make assumptions about other editors' political beliefs, nor label other editors inappropriately. Explicitly: Snowded: you were correct to notify Awmyth about WP:NPA. Awmyth: please don't refer to other editors apparent political affiliations. TFOWR 09:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, being labelled as a BNP member is like being labelled as a member of the National Socialist German Workers' Party, that is how strongly many people rightly feel about the dangerous BNP in this country. I actually have far bigger problems with the BNP than i do with the EDL. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

With due respect to what you write _meco, I will say - articles on Wikipedia does not name the editors who have authored or edited it. This anonymity lets the "limited group" of editors never to bear the responsibility of their writings. In such a case Wikipedia has to accept the generalised responsibility for the actions of all their editors. Perhaps many editors should learn as a matter of urgency what their obligations are to wikipedia.Awmyth (talk) 12:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Editors are - and must be - attributed for copyright reasons. TFOWR 12:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify my position as it has been questioned, i do not support nor have i ever supported or been a member of the British National Party. I have made equally negative comments about the BNP on their talk page when debating if the BNP are fascist or not. If you think only the 2% of the population who vote BNP are proud to be British, support the United Kingdom and the Queen then you are mistaken. It is pretty sad that in todays society it is an assumption many would make when seeing the flag and i even attempted to counter it once by having on my userpage i was proud not to support the BNP but that really should not be needed.

I actually share some of the concerns of both the BNP and EDL, I just happen to think BNPs policies would destroy this country faster than our present left wing establishment and that the EDL's actions are doing more to damage community cohesion than the small number of muslim extremists they formed to protest against, not to mention the huge cost to the taxpayer and waste of resources having to police these regular UAF (a far left group i also condemn)- EDL clashes.

As i do not edit the article, my views on these sorts of matters have a limited impact anyway. It comes down to what the sources say which is why i accept the introduction should say the EDL is far right but at the same time disagree with saying its "political". BritishWatcher (talk) 08:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

We have BW's word only. We cannot know where his/her sympathies truly lie. We can only judge an editors motives based on what is apparent and his/her words and actions. In this case, the absolute obstinacy to hold on to the words "far-right" in the description of EDL is unexplanable. Significantly when these words have NOT been used to open the article on BNP. There is a blatant discripency here. Besides BW admits he does not edit this article, I do not understand why he/she is so keen on influencing the decision.
I have not made any allegations of anyone's membership to a political party. I have simply brought to notice that based on BW's inflexible stance and the manner in which he has introduced himself, an underlying bias cannot be ruled out.
I also find it hypocritical that anyone can be upset for being aligned with BNP, a recognised far-right political party but has no hesitation to generalise all members of EDL as "far-right".Awmyth (talk) 11:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Lets stop the soapboxing and sniping and get back on to the subject of improving the articel.Slatersteven (talk) 11:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Soapboxing and sniping would not have been necessary had their been an unbiased and logical discussion. It does not take long to revert back to changes I have requested and add on the description of the MPs with reference. I can do it, but it will lead to aggravated editing and more written warnings. Awmyth (talk) 12:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Awmyth, please take a hint and stop accusing editors of bias. It seems pretty clear that BW is not a member of the BNP, and it is clearly not WP:CIVIL to carry on making insinuations when the editor in question has denied it. I find it confusing that you openly say you are a member of the EDL but find it appropriate to accuse editors of unknown political affiliation of WP:COI. --FormerIP (talk) 12:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Awmyth if you don't stop accusing editors of bias then I for one am going to make a formal complain about your behaviour. Address content issues, respect other editors --Snowded ^TALK 12:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Snowded, please go ahead and complain, let us have someone decide which bit of my writing is unacceptable. May I draw your attention to what _meco has written above in response to your threat of sanctions. Not everyone it seems agree with you.
Do complain, just do not keep threatening with sanctions.Awmyth (talk) 13:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, it does not seem to me that the Early Day Motion mentioned is not a good source for the statement that the EDL are non-political. Given that their main activity is public demonstrations, this would be a very bold statement, and would therefore need very strong sourcing. The Early Day Motion probably has this wording because otherwise it would not be considered suitable to be tabled (on the basis that Parliament should not be used for the purpose of censuring political dissent). In other words, I think it is likely that the MP who drafted the Motion included the term "non-political" as a white lie in order to get it past House of Commons officials. We should not take it seriously. --FormerIP (talk) 12:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I suspect you're quite right - no way to prove it, however. Jeremy Corbyn in particular would likely describe the EDL in much less flattering terms privately. TFOWR 12:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

No way to prove it, but I think it is enough for us to disregard the source (it's a primary source), when we have plenty of other sources on the same question. --FormerIP (talk) 12:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed - definitely. TFOWR 12:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a good enough source for the views of those MPs, if it's worth noting. Bur surely the bigger point is that we can't just pull out one source and use that to build a definitive text, eg to say that the group is or isn't "political", whatever that means anyway - it's a vague phrase, and one that different sources will mean different things by when they use it - or is or isn't "far right"? Far too much cherry-picking like that goes on across this place. We need to look at the totality of sources, and, especially for the intro, provide a concise and clear overview. As noted above the broad consensus is far right, or at the very least right-wing. The "political" point is a red herring as far as I can see, and I don't see a need to say much about it either way. The new "quasi-political" wording seems a bit clumsy, with no offence intended. And, again, it seems to come from only one source, and a passing mention within it at that. N-HH talk/edits 13:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

So are you saying that the word 'political' has no place in the lead?Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I'd say it's redundant, if we use the (cited) term "far right". "Far right" implies political. TFOWR 13:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Totally agree. It is a clumsy attempt to reinforce a position which is already fully qualified by the description "right wing". It is a grammatically redundant adjective that provides a misleading veneer of structure, organisation and direction to this particular organisation. Leaky Caldron 13:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Wherever this discussion ends up, can I suggest that no-one reintroduce "quasi-political". --FormerIP (talk) 14:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

OK so there is no possiibity of compromise, User Verbal insits (against consensus) that we include the owrd political. Almost everyone else seems to agree it shouold not be there. Where do we go from here.Slatersteven (talk) 14:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that there's very much to disagree about. As has been noted by others, "politcal" doesn't make a great deal of difference on way or the other since we already say "right wing". I would suggest that having "political" in there would give slight help to a reader who has no idea what the EDL is. Yes, it is sort of implied by right wing, but something can be right wing without being primarily a political phenomenon (for example, Patrick Moore). So saying "political" or "protest movement" or something similar in the first sentence would be good. Otherwise we have "far-right street movement", which just leads the reader to wonder what one of those is (IMO). That's just on a for-what-its-worth basis, and I can certainly live without "political".

Also, if we do end up keeping political, it does not require so many cites. --FormerIP (talk) 14:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

As only two of the source say they are political no.Slatersteven (talk) 14:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I cannot believe I am reading these comments here.
First BW writes about 7UK MPs tabling an EDM "political masters to be wasting their time".
And now a criticism of the same MPs of having "drafted the Motion included the term "non-political" as a white lie....Awmyth (talk) 13:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to make of your disbelief, Awmyth. --FormerIP (talk) 14:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

It is clear that the dispute is not over so I move the the tag is re-instated untill the dispute is resolved.Slatersteven (talk) 14:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted to the last consensus version. Verbal, will you please outline the case for political here - its not clear from the sources and I am not happy about using the two local press reports. --Snowded ^TALK 14:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

On the basis that there's clearly some edit warring going on, I have to agree with the re-insertion of the {{POV}} tag. Verbal: stop, discuss. There's no WP:DEADLINE for this. TFOWR 14:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Cluttered section

I suggest that the Activities section is too long and appears cluttered and is discouraging readers in its current state. I haven't read it, merely perused it with respect to layout and structure. Would a bullet point list or a table be a useful inclusion for this section? __meco (talk) 19:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Fully agree with you there - it would be good to tighten it up --Snowded ^TALK 19:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed BritishWatcher (talk) 19:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

It's just a long list now more or less. Bullet-pointing it would at leats formalise that, though off the top of my head, I'm not sure that's approved by the style police. The alternative, to bring it into a more coherent, analytical structure would require a lot of work though ... N-HH talk/edits 13:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the thing to do is not to bullet it, but to summarise it (the problem being that this was fine when the EDL had only done one or two demos, but now we ahve far too much detail). --FormerIP (talk) 13:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPOVN

I've posted at the neutral point-of-view noticeboard, inviting non-involved editors to consider the issue discussed above. I'd suggest that we let them come here and comment, rather than piling over there to continue our arguments at a new venue ;-) TFOWR 12:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You should probably invite uninvolved editors over here, then, or they may just post over there. --FormerIP (talk) 12:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Oops, thought I had. I've amended it to steer editors to this talk page. TFOWR 12:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The term far right is a generally accepted term used to describe political parties, groups and individuals that are linked by ideology, history and personal relationships. Newspapers and experts on the far right have chosen to include the EDL in this group, although they reject the label. I see no reason to depart from the description used in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 14:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, it is a huge waste of time to go over this again. We should stop indulging those that want to edit against our core policies. This question has been asked and answered already. Verbal chat 14:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the sources there is no doubt they are descibed as a far-right organization. Could I suggest that the lede could be changed to something along the lines of, "The English Defence League (EDL) is an English single-issue political street movement formed in 2009 and described as a far-right organization by the mainstream British media." perhaps this would solve the problem of them not actually self identifying as far right. To let you all know, I had no idea who they were before coming here and still don't have any interest other than making this suggestion. Jack 1314 (talk) 14:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The sources say they are far right it is not correct to say that are "described" as such. Weasel words, we work from sources. --Snowded ^TALK 14:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Your probably right in that it would be using weasly words. Here was me thinking I could come in with my brilliant idea and and make everone happy. ;) Jack 1314 (talk) 14:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

That argument is simply throwing common sense out the window. I see nothing weasely about Jack 1314's proposed text. Attributing a characterization when that characterization is obviously controversial is much better than using that characterization with the "is of identity" as Alfred Korzybski would have termed it. "We work from sources" is true, but it is not supposed to be interpreted at an invitation to conceal controveries. __meco (talk) 15:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

As has been popinted out this is not new, or isolated to this page the BNP page regualry has the same debate for the same reason. If the 'rule'is realxed here it makes it easier to challenge it there.Slatersteven (talk) 15:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you be explicit about which rule or practice you are referring to? _-meco (talk) 15:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

POV twaddle

This article is utter rubbish. Like the BNP article, written as an attack by people who oppose the group. Off2riorob (talk) 14:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Given that the article is based on no less than 66 apparently reliable sources, would you like to expand on that assertion? Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Rob has quite a point. Second paragraph, just for starters, has all sorts of weaselly language. Then we have the "links to the BNP" section which consists of the fact that their website was built by a BNP activist and the fact that the BNP has washed their hands of them. I'd barely constitute the first as a link to the BNP and the second definitely isn't. The activities section is full of weaselly words and various other issues (one sentence broaches WP:FUTURE I think) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 15:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Rob, I'm afraid I disagree with you about both this page and the BNP page. Neither the EDL or the BNP are reliable sources, and we stick to what the preponderance of RS say about the groups. Verbal chat 15:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Off2riorob. That is precisely what this is. I am grateful that this has now been agreed by one experienced editor. Awmyth (talk) 15:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Well would either the experienced or the inexperienced editor like to come up with a reliable source which supports their assertions? Without that the argument is, well lets find a word, how about twaddle? --Snowded ^TALK 16:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Please can we get some structure here

OK, sometime yesterday with the exception of our EDL member and Verbal who was away at the time we had an agreement on this version with some ambiguity left over quasi-political or political. I reserved a position then which said that if there were citations that supported political then the quasi could be removed. I restored that consensus a few minutes ago with a request to Verbal to bring his evidence to the talk page. We have now had the nonsense of both political and non-political and the reversion by off2rio who has so far taken no part in this debate and (from the comment above) is back on a hobby horse in respect of other right wing sites.

We need to get some order here. I propose that the version on which we previously reached agreement is restored for the moment. That reads "The English Defence League (EDL) is an English far-right quasi-political street movement[1] formed in 2009". That wording is directly supported by citation. We then open up to an examination of Verbal's evidence for political. The far-right issue has been resolved here and on the BNP page before - we go with the sources and they all say far right. If some editors want to challenge that then they should raise it at the appropriate forum. --Snowded ^TALK 14:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Except that I would say that if users can find RS that say they are not far right we discuse that label too. I would rather we had a caveat as its an accusation made by oppoents, but if RS say it we must report it.Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Subject to the normal qualification in respect of WP:Weight I agree with qualification. --Snowded ^TALK 15:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

1) Considering this is the opening sentence, I would comment firstly that there is no commonly-understood term "street movement". To an uninitiated reader, this could be somnething to do with modern dance. Terms like "protest movement" or, indeed, "political group" would be more helpful to the reader.

2) I'm not sure that "quasi-political" is a possible state of affairs. Something can be "only slightly political", but "quasi-political" would meant that it is almost political but not quite. I can't think of an example of something to which this would apply. A source may have mangled the English language in this case, but we don't need to blindly copy.

3) In general, we do not need to source every single word. I'm not sure how the dispute over "political" first arose, but surely even the EDL would agree that they are political and so I think the dispute may be a bit misguided.

4) As I said above, I think it would be marginally more helpful to the reader to include a term such as "politcal". The opening sentence is in danger of failing to do anything to describe the EDL out of a fear of offending it. --FormerIP (talk) 15:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The debate about political started 9 months ago. It was not in the article lead for several months until reintroduced under a misleading edit summary a few weeks ago. They deny being political. There are no RS that clearly state that they are political. It is sufficiently inferred by "right wing" without adding it explicitly in my view and that of several editors above - likely a majority of those taking part in the current version of the discussion. There is no need to confer a dubious formal soubriquet and a needless grammatical tautology into the bargain. Leaky Caldron 15:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I think formal soubriquets and grammatical tautologies are frequently useful linguistic devices. --FormerIP (talk) 15:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Would you mind relating the meaning of that in plain English? __meco (talk) 15:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Something like: Giving something a commonly-used, neutral-sounding name and using more words that is strictly necessary are both things that will often help someone understand what you are saying. As In the example where you ask for something in plain English and it means I use less technical language and more words overall, but you are more able to understand what I am getting at. --FormerIP (talk) 15:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

My suggestion is that we stablise the phrase above as it is a consensus, get that inplace then have the political debate here rather than the edit wars which broke out this afternoon. --Snowded ^TALK 15:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the objection stems from the following. They do not appear to have political aspirations, not do they appear to be active except for demos. They do not seem to have a racial agenda. Nor do they seem to have a political philosophy. They appear to be just a protest movement that has one issue (we don’t like Ialsmaification, and may be Muslims) and a desire to replace football hooliganism with some other excuse to kick someone’s head in. In this respect they (as I have said before) are no more political then the ALF or UAF (which is not called political in the lead, and is rather more political then the EDL).Slatersteven (talk) 15:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

It is still quite normal to describe single-issue groups as political. I wouldn't have a problem with calling the UAF political (but we are not disucssing that article). Do we have a good source for them denying being political (I am sceptical about this). --FormerIP (talk)

Such as which wiki articels?Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Eh? --FormerIP (talk) 15:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Political is well sourced. There really is no need for further discussion. Verbal chat 15:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Verbal did you get out of the wrong side of the bed this morning? I've been through the references and its not direct it does require either interpretation or the acceptance of regional newspapers as a source. I can't find a statement in the national press. --Snowded ^TALK 15:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Can I point out again that one of the biggest problems with "political" is how vague a description it is. It can mean 101 things to different editors and readers. It's never going to be 100% clear what is being meant by those wishing to include it, or what will be taken away by those reading it. Hence it's surely not useful to include it, or, equally, to say that the group are not political. And "quasi-political" is even vaguer. The group protests, about specific issues - that makes them political in the broadest sense. They do not have a broad platform that covers a wide range of issues, or employ a wide variety of campaigning strategies - in that sense they are not political. Also, all sorts of sources will say all sort of different, often contradictory, things, and we need to work out a concise definition that incorporates the broad consensus of those sources. Cherry picking doesn't help, even if you can find 20 sources that happens to support a preferred phrasing. There will always be 21 others that don't use it, or explicitly contradict it, or follow it but mean something else by it.

A while back, I suggested a rewording of the lead's opening paragraph that also specifically highlighted from the outset the protest activity. That would clarify - via basic verifiable facts, not through subjective description - what the group is about, and what it is best known for, far more explicitly and with greater clarity than vague words such as "political". It also avoids possible confusion over the suggested "street movement" description. It also hedged the "far right" issue slightly, but not in a way that I think was too far outside of WP:WTA, especially given the pejorative nature of that label - however accurate and well-sourced it might be in this case - such that its use can itself be seen as a breach of that same guideline. N-HH talk/edits 16:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Looking outside Britain

I suggested in posts above that looking outside the mediasphere of the United Kingdom might be a good idea for finding non-partisan descriptions by neutral, i.e. disinterested, sources. No one took me up on that then As I realize that the article currently contains nothing by British media outlets, I decided to check some for myself, and I found that two Australian newspapers[16][17] may have a slightly different vocabulary than the British. This is only a cursory probe, and I encourage other editors to go beyond Australia and look more deeply at the language used in other countries. A helpful starting point can be Category:Lists of newspapers by country__meco (talk) 15:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly they use "right wing". That said for these type of articles the Australian Press tend to take the UK news wires so its derivative. It would be interesting to look at European newspapers as well. That said I doubt if there is a single source about groups like this which would not be labeled as partisan by someone. --Snowded ^TALK 15:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Certainly, but getting some distance might help. __meco (talk) 15:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

its a good idea to get some outside views.Slatersteven (talk) 15:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Aways useful, but I doubt it will be more than minor news reports, unlike the more substantial researched work in the Guardian --Snowded ^TALK 15:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The description appears to be the same. In any case, I do not see why we have to look outside the U. K. media. The quality British media are among the most reliable in the world. TFD (talk) 15:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Its a question of distance. If a source that has no axe to grind or party to support says something it is less lightly to be motivated by oppositio then if its from this country. For example Haaretz doe not decsribe them as far right (they call them "a thuggish anti-Muslim group" which I think sums them up rather well).Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I think finding European sources may be tough. I reckon anything from outside the UK is likely to just be regurgitation of UK news sources in any case. A quick search on Le Monde and Libération shows that neither of them appear to have carried articles about the EDL (at least on their websites). Le Monde gives them a passing mention in a story about Nick Griffin. Euronews ([18] - you have to run your own search) has a few articles where the EDL are described as "far-right demonstrators", a "xenophobic faction" and "a group whose violence recalls football hooliganism". --FormerIP (talk) 15:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is the first article I found, which was picked up from AP, by googling haaretz and "english defence league: "U.K. troubled by increasingly violent anti-Islam protests British minister compares far-right group's protests to 1930s-era fascist incitement". TFD (talk) 15:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)