Talk:English Defence League

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Website[edit]

The website is no longer up. You should probably clarify its defunct-ness — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sewnkin (talkcontribs) 19:44, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

It seems to be back on line now. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:44, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

"...more broadly"?[edit]

The article in the beginning twice (!) claims that the group is not what it itself states to be, that it is not only focused against Islamist radicals, but the follow up read does not explain the point in detail. It describes how the group held activities against actual jihadi groups and other extremists just as it has stated it was meant to do, and also cites the group's key message which also talks about Islamic fascism, which is not "broad" at all. So if this EDL group indeed Islamophobic in general -- which it totally could -- this has to be substantiated more clearly, and not just state as some POV of writers of the article.

(Otherwise, this article would rather feed those who suspect that there is some sort of conspiracy to smear any opposition to immigration as blanket Islamophobia or something, which leads to more distrust of wider groups of people into all sorts of coverage of political issues and activity both in media (which are already in about record low trust rate in the UK and in other territories) but also Wikipedia which should have a way higher standard of quality to upkeep itself as a much more respectable information source than the media.) 93.185.27.67 (talk) 21:13, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

So have any RS that dispute what we say?Slatersteven (talk) 11:15, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven that is not the point that the editor above is making.They are saying that the opinions given need to be substantiated more clearly. They also say that it appears to be the 'POV of writers of the article'. Your response is to ask (in quite a puerile manner) 'So have any RS that dispute what we say?'. First, by saying 'we say', that backs up what the ed above was saying about it coming across as the POV of the writer(s). Secondly, Wikipedia is not about writing your opinions and then demanding people come up with sources that address them, but rather coming up with sources that support the inclusion of something in Wikipedia. You appear to have got it the wrong way round. I could very well include a sentence saying that Mother Theresa was terrified of chickens. When challenged, I could ask you to come up with a RS that said that she was not terrified of chickens. You don't have to find evidence against inclusion but for it. The reason this article has drawn my own attention is that there are a number of people who are using it as an example of bias in media sources. I read it expecting to be able to dismiss such complaints out-of-hand but I have to say I have some sympathy with that view. The anon editor above makes a very valid point in their second paragraph which you have totally failed to address. NEDOCHAN (talk) 09:23, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

NPOV means we put in all significant viewpoints. If no RS contest a claim we do not have to. Now if no RS dispute that he Islamophobic we have no reason not to say he is. If some use slightly different terms for (in essence) the same thing (such as being "anti-Muslim") we can put in both, but one does not contradict the other, and thus is an invalid claim of NPOV. We have multiple RS for his Islamophobia, so it is not "my opinion, it is third party RS opinion.Slatersteven (talk) 10:10, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Darren Carroll recording[edit]

Hello Midnightblueowl,
About this edit, I really appreciate the way you state your objections. I happened to meet Darren Carroll, one of the co-founders of the EDL, one day and decided to do a brief interview with him for Wikipedia. The poor audio quality can be blamed on my old phone, whose microphone wasn't functioning optimally anymore, but I had no other recording device with me at the time. DC was important in making the EDL a success, but has turned into one of its most vocal critics now. As such, he can offer a very interesting perspective from both within and the outside. I added a recent interview with him in The Times to further support these facts, and that he is not just making it up. I did not know where in the article to put this addition; I placed it near the founding simply because DC was one of the co-founders, but I'm quite open to moving it to somewhere else. I'd very much like to hear your imput. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:54, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, Nederlandse Leeuw, and for recording this for Wikipedia. One issue that concerns me a little bit is how central a figure Darren Carroll actually was. As The Times article appears to show (I cannot access the entire piece, it's behind a paywall), he is the uncle of Tommy Robinson, but he certainly is not a recurring figure in the academic literature on the EDL, and he is not usually described as one of the group's founders (Robinson, Lake, Ray, and Marchini). Indeed, the article presently does not even mention him. Given this, I would be a little cautious so as not to give him too much prominence. I don't have any firm objection to the audio clip being re-inserted, but might the "Reception and legacy" section be a more appropriate place, as we are listening to an individual re-assess their involvement in a movement, rather than someone recount its history? Also, I don't know anything about audio-technology, but might there be a way of cleaning up the audio? It's not impossible to hear what he is saying, but if there is a way of improving the audio, that would be great. Midnightblueowl (talk)

Using the word 'Islamophobic' in a matter-of-fact way while maintaining a neutral POV[edit]

It cannot be right to describe the group as Islamophobic while adopting a neutral POV. The word is as subjective as 'racist' in its application and unless there is an official source, which is easily verifiable, saying that the EFL officially declares itself as Islamophobic the adjective should not be used. May I suggest 'anti-Islam'. It's clear that the EDL officially opposes Islam but it is not objectively and demonstratively clear that the EDL is Islamophobic. This appears to have been said already yet there appear to be WP: OWN issues here. The article needs thorough revision for neutral POV. This, however, seems a logical place to start. NEDOCHAN (talk) 23:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

That is not how it works, The Democratic republic of North Korea is not Democratic, Most (all?) racists never say they are racist, they do not hate people who are Jewish or black according to them. We go with what third party RS say, and they say it is Islamophobic.Slatersteven (talk) 10:13, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

The sources given are all from a book and so they aren't easily verifiable and it does seem that very few editors are contributing to this page and the environment seems quite hostile on this page as regards WP OWN. And you haven't addressed the point as the source cited for 'Anti-Islam' is the same as for 'Islamophobic'. So other than being vocal I don't think the issues are being addressed as to the neutral POV. NEDOCHAN (talk) 10:49, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

They are from more then one book or academic journal. Maybe the reason why the source cited cited for 'Anti-Islam' is the same as for 'Islamophobic' is because they mean the same thing? Thus (again) we go back to multiple RS have said it, no RS have been provided that contradict it, thus there is no opposite POV to represent. The best we can do (assuming the EDL have actually addressed the matter is to say they deny it, and sources for them denying it?Slatersteven (talk) 11:04, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

As a Wikipedia editor of equal standing I am using the proper channel to espouse the editorial opinion that the term 'anti-Islam' is more demonstrative of a neutral POV. I am not alone in expressing this or similar opinions and the request is sourced. It seems there a are two, loud voices dominating here and not a true consensus.NEDOCHAN (talk) 11:23, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I have not said you cannot I am disagreeing with you, not telling you you cannot say it.Slatersteven (talk) 11:27, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

What you said when immediately reverting the edit was 'not according to RS'. Yet the exact same RS you used to support your preferred word is also given in support of mine! So it IS according to RS. See where I'm coming from when it comes to WP OWN?NEDOCHAN (talk) 11:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

When I was carrying out a substantial rewrite of the article, ensuring that it made use of all the best quality sources, I thought it best to open the article with "The English Defence League (EDL) is a far-right, counter-jihadist organisation", because I thought that "counter-jihadist" was a more specific term than "Islamophobic". Other editors disagreed with me, and they won the day at the Talk Page, hence why it now states "Islamophobic" in the opening sentence. While I can see the reasons for favouring "anti-Islam" over "Islamophobic", it is clear that the vast majority of RS do use "Islamophobic". Moreover, the article body does give space to the EDL's own perceptions of itself and its take on the term "Islamophobia". Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:51, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
So you have one source that says both, so it supports Islamophobic, and as I said one does not contradict the other. Now if you want both in the lede (a bit of a tautology really) fine add it. But if all (all so far) RS say X, and one also says Y that does not mean that Y is the NPOV wording.Slatersteven (talk) 11:55, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@NEDOCHAN: I think the issue boils down to just one point: do you have any WP:RS that reject the categorisation of the EDL as "Islamophobic"? Because the article is presently full of RS that explicitly use that term to describe it as such, even when acknowledging that there is some ambiguity over the word itself. Wikipedia follows what the RS say. If they say the EDL is "Islamophobic", then we do to. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:10, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

It's not about rejecting it but about my view that of two words with similar meaning but different nuances (both of which are sourced), one is more in keeping with a neutral POV than the other. More generally, it is alarming that in the whole first section (except the infobox) there is not a single source referenced. That's extraordinary, particularly given that there are some fairly forthright statements made. Take for example this, 'although its rhetoric repeatedly conflates these with Islam and Muslims more broadly.' Surely some examples need to be given of this? What about this? 'Political scientists and other commentators have characterised this Islamophobic stance as culturally racist'. Is it not right to say who these scientists and commentators are and what precisely they have said? This? 'Polls indicated that most UK citizens opposed the EDL' What polls? When??!! This article, regardless of what one's views are of this organisation (or whatever you went to call it) plays into the hands of those who want to present Wikipedia as being ideologically slanted and/or biased. By improving articles such as this in the usual way, i.e. by ensuring information is carefully sourced, the community can address these concerns. It does appear to me that this article is being quite closely guarded by a few editors and that these legitimate concerns are not being properly addressed. It cannot be right that there is not a single reference in the first four paragraphs, particularly given their theme and contents. NEDOCHAN (talk) 13:34, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

please read wp:lead, we do not source material in the lede that is sourced in the body.Slatersteven (talk) 13:37, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

How on earth did you arrive at that conclusion? ' a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate.' Or 'The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged , and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation. Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead.'

Please explain. NEDOCHAN (talk) 13:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

"Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material." All we now have is just more (redundant) citations to the same sources in the body and the info box.Slatersteven (talk) 14:06, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I think the guidelines are pretty clear about likelihood of material being challenged. I think it's demonstrably untrue to say ' we do not source material in the lede that is sourced in the body.' NEDOCHAN (talk) 14:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

According to reliable sources, the EDL misrepresents Islam and unfairly villainizes Muslims on the basis of their religion. The term islamophobic accurately reflects that assessment while the other suggested terms mimimize it. The term btw is not "anti-Islam" but "anti-Islamist," which is a euphemism for Islamophobia. They claim to oppose Islamism not Islam. Islamism is an ideology of religious extremism. TFD (talk) 16:34, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Academic theology favours 'Anti-Islam' and it's a perfectly acceptable and dare I say it more appropriate term, as it is more matter-of-fact. Much as 'Anti-Judaism'is used. Modern theological discourse tends to use 'anti- (religion)'. Btw.NEDOCHAN (talk) 20:08, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Source for this.Slatersteven (talk) 20:27, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
And since when is theology even the most relevant discipline through which the EDL are to be discussed? What about political science, political history, the study of religion, all of which are eminently more relevant. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:58, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

NEDOCHAN, forgive my tone, but I must ask: have you actually read this article? You repeatedly show scepticism about claims made in the lead despite the fact that they are all fully dealt with and properly sourced in the main body of the article. You make claims like "the EDL officially opposes Islam" which aren't even true; officially, the EDL only claims to oppose "Islamism"/"Islamic extremism"/"jihadism". If you had read and absorbed the contents of the article then I'm not sure that you would have made an error such as this. I think it obvious that you mean well and aren't simply trolling and being disruptive but I also don't see how this discussion is really benefitting the article, as opposed to simply wasting all our time. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:06, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I absolutely have and I do appreciate your asking me that question and understand your points. But I'm not sure you're appreciating my points, namely that this article and others like it need to be immaculately neutral in tone to deflect the criticisms made of such articles by those who, wrongly in my opinion, believe Wikipedia to be slanted to the left politically. So by immediately describing the EDL as 'Islamophobic', this article is giving credence to such views right off the bat. And by making all the other points without in copy references that becomes even more the case. This is surely why the MoS states that material that is likely to be challenged should be sourced clearly even in the lead. I have read the article but others may not on account of its lead. See what I'm getting at? Now, little changes such as saying 'Anti-Islam(ic)' says pretty much the same thing but in a less controversial way. Much in the same way as 'anti-Judaism' might raise fewer eyebrows that 'anti- Semitism'. Theological essays increasingly use this for the reason that it's more matter-of-fact, whereas anti-Semitism etc. carries its own connotations. Discussing such things on a talk page should not be in itself controversial and I slightly resent the idea that I'm wasting time by discussing an article on its talk page. It's not as I'm edit warring or vandalising. I'm making legitimate points and ones which are similar to those that others have made, who appear to have been overwhelmed by a small number of vocal editors. My other concern is that of WP:OWN, which hasn't been addressed at all.NEDOCHAN (talk) 17:05, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

That is because no one user is operating under wp:own, but under wp:consensus based upon wp:v.Slatersteven (talk) 17:07, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Bear in mind that theology (a field that I am presuming you are somewhat familiar with) tends to be interested in 'abstract' discussions about ideas and beliefs. In theology, it may well be perfectly valid to talk about "anti-Islam" and "anti-Judaism" because it is the doctrines and the ideas that are being critiqued. In the 'real world' that the EDL inhabits, abstract discussions about belief often take second place to more grounded, visceral attitudes (and prejudices) toward individuals and groups. For the EDL, Muslims are often seen as a problem just as much as Islam. I do take on board and appreciate your point that "anti-Islam" can come across as a more neutral term than "Islamophobia", the latter of which can have a slightly sensationalistic ring to it. I don't think that you're wrong to say this. However, it is not an argument for making the change on Wikipedia itself. At the end of the day, Wikipedia follows the Reliable Sources, which overwhelmingly use "Islamophobic". Should the academic literature produced by political scientists change to favour "anti-Islam", then I wouldn't hesitate to back a change here at Wikipedia. But until then, we follow their lead. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:41, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Ok. NEDOCHAN (talk) 17:49, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposal[edit]

In trying to find a way out of this impasse, I propose that editors take a look at this version of the lead, from August 2018. It opened the article by stating "is a far-right, counter-jihadist organisation" and in the third paragraph then stated "Political scientists and other commentators have characterised this stance as Islamophobic and culturally racist." This wording was altered as a result of a Talk Page debate in September. Now, I do not object to going back to this older wording, which I think is both more precise and deals with some of NEDOCHAN's concerns that we are using the term "Islamophobia" in Wikipedia's voice. What do others think? Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:50, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

At the risk of stating the obvious :) I'd certainly support this. NEDOCHAN (talk) 17:59, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I think you are misinterpreting neutrality. It does not mean here being neutral to different views but expressing what reliable sources say. People who think that the BBC, the broadsheets and academia are left-wing (i.e., reliable sources) should find this article left-wing too. Counter-jihadist is what Islamophobes call themselves. Just using the term without explanation shows bias toward their position. Until and unless reliable sources adopt the term, it violates neutrality to use it. BTW, anti-Semitism and anti-Judaism are different things, although there is overlap. TFD (talk) 18:40, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
For what it's worth, "counter-jihadism" is also adopted by various academics studying the phenomenon in question. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:38, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
I have not seen that. The only examples I saw used the term to describe governments attempts to counter jihadism. TFD (talk) 00:20, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Grammar[edit]

I am making edits that almost all concern grammar. This should be allowed.Very few also say the same thing but more carefully. Leave me to it and then review. Should you disagree, please look at individual edits. I have not marked any as minor that are not exclusively grammatical.NEDOCHAN (talk) 22:43, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I have looked carefully at your edits. It is perfectly clear that they are not simply grammatical changes. In this edit, you altered a sentence reading, "Explicitly racist language was also used at demonstrations" to "Explicitly racist language was also alleged to have been used at demonstrations". That is not a grammatical change. It is a change of meaning. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:10, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
And is an example of many of the other "grammatical changes" that insert words like alleged or "claims".Slatersteven (talk) 23:13, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
concur - misleading edit summaries and edit warring don't bode well -----Snowded TALK 23:16, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
This recent edit by NEDOCHAN is a clear violation of WP:3RR, which the user has been informed about. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:22, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
I have reported them, enough is enough..Slatersteven (talk) 23:30, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

The edit which you take issue with, FreeKnowledgeCreator is here: It is not marked as minor and clearly explained. It is not put forward as a grammatical edit. It is explained. NEDOCHAN (talk) 13:28, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

And when that was undone you should have made your point here, not edit warred over it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:30, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

It wasn't undone. About 15 edits were undone. That is the point I'm making. NEDOCHAN (talk) 13:34, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

A, it was not the only error (as you now admit), B irrelevant that still did not mean you should have edit warred to reinstate ALL of your edits when at least some were being objected to, with somewhat dishonest edit summaries. What you should have done is come here and ask what the problem was, not try and force through your changes.Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

What's wrong with saying 'claimed'? As for "Explicitly racist language was also used at demonstrations" vs "Explicitly racist language was also alleged to have been used at demonstrations" the latter is clearly more appropriate. The second sentence is true. Allegations were made. The first sentence is not true until proven. It could be LIBEL.NEDOCHAN (talk) 23:36, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

There may be nothing wrong with it, but it is not merely a change in grammar, but in tone. Such changes (if undone) should be discussed, not edit warred over.Slatersteven (talk) 23:37, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
There are also other changes, such as changing tense, when grammatically the original version was correct.Slatersteven (talk) 23:39, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Examples?NEDOCHAN (talk) 23:39, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

[[1]], it was correct before you altered it, they are aware they prove costly, it is not talking in the past tense, but (in a sense) in the future tense. and please read WP:INDENT

Slatersteven (talk) 23:42, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

In a sense in a future tense? What are you on about?

The EDL WAS aware that its demonstrations, which are often met by protests from anti-fascist groups, PROVE costly for local authorities.

Tense AGREEMENT. It either IS aware that they PROVE, WAS aware that they PROVED or IS aware that they PROVED. Given that the article is written in the past tense, the third option can't be used. I'm not sure what 'in a sense in the future tense means'. Pretty feeble effort. NEDOCHAN (talk) 23:51, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

NEDOCHAN, see WP:WEASEL. If reliable sources report as fact that racist language was used on a given occasion, it is wrong for editors to try to create doubt when none exists. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:40, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks- read that. you've got the wrong end of the stick. I said that the person in question said that is what they heard. That is true. And can be proven. And sourced. The original version said that what is alleged by a person to have happened happened. That is not the same thing. Our entire legal system is based on these concepts. All I'm trying to do is correct grammar and add a very slightly more diplomatic tone to the article!NEDOCHAN (talk) 23:56, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

the group we are talking about are not especially diplomatic and neither is their language. Most of your grammar improvements are style ones not corrections and far too many (such as this) appear an attempt to soften any criticism envy the reference to WP:WEASEL. -----Snowded TALK 07:50, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

'the group we are talking about are not especially diplomatic and neither is their language'. Really? So the tone of a Wikipedia article shouldn't be diplomatic when its subject isn't? That is a shocking thing to write. It is not our job as wiki editors to criticise. And saying that someone wrote something which they wrote is a fact. Saying that what they wrote is totally true is not a fact, unless it's been proven in a court of law. NEDOCHAN (talk) 12:18, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Irrelevant, if you wanted to change the tone you should not have claimed they were grammar changes. That is the issue here.Slatersteven (talk) 12:23, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Are you trolling me? Please. Show me one example of an edit which changed the tone that I marked as minor. One. The only example you have found is a punctuation edit, which was marked as minor and punctuation, where I made a mistake by repeating a date. Tone had nothing to do with it. One more go. Show me ONE edit which I marked as MINOR that changed the TONE. Just one.NEDOCHAN (talk) 12:30, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

We are not talking about edits you marked as minor, but ones you marked as grammar changes.Slatersteven (talk) 12:34, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Ok. So show me an example of a change that I marked as grammar that changed the tone.NEDOCHAN (talk) 12:38, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

We already have, here it is again [[2]], but from earlier.Slatersteven (talk) 12:41, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

That was not an edit I made. That was my retoring about a dozen edits which had been reverted en masse. In restoring them I said that they were a series of individual edits. You can't blame me for the fact that my individual, explained and clearly marked edits were reverted lazily. Go back through my individual edits (not reverts) and you'll find that each one is carefully explained and/or marked as minor. One single original edit that was marked as grammatical that changed the tone. You won't find one. Leave it. You thought I was being disingenous and I wasn't. I was unfairly reverted. All that needed to be done was the edits to be assessed individually. Which is why they were made individually. If I had made the changes as a group you'd have a point. I didn't . NEDOCHAN (talk) 12:51, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Who made it if it was not you, was your account hacked?Slatersteven (talk) 13:00, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Snowded I believe was the original editor to create the collection of edits in place of the individual ones. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=English_Defence_League&diff=885876190&oldid=885875448

So? Did you or did you not mark it as "These are grammatical edits and I have deliberately made them separately", even though it contained alterations to tone, yes or no?Slatersteven (talk) 13:08, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Let's take a look. 'These are grammatical edits and I have deliberately made them separately'. Look at the edit Snowded made. The editor made my separate edits into a group. In doing so, they reverted edits that were overwhelmingly grammatical. I had no choice to revert the edit as many entirely correct individual corrections had been reverted, whereas all the editor needed to do was to revert the INDIVIDUAL edits that they disagreed with. We're getting into an argument. I will not respond further and you're welcome to the last word. I made the edits separately, as is the correct form, so they could be addressed separately. I was lazily reverted and dozens of edits were grouped together as one. That is not my fault but the fault of the editors who originally did not address each edit on its merits.NEDOCHAN (talk) 13:15, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Irrelevant, did you or did you not mark an edit (I do not care what the others boys did, wee are not a playground) as purely grammatical when it was not? Yes it is your fault, you made that edit, no one else (and you edit warred over it to boot).Slatersteven (talk) 13:19, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt.[edit]

The following edit gathers every grammatical change I made, so can be reviewed. Please note there are no examples of changing tone in any way. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=English_Defence_League&diff=885967465&oldid=885965595

Any disputed edits have NOT BEEN INCLUDED IN THIS EDIT.

NEDOCHAN (talk) 13:59, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

A quick scan says OK they are uncontroversial although I'm not sure any of them are really necessary. But putting them back again after you had been reverted without gaining agreement on the talk page is probably a mistake -----Snowded TALK 14:51, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
I discussed with the editor in question on their talk page. Editors are encouraged to improve articles and I am confident that I have. As per my talk page, I am very happy to discuss any grammatical changes that I make. NEDOCHAN (talk) 15:24, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Changing present tense (which implies it is still true) to past tense (which implies it is no longer true) is not really a minor change as it changes the emphasis. Any situations where there is a confusion or conflict between past and present tense should be discussed here as it maybe the intent is present tense in the first place (we are saying it is still true).Slatersteven (talk) 18:20, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

You're being silly now. I have used caps to show the verbs in the past tense. All but the first are unchanged. It's about agreement. You either change many or one. I chose one.


The EDL DESCRIBED their members as "ordinary, non-racist citizens of England... who have had enough of being treated as second class citizens to Jihadis in our own country".[1]


Studies FOUND that the majority of EDL members WERE young, working-class, white men.[2] A recurring joke among the EDL membership WAS that the group's female supporters WERE mostly involved so that they COULD find men to engage in sexual and romantic relationships with; accordingly, one female member WAS quoted as describing the EDL's female division as the "sticky knicker brigade".[3]

Please don't do this. It's not a battle. I am not making any type of point. I'm just making the tenses agree.NEDOCHAN (talk) 19:06, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

No I am not, if we change "believes" to "believed" we are saying it may no longer be the case. That is why tense is so important, it can change the whole meaning of a passage. If there is a confusion we need to decide (as a community, not one editor) what we meant by it, after all you did not write (and so cannot know the intent) of the passage. By the way both can bee true here, as two separate sources are used, and so may be making to separate points, about about what the EDL believes and one about what studies have found in the past, they are not mutually exclusive. To illustrate, do they no longer describe themselves as "ordinary, non-racist citizens of England... who have had enough of being treated as second class citizens to Jihadis in our own country"? is there a source for the idea this claim is not longer true?Slatersteven (talk) 19:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


How about this section? Have you taken issue with the author of this?

EDL members CHARACTERISED Islam as a threat to Western culture, presenting it as a misogynistic, homophobic, and dangerous force,[147] one which is discriminatory, intolerant, and hateful towards non-Muslims.[148] Muslims are associated in EDL discourse not just with the oppression of women, Jews, and gay people, but also with terrorism, rape, paedophilia, and incest.[141] The caricature of the Muslim in the EDL's discourse WAS similar to the anti-Semitic caricature of the Jew promoted in Nazi Germany.[149] The EDL consistently ASSOCIATED Muslims with negative behaviour and BLAMED this upon Islam itself, selectively identifying passages from the Qur'an which it CLAIMED Muslims use to justify their anti-social and criminal behaviour.[150] The EDL's Facebook page SHARED news stories which DEPICTED Muslims negatively,[151] while EDL members often ENGAGED in confirmation bias, believing any negative claims about Muslims they encountered—whether true or not—that fitted within their pre-accepted worldview in which Muslims are seen as inherently immoral and dangerous.[149]

EDL members BELIEVED that Muslims always PROTECTED their own while viewing non-Muslims as fair game for abuse and exploitation.[152] EDL supporters THOUGHT Muslims FAILED to respect non-Muslims, regarding them only as "infidels";[153] in turn, various EDL figures referred to themselves as "infidels" and the term was emblazoned on some EDL merchandise.

Please don't make me go on. I have no agenda. Relax.NEDOCHAN (talk) 19:18, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Then discus such edits and lets see what consensus is, that is all you have been asked to do. Stop making these kinds of changes without discussion.Slatersteven (talk) 19:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
I changed one verb. I have just provided entire unedited paragraphs which I haven't touched.

Are you saying that sections such as those above should be in the present tense? If so, I agree.

NEDOCHAN (talk) 19:37, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

OK can we now have a discussion about past and present tense and who to use them?Slatersteven (talk) 09:16, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Allen 2011, p. 285.
  2. ^ Meadowcroft & Morrow 2017, p. 375.
  3. ^ Pilkington 2016, pp. 64, 66; Pilkington 2017, p. 243.

Let's all calm down[edit]

Ok. Let's take a step back. I believe I have explained my edits clearly in the face of unnecessary hostility. I don't think I was rude but I am sorry if it came across that way. Let's talk.NEDOCHAN (talk) 20:45, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement is not consistent with you breaking WP:BRD. I suggest you stop edit warring and pick one subject, maybe tense and see if you can get agreement to that -----Snowded TALK 20:47, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Ok. So the issue is tense agreement. My response is above. I'll delete the offending post to boot.NEDOCHAN (talk) 20:49, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

You just imposed your changes again - I really suggest you self-revert fast -----Snowded TALK 20:51, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

You're as guilty as I am. I at least am attempting to discuss.NEDOCHAN (talk) 20:52, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Look at my edits. They're entirely inoffensive and totally legitimate. I really don't understand this situation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=English_Defence_League&diff=886023372&oldid=886022897 NEDOCHAN (talk) 20:55, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Read WP:BRD. Your changes have been reverted and opposed by several editors. They are not as guilty as you, they are following policy. You are not discussing if you simply impose your view before agreement. Self-revert and your willingness to work with other editors might then be evidenced, for the moment its evident you are not. You think they are legitimate others don't so you WAIT UNTIL YOU GET AGREEMENT-----Snowded TALK 20:57, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
NEDOCHAN, you are continuing to describe your edits inaccurately. You claim here that your changes are all changes of grammar only. In fact some are significant changes of meaning. For example, you changed, "The group generalises sharia as a uniform set of rules, ignoring the fact that it represents a diverse and often contradictory range of approaches to Islamic jurisprudence" to "The group generalises sharia as a uniform set of rules, rejecting the idea that it represents a diverse and often contradictory range of approaches to Islamic jurisprudence". You need to stop trying to make potentially controversial changes like that by claiming that they are only grammar changes. If you insist on trying to make controversial changes under the banner of grammar corrections, you should not be surprised if your edits all get reverted. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:02, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
OK. I can see that and that honestly was not my intention. It was a stylistic, grammatical edit but I can see that the word idea might not give that impression. While I believe it to be a better sentence, I accept that it should be discussed. I will change that edit now and the tense edit. Thanks.NEDOCHAN (talk) 21:03, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Look, that was one example, in general your view of style is your own and you do not have the right to simply impose it and then graciously make some modifications on a case by case basis. You still have the change to self-revert your most recent bit of edit warring and engage people on the talk page-----Snowded TALK 21:11, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

A lot of NEDOCHAN's grammatical edits seem well-meaning so I think we should probably give them the benefit of the doubt on their intentions. That being said, it's probably best if NEDOCHAN takes a break from making any edits to the article for a few days so things can cool a little bit. At the same time, it's probably best if other editors (myself included) don't revert any of their edits that are clearly just harmless copy editing. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:13, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I tried that then we got a personal attack (thankfully deleted after some persuasion) and continued attempts to claim a right to impose their own view of style along with misleading edit summaries. There are simply so many that sorting the acceptable from the bad is a major burden. Most of the acceptable ones are uneesary - pedantic or idiosyncratic in nature. Well meaning or not NEDOCHAN needs to follow WP:BRD and talk here. I've added to the 3rr report and if there is no self-reversion to prove good will then I'll restore the stable version again in the next couple of days -----Snowded TALK 21:18, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. I have changed the contested edits but legitimate copy editing is not something to be bombarded for. I have also corrected typos and clear grammatical errors. I will step aside but I do ask, politely, that you take my edits on a case-by-case basis. Once again, I know it might be irrelevant, but I am a DELTA EFL teacher and I love discussing grammar. If you'd like to discuss any grammatical changes I have made I would be delighted. Particularly semi-colons ;). NEDOCHAN (talk) 21:19, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Then self-revert please -----Snowded TALK 21:26, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
I have self-reverted every single edit that could be considered anything other than exclusively grammatical. I have also written you a note on your talk page.NEDOCHAN (talk) 21:31, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
And I've replied. Typos no issue, grammatical changes may be an issue (you have a very particular view), tense is contested, edits that appear to change the meaning are seen by you as simply grammatical. This is problematic and best handled if you revert your most recent bit of edit warring and then reach agreement in principle before starting again -----Snowded TALK 21:34, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I have reverted all those edits. Bar none. All that is left is several hours' worth of copy editing. Please do look. This is pretty unfair. If you have any examples I would really love to hear your thoughts!NEDOCHAN (talk) 21:39, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Four reverts in one day! None of the changes are lost, they can be restored IF you get agreement. You really need to self-revert and apologise fast ....-----Snowded TALK 21:41, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I have!! I have reverted every single contested edit! Do I have to reinstate spelling mistakes? Or sentences where the subject doesn't agree? Be fair. I have changed every single edit that has been criticised in any way. All that is left is harmless copy editing, as Midnight owl was kind enough to point out.

You're going to end up being blocked anyway. So, I guess you may as well be stubborn to the end. GoodDay (talk) 21:47, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
I think we have gone way past wp:tendentious.Slatersteven (talk) 09:18, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Final post[edit]

I will be leaving this article as of now. For posterity, please look at my final edits. I have been reverted for making this edit and clear and obvious mistakes have been reintroduced with relish. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=English_Defence_League&diff=prev&oldid=886030455 NEDOCHAN (talk) 23:55, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Consensus for copy edit[edit]

I would like to propose the following copy edit. There are numerous edits within but the most common is addressing the large amount of semi-colons which do not have independent clauses on either side of them. There are a few typos that have been corrected, several defining and non-defining relative clauses, one or two stylistic or formal changes involving prepositions, one or two instances where the word used in incorrect, a couple of dangling participles and a few others which I'm happy to explain and/or not include. I have no agenda whatsoever. I believe there are other discussions to be had here as regards the article but for the moment I propose the following copy edit and believe it to be a clear improvement. If there are any issues with the edits I have made please let me know.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=English_Defence_League&diff=886030455&oldid=886030167 NEDOCHAN (talk) 09:24, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

No issue with you just making edits that involve semi-colons. The rest I think we need to see (here) what text changes you are proposing.Slatersteven (talk) 09:31, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Addressing them each one-by-one and seeking consensus for every single copy edit would waste hours of time for all involved. The link above shows all my proposed changes. Perhaps if you'd like to identify any that you're not completely happy with we could start there?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=English_Defence_League&diff=886030455&oldid=886030167NEDOCHAN (talk) 09:56, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I can't see a practical alternative to doing it this way round. Consensus is not normally needed for minor copy editing. If there are any issues whatsoever, do please highlight the individual changes here, and I will explain my reasoning and seek consensus prior to making the changes/corrections. I would hope that good faith will be assumed otherwise, and if no issues are raised in a reasonable time frame, it'll be ok to make the proposed copy edit.NEDOCHAN (talk) 11:25, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Stop this now, multiple editors have said that many of you minor copy edits were nothing of the kind. Do not start again, bring anything other then actual (and solely) punctuation changes here for discussion.Slatersteven (talk) 12:46, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
I have removed all of them from the above edit. I will also not restore a single change which is disputed. Please do point any out with which you take issue.Please do look, assume good faith and review. The copy edit contains grammatical changes only. I really don't see that we need to seek dispute resolution for these edits. Be reasonable please.

NEDOCHAN (talk) 12:59, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

You are still making the tense alterations I (and others) have objected to.Slatersteven (talk) 13:15, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Respectfully and calmly, may I ask where I have done this? I can see two instances where I have correctly adopted the past perfect tense for something which took place before the action that the sentence is describing. So, for instance, 'When he arrived at home, he noticed he had left the door open'. The tense is used to indicate that the leaving of the door opened happened before the action at the heart of the sentence, 'he arrived at home'.

For example: 'Several of the northern groups expressed support for a former EDL regional organiser, John "Snowy" Shaw, who had accused Robinson and Carroll of financial impropriety.' I added 'had' before accused as the 'accused Robinson and Carroll' took place before the time that the sentence is describing, 'Several of the northern groups expressed support'. This is a simple grammatical change and doesn't change the tense at all. That is, it's still in the past tense, just grammatically correct.

I can't see any examples of changing the copy from present tense to past or vice versa.NEDOCHAN (talk) 13:29, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

At least one of which I have objected to as it may well change the intended meaning of a passage (both may). That is why they need to be discussed, to decide what We (We not you) mean by it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:33, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Also this "coked-up, bald-headed blokes running round the streets" changes a quote, we do not coy edit quotes (I have no idea if you have done this elsewhere).Slatersteven (talk) 13:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Removing a date is not a punctuation or grammar issue. So stop this now.Slatersteven (talk) 13:40, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
I did not change the words to the quote, and it's reported speech so can and should be transcribed grammatically. I didn't change the words (agree that would be outrageous) but just wrote them properly. The hyphens are used as the words are adjectives. There are also two of them, so they must be separated by commas.

I can't see the benefit of the date mistake I made and have restored being brought up any more. The dates have not been changed.NEDOCHAN (talk) 13:46, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I said removed, not altered. I am Asking you why you REMOVED (NOT ALTERED) a date? Forgive me by if you are not aware of what your own edits have entailed why they hell should we support them?Slatersteven (talk) 13:49, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
I removed the date by mistake when taking the semi-colons out of the sentence. We have been through this. I can't see how I could have done this nefariously. What incentive do you suggest I might have had?
Regarding this comment, ':At least one of which I have objected to as it may well change the intended meaning of a passage (both may). That is why they need to be discussed, to decide what We (We not you) mean by it.'

− − You must be able to appreciate that I don't know which edits you're describing. The edits that you or anyone else objected have not been made or mooted above. Respectfully and calmly, I have to reiterate that none of the disputed edits has been included in the copy edit I have proposed above. You don't need to keep saying that the edits must be discussed: that's what I'm doing.NEDOCHAN (talk) 13:51, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

we're not getting anywhere. Please seek a 3rd opinion or dispute resolution. NEDOCHAN (talk) 13:54, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
You the one arguing for changes.Slatersteven (talk) 13:58, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
I will give other editors the opportunity to contribute to the discussion here and will seek dispute resolution if no compromise can be reached.

NEDOCHAN (talk) 14:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

PLEASE LEARN TO INDENT - otherwise this is all a waste of time. I don't see any value in the changes you propose and its taking too much time to go through the volume. The so called copy edits often aren't (per several comments above) or they are relevant to improving the article. If you carry on like this I'm tempted to make a case for a topic ban -----Snowded TALK 14:29, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
I have not included any edits that are not copy edits in the above link. The comments above either concern edits that have not been included or are concerning copy. I will seek dispute resolution on the issue. I believe that seeking a topic ban would vindicate me totally so would warmly encourage you to do that.NEDOCHAN (talk) 14:36, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't think there are the grounds for a topic ban and am not sure pursuing one would really be of benefit to anyone. We need to turn this cooker down, not heat it up. NEDOCHAN, what I suggest is that you put forward your suggested copy edits one by one here at the Talk Page and see what people have to say about them. (And I'd recommend only doing one or two at a time). I know that that is going to be time consuming (and inevitably frustrating) but I think it's probably the only way that you will see any of your edits preserved. Remember, we are not in a rush. Things can go slow. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:00, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
I am happy to do so but may I ask for your assurance that they will be read by editors without prejudice? I should also suggest that if editors are not concerned with grammar to the extent that they're willing and able to discuss it in purely grammatical terms they might not want to participate. Appreciate your calming influence and very much hope you'll stick around for this process, I do still feel victimised to a certain extent. I have a fairly long history of grammatical copy editing and have never been in a situation like this before. NEDOCHAN (talk) 15:22, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
I will be around and I will comment on each and every one of your suggested alterations in what I would like to think will be recognised as an impartial manner. I hope that the other editors active here will also be able to put aside any ill-feeling that the recent arguments have engendered and also judge each suggestion on its own merits. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:38, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Of course, but I will also judge on whether they are or are not purely changes in grammar.Slatersteven (talk) 15:45, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
and if they are really necessary. Assuming that other editors are not showing good faith is not a good place to start -----Snowded TALK 15:58, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
"Assuming that other editors are not showing good faith is not a good place to start" - I don't know if this is a reference to my comment above or not, but to clarify, I certainly didn't mean to accuse either yourself, Slatersteven, or NEDOCHAN of not acting in good faith. If that is how my comment comes across, then I apologise for my poor choice of wording. My point is that these three editors have just been involved in a dispute over the course of several days in which things clearly got heated. Even with the best of intentions, heightened emotions can influence one's judgement on an unconscious level. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:29, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
It was a reference to this completely unnecessary comment from our edit warrior " but may I ask for your assurance that they will be read by editors without prejudice?"-----Snowded TALK 17:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Individual copy edits- grammar[edit]

Proposal One[edit]

Original: Following his departure, the group's membership heavily declined and various branches declared independence although it continues in a much smaller form.

Proposed: The group's membership declined significantly following Robinson's departure and various branches declared independence, although it continues in a smaller form.

Reason: Remove dangling modifier (Following his departure, the group's membership heavily declined) and ensure that the pronoun 'it' in the clause after the comma corresponds to the subject of the sentence (the group's membership).NEDOCHAN (talk) 16:05, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm happy with this alteration as I think that it does read better. It does lengthen the sentence slightly, but hopefully not be too much. Generally however, I'm cautious about lengthening sentences; many sections of the article are already too long as it is (and I say that as the person who wrote most of them to start with!). Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:18, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
you could delete 'Although it continues in a much smaller form" as that is implied by the earlier part of the sentence -----Snowded TALK 16:37, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Snowded; the latter part of the sentence probably isn't needed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:45, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
While I agree with this, I should point out that I have been implored to suggest solely grammatical changes. I will not be suggesting any changes of content or removal of content, just for the record. I will be explaining suggestions purely in grammatical terminology.NEDOCHAN (talk) 16:57, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
I tend to agree to much verbosity for no real benefit, but am not wholly against.Slatersteven (talk) 17:00, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I would suggest the benefit is in the 'reason' section. Removing a dangling modifier.NEDOCHAN (talk) 17:10, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposal Two[edit]

Original: In the latter half of the 20th century, British Muslims who faced racist abuse had usually been targeted not because they were Muslims but because they were South Asians (particularly from Pakistan, India, or Bangladesh); they faced the "Paki-bashing" that also targeted other South Asians including Hindus and Sikhs.

Proposed: In the latter half of the 20th century, British Muslims who faced racist abuse had usually been targeted not because they were Muslims but because they were South Asians (particularly from Pakistan, India, or Bangladesh). They faced "Paki-bashing", which also targeted other South Asians including Hindus and Sikhs.

Reason: The pronoun 'they' following the semi-colon introduces a dependent clause. That is, you need to know what 'they' refers to, so it's dependent on another clause. Semi-colons must not be used in this instance, as semi-colons very specifically only separate two independent clauses. If you cannot read each clause on either side of a semi-colon and understand them entirely independently of the other, then a semi-colon must not be used. So I have replaced the semi-colon with a full stop. I have also changed 'that' to ', which' as this is an example of a non-defining relative clause. Finally, I removed the definite article before the words that I don't want to write out, as there should not be a definite article there, as it's not a specific example of the thing in question. Incidentally, this is also why it's a non-defining relative clause.NEDOCHAN (talk) 17:42, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't object to the change, although I wonder if these sentences might fruitfully be reworded anyway. (Do we need to mention "Pakistan, India, or Bangladesh", for instance?) Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:04, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't see that as adding any value to be honest - the use of semi-colon conform with common use. But I am open to rephrasing with the removal of everything from "that also targeted ...." -----Snowded TALK 18:09, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
A semi-colon cannot be followed by a dependent clause. This isn't my opinion but a grammatical rule. I think it's slightly unfair to comment on the value of such rules. If anyone has any evidence to suggest that I'm wrong about this of course I'm happy to see it. Semi-colons separate independent clauses. That is not my opinion. The pronoun that follows the semi-colon in the original version identifies that clause as a dependent clause. Midnight (if I may) please understand that I am bound to be very limited in my suggestions and am operating on a very strict proviso not to alter content in any way.NEDOCHAN (talk) 18:16, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't really know much about grammatical rules so I cannot comment on that. Regarding suggestions, if there is a clear consensus among all of us to change prose, then there should be no barrier to doing so. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

"In the latter half of the 20th century, most British Muslims were of South Asian heritage. When they faced racist abuse, such as "Paki-bashing", it was usually because of their racial background, rather than their religious belief." How about that? Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

easy with any of it really, but I do think that it targeted non Muslims as well is significant, and indeed is the whole point of the passage is it not?Slatersteven (talk) 18:24, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Midnight. − That's great but it's vital that the end says 'beliefs or lack thereof' as otherwise you'd be in danger of suggesting all such people shared a common religious belief.NEDOCHAN (talk) 18:25, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
You're not indenting again - I corrected that. Midnight, happy with your wording I don't see why its vital to add 'or lack thereof' As to the rules on semi-colons, use changes over time and we can be over pedantic. -----Snowded TALK 18:49, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Do you not agree that it might be considered controversial to suggest that all people from ethnic groups share a common religion? As for your semi-colon comment, I have nothing to add. It's a factual observation. I don't want to appeal to authority but I do have a background in this stuff. I believe wholeheartedly that you won't find a single RS that contradicts what I have said. Shall we make the change and move along? NEDOCHAN (talk) 18:59, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Absolutely and the wording doesn't suggest that. OK to make the change per Midnight but not per you -----Snowded TALK 19:04, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
sure but it should say beliefs as to say 'their religious belief' suggests that they have that in commonNEDOCHAN (talk) 19:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Doesn't matter. I'll make the change as per consensus.NEDOCHAN (talk) 19:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposal Three[edit]

This should be an easy one as I think it's a typo.

Original: It launched an overt anti-Muslim campaign in 2000

Proposed: It launched an overtly anti-Muslim campaign in 2000

Reason: It's either 'overtly anti-Muslim' or 'overt, anti-Muslim'. That's pretty indisputable. If they're adjectives, then they must be separated by a comma. (A serious, educated woman). If it's adverb followed by adjective, then there needs to be an adverb. (A seriously educated woman). I thought 'overtly anti-Muslim' was what was intended and feel that reads better. NEDOCHAN (talk) 19:35, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Getting pedantic beyond belief but no objects either way -----Snowded TALK 19:57, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Ditto, trivial but no objection.Slatersteven (talk) 19:58, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Fine by me. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:23, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposal Four[edit]

Original: By 2011, this support had declined, with the party losing many of its local council seats;[1] however, as noted by the political scientist Chris Allen, the BNP had "extended the frontier of the far right in British politics", creating an environment the English Defence League would capitalise on.[2]

Proposed: By 2011, this support had declined, with the party losing many of its local council seats.[1] However, as noted by the political scientist Chris Allen, the BNP had "extended the frontier of the far right in British politics", creating an environment on which the English Defence League would later capitalise.[2]

Reason: As above, 'however' cannot introduce an independent clause, as its meaning refers to another clause. Each clause needs to be able to be understood without any other clause. I have also moved the preposition away from the end of the sentence, which is a common edit made in formal writing.NEDOCHAN (talk) 19:54, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

better exploit than capitalise or 'build on' -----Snowded TALK 19:56, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
I might be wrong but capitalise does not work in that context, It has to be either capitalise on, exploited, or built on.Slatersteven (talk) 20:00, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
I hope that you can appreciate why I haven't changed the wording, given what has taken place. NEDOCHAN (talk) 20:04, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
For what it's worth I think the word 'capitalise' is good and neutral.NEDOCHAN (talk) 20:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
For the sake of this exercise, I think it'll be easier not to debate adjectives when they're the same as the original. Can we make the edit?NEDOCHAN (talk) 20:13, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm happy with the change. I'd stick with "capitalise" though. "Exploit" does have some pejorative undercurrents because of its associations with "exploitation". Best to use more unambiguously neutral language. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:25, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
I couldn't agree moreNEDOCHAN (talk) 20:37, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Then it needs to be capitalise on or some alternative -----Snowded TALK 22:12, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposal Five[edit]

Original: The town of Luton in Bedfordshire—which had a Muslim population of around 18%—had a history of radical Islamist recruitment.

Proposed: The town of Luton in Bedfordshire, which had a Muslim population of around 18%, had a history of radical Islamist recruitment.

Reason: This is a non-defining relative clause. They use commas unless there's a clear reason not to.NEDOCHAN (talk) 20:01, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I prefer the wording as it is on this one. I may be wrong, but is there something explicitly incorrect about the present wording here? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:26, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
The wording is identical. It's just that this sentence is a non-defining relative clause and in such sentences the relative clause is separated from the main clause by commas, not hyphens/ dashes. As per: https://www.ef.co.uk/english-resources/english-grammar/non-defining-relative-clauses/
The use of hyphens normally indicates that there is something unusual or especially noteworthy. I'm not sure that that is really needed here. If you do feel that's the case, I'm happy not to make this change. It strikes me as slightly odd but no clear error has been made. NEDOCHAN (talk) 20:48, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Not seeing why this needs to be changed.Slatersteven (talk) 11:58, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposal Six[edit]

This one is important and necessary.

Original: On 10 March 2009, the small, extreme British Salafi Islamist group Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah demonstrated in the town to protest against the Royal Anglian Regiment's homecoming parade following their posting in Afghanistan

Proposed: On 10 March 2009, the small, extreme British Salafi Islamist group Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah demonstrated in the town to protest against the Royal Anglian Regiment's homecoming parade following the regiment's posting in Afghanistan

Reason: The grammatical subject of this sentence is 'the small, extreme British Salafi Islamist group Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah'. The object is the 'Royal Anglian regiment'. The pronoun 'their' could very logically refer to the Islamist group. Replacing the pronoun 'their' with 'the regiment's' removes any potential ambiguity. It retains the meaning of the sentence and prevents misunderstanding. This is important as it needs to be clear who was involved in the war. I hope the serious grammatical implications of this edit are understood.NEDOCHAN (talk) 21:05, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

We would then end up with "regiment" appearing twice in quick succession. Perhaps rather than adding a second appearance of "regiment" we could use "latter's"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm completely fine with that. Agree that it reads better. That still removes the ambiguity, which I can't be alone in thinking is important.NEDOCHAN (talk) 21:16, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Meaning is perfectly clear but OK with Midnight's suggesion -----Snowded TALK 22:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Ditto.Slatersteven (talk) 11:59, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposal Seven[edit]

Another easy one.

Original: The UPL organised a second demonstration for 24 May, titled "Ban the Terrorists"; this again resulted in disorder, with police making several arrests.

Proposed: The UPL organised a second demonstration for 24 May, titled "Ban the Terrorists". This again resulted in disorder, with police making several arrests.

Reason: Correcting the usage of semi-colon as above. NEDOCHAN (talk) 21:30, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I repeat my earlier point, you may not like it but this type of use of a semi-colon is increasingly common -----Snowded TALK 22:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


Again not seeing a real need for this, but no Opposition.Slatersteven (talk) 12:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposal Eight[edit]

Original: Ray publicised the event online, various self-described "anti-jihadist" far-right groups originating within the football hooligan firm scene—including the Welsh Defence League (WDL) and the March for England (MfE)—announced their intention to attend.

Proposed: Ray publicised the event online, various self-described "anti-jihadist" far-right groups that had emerged from within the football hooligan firm scene—including the Welsh Defence League (WDL) and the March for England (MfE)—announced their intention to attend.

Reason: 'Originating within' doesn't make sense (you'd need a preposition). 'That had emerged from' reads better, has the same meaning, and makes sense.NEDOCHAN (talk) 21:36, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

originating from reads better? -----Snowded TALK 22:16, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
I disagree. It's pretty difficult to say exactly where anything originates from. You would need to know precisely what a thing's origins were. 'Emerged from' is more matter-of-fact. If I take, say, a carrot out of the water in which I'd placed it, where did the carrot originate from? The ground? A seed? Hard to say. It emerged from the water, though. If you think 'that had originated from' is truly a better description than 'that had emerged from' then that's fine. Using the present participle 'originating', however, doesn't work.NEDOCHAN (talk) 22:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
"That had emerged from" is perhaps a tad more verbose that it needs to be. How about "emerging from"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:57, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
The problem is that that suggests it was happening at the same time. If so 'were emerging from'is better. Were emerging from??NEDOCHAN (talk) 00:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
The key thing here is that the EDL has its origins in the far right -----Snowded TALK 05:25, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree. But it emerged from the hooligan scene, which is what this sentence us about. Can we stick with my proposed change on this?NEDOCHAN (talk) 07:41, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Again not sure it is needed, overly verbose, but no real objections.Slatersteven (talk) 12:03, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Bear in mind that these can be revisited.NEDOCHAN (talk) 12:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Then I would rather leave it.Slatersteven (talk) 12:45, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
We'll go with Midnight then as a compromise.NEDOCHAN (talk) 12:51, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposal Nine[edit]

Original: Robinson's real name was Stephen Yaxley-Lennon; he borrowed the pseudonym from the head of a Luton football hooligan firm who had written several books about hooliganism.

Proposed: Robinson's real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon; the pseudonym Tommy Robinson was borrowed from the head of a Luton football hooligan firm who had written several books about hooliganism.

Reason: Past simple doesn't work as TR's real name is still Stephen Yaxley-Lennon. In the other independent clause I have changed to the passive voice as the sentence is about the name/ pseudonym and the active voice doesn't convey that as elegantly. Passive voice is more formal and appropriate here.NEDOCHAN (talk) 23:10, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

OK but 'the pseudonym Tommy Robinson was borrowed' could read 'the pseudonym was borrowed' which would be more succinct -----Snowded TALK 05:26, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes.NEDOCHAN (talk) 07:42, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Snowded. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:04, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Can we agree on 8, too?NEDOCHAN (talk) 11:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Agree with Snow.Slatersteven (talk) 12:04, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposal Ten[edit]

I'd like to reinstate these very minor edits. I have changed semi-colons to colons as in both instances the second clause adds detail and explanation to the first, which is colon territory. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=English_Defence_League&diff=885842071&oldid=885841926

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=English_Defence_League&diff=885841926&oldid=885841816 NEDOCHAN (talk) 13:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Not really all that useful but go ahead.Slatersteven (talk) 13:25, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposal Eleven[edit]

Original: The EDL's discourse constructed a binary division between Western culture and Islamic culture, the former presented as tolerant and progressive and the latter as intolerant and backward.[3] Islam is perceived as being anachronistic, having failed to adapt to the modern world;[4] EDL members regularly referred to it as an "ideology" or a "cult" rather than a "religion."[5] Like other right-wing populists across Europe, the EDL present Muslims as being intrinsically culturally incompatible, and threatening, to European societies;[6] in this, the EDL evoked Samuel P. Huntington's notion of the Clash of Civilizations,[7] as well as the idea of Salafi Islamist militant groups like Al Qaeda that the Western and Islamic worlds are fundamentally at conflict.[7] Although the EDL promotes a multi-racial concept of the English nation, its rhetoric explicitly distinguishes Muslims as being apart from this national group.[8] For the EDL, a Muslim cannot be truly English,[9] and the idea of an English Muslim or a British Muslim are not considered acceptable identities.[10]

Proposed: The EDL's discourse constructed a binary division between Western culture and Islamic culture, the former presented as tolerant and progressive and the latter as intolerant and backward.[3] Islam is perceived as being anachronistic, having failed to adapt to the modern world;[4] EDL members regularly referred to it as an "ideology" or a "cult" rather than a "religion."[5] Like other right-wing populists across Europe, the EDL present Muslims as being intrinsically culturally incompatible, and threatening, to European societies;[6] the EDL evoked Samuel P. Huntington's notion of the Clash of Civilizations,[7] as well as the idea of Salafi Islamist militant groups such as Al Qaeda, that the Western and Islamic worlds are fundamentally at conflict.[7] Although the EDL promotes a multi-racial concept of the English nation, its rhetoric explicitly distinguishes Muslims as being apart from this national group.[8] For the EDL, a Muslim cannot be truly English,[9] and the idea of an 'English Muslim' or a 'British Muslim' identity is not considered acceptable.[10]

Reason: These are nearly identical but I have substituted 'such as' for 'like' as that is technically correct here. I have also removed unnecessary words 'in this'. I have also corrected a grammatical mistake in the last sentence as it originally said 'the idea are'. This version is shorter and minor errors are corrected. I'd hope this is a simple change to propose.NEDOCHAN (talk) 15:16, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

If you remove 'in this' you also need to remove 'the EDL' otherwise OK -----Snowded TALK 15:30, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
I see what you mean. If we just put ', evoking' makes it shorter an easier to read. I'll make that edit. Obviously feel free to check everyone.NEDOCHAN (talk) 15:55, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
I was wondering about the removal of not, and what is said without it. I think the proposed changes above make it acceptable.Slatersteven (talk) 16:11, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposal Eleven[edit]

Original: Robinson was clearly spoken and articulate, able to present his views in an assured and eloquent way during television interviews and other encounters with the media.

Proposed: Robinson was clearly spoken, articulate and able to present his views in an assured and eloquent way during television interviews and other encounters with the media.

Reason: This is standard list punctuation and reads better.NEDOCHAN (talk) 17:11, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

OK -----Snowded TALK 17:45, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
No issues.Slatersteven (talk) 17:47, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposal Twelve[edit]

Original: Winlow, Hall, and Treadwell

Proposed: Winlow, Hall and Treadwell

Reason: Again this is standard list punctuation. I believe the Oxford comma does have a place when there is potential ambiguity, but there is none here. N.B. This occurs several times in the original version so assuming there are no objections to this edit, I will make it for every instance in which 'Winlow, Hall and Treadwell' appears.NEDOCHAN (talk) 17:11, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

OK -----Snowded TALK 17:45, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

OK.Slatersteven (talk) 17:47, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposal Thirteen[edit]

Original: Robinson's right hand man was...

Proposed: Robinson's right-hand man was...

Reason: Right hand with no hyphen is a noun. Right-hand is an adjective. Potential levity aside, I assume the adjective is what is meant. NEDOCHAN (talk) 17:22, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

OK -----Snowded TALK 17:46, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough.Slatersteven (talk) 17:48, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposal Fourteen[edit]

Original: Lake never become a visible figure in the movement and few members knew his name;[11] however, it was at Lake's flat in London's Barbican area that Ray, Robinson, and Ann Marchini had discussed the EDL's formation in May 2009.

Proposed: Lake never become a visible figure in the movement and few members knew his name;[11] it was at Lake's flat in London's Barbican area, however, where Ray, Robinson and Ann Marchini had discussed the EDL's formation in May 2009.

Reason: This is mostly stylistic but I did have to read the original a few times. I actually like the sentence. I do think, however, that it can be improved. 'Where' certainly works better than 'that' to describe a place in a prepositional phrase. I also changed the word order slightly to place emphasis on the flat, as I think that is the point.NEDOCHAN (talk) 19:19, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

rather pointless, but no objection.Slatersteven (talk) 13:21, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Pointless-----Snowded TALK 18:30, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
'Where' is better for a place and the passive works better for me. For the sake of continuing good will, can I have a bit of leeway?NEDOCHAN (talk) 19:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposal Fifteen[edit]

Original: The EDL focused on organising demonstrations; between 2009 and 2015, it held an average of between ten and fifteen demonstrations per year,

Proposed: The EDL focused on organising demonstrations: between 2009 and 2015, it held an average of between ten and fifteen per year,

Reason: Again, as the second clause adds detail to the first, a colon is better. It also means we can avoid repeating 'demonstrations'.NEDOCHAN (talk) 19:19, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Again not really any rel point, but i do prefer the original.Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Original better -----Snowded TALK 18:31, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
This is what colons are for. Also, given the previous discussions about brevity, I can't help but think that removing the repetition of 'demonstrations' is consistent with consensus thus far.NEDOCHAN (talk) 19:41, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Personally, I think the semi-colon looks more 'normal' but I'm no expert. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:33, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
If you're interested it's because both clauses are about the same thing i.e. the second clause adds information to the first. Semi-colons should separate clauses that are related to each other but that are essentially independent. 'Apples grow on trees; potatoes are dug up'.vs. 'Apples grow on trees: a combination of water and sunshine in the right quantities will result in the best crop'. Or something :)NEDOCHAN (talk) 19:53, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposal Sixteen[edit]

Original: During the 2011 England riots, contingents of EDL members mobilised in largely white areas of Outer London like Enfield and Eltham, claiming that they were there to "defend" them from rioters;[12] these also resulted in clashes with police,[13] and in one incident EDL members attacked a bus primarily carrying black youths.

Proposed: During the 2011 England riots, contingents of EDL members mobilised in largely white areas of Outer London, such as Enfield and Eltham, claiming that they were there to "defend" them from rioters. [12] These also resulted in clashes with police,[14] and in one incident EDL members attacked a bus primarily carrying black youths.

Reason: 'Such as' really is better in this kind of sentence, as the areas are certainly included as well as being indicative of the type that is indicated. I know it might seem trivial but I think this is a pretty clear example of 'such as' working better. I also split into two sentences as I think that aids readability. NEDOCHAN (talk) 19:19, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Yet again I am not seeing a need for this, but have no objection either.Slatersteven (talk) 13:24, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
OK -----Snowded TALK 18:32, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposal Seventeen[edit]

Original: Robinson's criminal record prevented him from legally entering the U.S., and in September 2011 he sought to do so using someone else's passport.

Proposed: Robinson's criminal record prevented him from entering the US legally, and in September 2011 he sought to do so illegally by using someone else's passport.

Reason: The preferred UK English variant is to write US without full stops. The second change is more interesting. It comes down to the meaning of 'to do so' in this sentence. Here, for reasons it'd be pointless to explain at length, 'to do so' relates to the verbal phrase 'entering the US (legally)'. So to say 'Robinson's criminal record prevented him from legally entering the U.S., and in September 2011 he sought to do so using someone else's passport' does imply grammatically that he tried to enter the US legally, which if you think about it isn't what he tried to do. He tried to enter illegally, which isn't the same thing. The natural reading of this sentence (that is, the one I have suggested) aloud would result in emphasis being placed on the adverb 'illegally', and if you read that aloud in your head I hope you'll come to the same conclusion as I have. Changes like this in articles indicate, to me at least, that you're reading something that the writer has tried their very best to be grammatically on point. NEDOCHAN (talk) 19:59, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Well as one of the sources say, he had in fact "who had previously been refused entry to the US", which rather implies he had at least tried by asking to be allowed in legally.Slatersteven (talk) 13:34, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
I think that it's reasonable to judge the article's wording purely on its own merits. The sources are good back up but I do think even the slightest ambiguity that can be removed should be. Unless anyone really thinks this is detrimental it'd be good to make this change, as I believe it to be an improvement.NEDOCHAN (talk) 17:03, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Original is perfectly clear -----Snowded TALK 18:33, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Again, for the sake of good will, I truly do think this edit is an improvement. The purpose of this exercise was originally to ensure that the edits were strictly grammatical; I'd like to think I'm keeping my word. I would really like to see this one through.NEDOCHAN (talk) 19:44, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
You don't know - its not a grammatical issue per Slatersteven -----Snowded TALK 07:27, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
The situation referred to is not the one this sentence is describing. This sentence is talking about about the time he tried to enter the US illegally, by using someone else's passport. It doesn't say 'Robinson has never tried to enter the US legally.'It is a grammatical issue and the point above doesn't address that.NEDOCHAN (talk) 08:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
I think this had best been dropped, not everyone agrees this is purely grammatical.Slatersteven (talk) 14:27, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
By way of compromise, how's this?

Robinson's criminal record prevented him from entering the US, and in September 2011 he sought to do so illegally by using someone else's passport.

That seems to address my points and Steven's, doesn't add length and achieves a compromise.NEDOCHAN (talk) 15:40, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Change the 'and' to a 'but' and i'd be inclined to accept -----Snowded TALK 15:44, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree with you.NEDOCHAN (talk) 17:01, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposal Eighteen[edit]

Original: Several of the northern groups expressed support for a former EDL regional organiser, John "Snowy" Shaw, who accused Robinson and Carroll of financial impropriety.

Proposed: Several of the northern groups expressed support for a former EDL regional organiser, John "Snowy" Shaw, who had accused Robinson and Carroll of financial impropriety.

Reason: Adopted the past perfect tense for an action which took place before the one the sentence is describing. That is, Shaw accused Robinson before the northern groups expressed their support. This is a no-brainer.NEDOCHAN (talk) 19:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

OK -----Snowded TALK 07:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough.Slatersteven (talk) 13:39, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
We could probably even get rid of the "of the" at the start of that sentence. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:31, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposal Nineteen[edit]

Original: The EDL developed links with the British Freedom Party (BFP), a BNP breakaway founded in October 2010.

Proposed: The EDL developed links with the British Freedom Party (BFP), a BNP breakaway group founded in October 2010.

Reason: Probably a typo. 'Breakaway' is an adjective, so it needs a noun.NEDOCHAN (talk) 20:00, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Breakaway is often used as a noun in this context so I think its OK as is -----Snowded TALK 07:29, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
okNEDOCHAN (talk) 08:52, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 20[edit]

Original: "NS", an acronym for "No Surrender

Proposed: "NS", an abbreviation for "No Surrender

Reason: 'NS' is not an acronym. It's an abbreviation. If it were an acronym it would be pronounced as a word (SCUBA, NATO etc.) All acronyms are abbreviations but not all abbreviations are acronyms. NEDOCHAN (talk) 14:18, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

seems valid.Slatersteven (talk) 14:24, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
OK-----Snowded TALK 15:43, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Sounds fine. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:30, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 21[edit]

Original: Although there is little consensus as to how Islamophobia should be defined,[15] a range of scholars to have studied the EDL have characterised it as an Islamophobic organisation.

Proposed: Although there is little consensus as to how Islamophobia should be defined,[15] a range of scholars who have studied the EDL have characterised it as an Islamophobic organisation.NEDOCHAN (talk) 10:38, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Reason: Typo

Proposal 22[edit]

Original: Following their fieldwork among EDL supporters, Winlow, Hall, and Treadwell noted that all those they encountered expressed hatred of Muslims.

Proposed: Following their fieldwork among EDL supporters, Winlow, Hall and Treadwell noted that all those whom they encountered had expressed hatred of Muslims.

Reason: Past perfect needed as the encounters took place before they noted it and 'whom' is needed.NEDOCHAN (talk) 10:38, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:45, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Italic text===Proposal 23 ===

Original: EDL members expressed anger at what they perceived as Muslims' wealth—contrasting it to their own strained economic situation—and the face that Muslim migrants received council housing and benefits which EDL members believed they had not earned;

Proposed: EDL members expressed anger at what they perceived as Muslims' wealth—contrasting it to their own strained economic situation—and the perception that Muslim migrants received council housing and benefits which EDL members believed they had not earned;

Reason: Originally, this is one of the edits that I did not mark as minor. There is obviously a typo, as the original says 'face'. This is clearly intended to be 'fact'. I changed it to 'perception' as I felt that 'fact' wasn't the right word to use as it's not really a fact. This was reverted back to 'face' as part of a mass revert, and then in all the confusion I was misconstrued as having changed 'perception' (my word) to 'face' (the original word). We should sort this one out. This might take a few suggestions.NEDOCHAN (talk) 10:38, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

  • "face" definitely needs to be changed to "fact". However, I'm not sure that the suggested alteration quite works. It results in a duplication of "perceived" and then "perception" in fairly quick succession. Moreover, I'm not totally sure it makes sense. The proposed wording reads as if EDL members "expressed anger [at...] the perception that Muslim migrants received council housing", which is clearly a total (incorrect) change in the meaning of the sentence. Moreover, changing from "the fact" to "the perception" makes it seem as if there is some doubt that Muslim migrants have received council housing, when there is no doubt about this point. It's the reality. The issue of contention is whether Muslim migrants deserve to have these things (or not, as the EDL believes). Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree and, when reading my proposal, came to similar conclusions. I'm still not totally happy but think we should revisit if necessary. For the moment, though, the typo should simply be corrected.NEDOCHAN (talk) 13:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Change the one word for now, lets revisit this in the future.Slatersteven (talk) 13:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 23[edit]

Original: They also highlighted reports, including personal accounts, of school authorities refusing to punish ethnic minority pupils bullying white English pupils.

Proposed: They also highlighted reports, including personal accounts, of school authorities refusing to punish ethnic minority pupils who had bullied white English pupils.

Reason: The first sentence doesn't read correctly- you could say 'for bullying' but 'who had bullied' with the past perfect works better imo.NEDOCHAN (talk) 10:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 24[edit]

Original: believing that their parents and grandparents' generations

Proposed: believing that their parents' and grandparents' generations

Reason: Possessive apostrophe NEDOCHAN (talk) 10:47, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Excellent. Emeraude (talk) 11:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 25[edit]

Original: They finished their study by cautioning that unless the left succeeded in reattaching itself to the white working-class—and in doing so ceasing to become

Proposed: They finished their study by cautioning that unless the left succeeded in reattaching itself to the white working-class—and in doing so ceases to become

Reason: Conditional grammar and readability NEDOCHAN (talk) 11:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

You seem to be mixing tenses here. Also it makes little sense "...ceasees to become "lost in identity politics and dominated by right-on metropolitan liberals" who did nothing to improve the economic life of working class people—then the UK would enter a period dominated by the political right", aprat from being (to my mind) poor English it alters the tense of the whole sentence.Slatersteven (talk) 13:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I should have posted the whole sentence.

They finished their study by cautioning that unless the left succeeded in reattaching itself to the white working-class—and in doing so ceasing to become "lost in identity politics and dominated by right-on metropolitan liberals" who did nothing to improve the economic life of working class people—then the UK would enter a period dominated by the political right.

As you can see the original sentence doesn't work. The current version says 'Unless it succeeded and ceasing to become, then...' So it can either be 'Unless it succeeded and ceases to become' or 'unless it succeeded and ceased to become'. It's a conditional structure. e

So 'Unless I became President and fly to England' is fine, 'Unless I became President and flew to England' is fine. 'Unless I became President and flying to England' doesn't work. I accept that that was difficult to see without the whole quote, though. NEDOCHAN (talk) 14:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

What does the source say?Slatersteven (talk) 11:41, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
It's a conditional clause. First conditional.NEDOCHAN (talk) 17:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  1. ^ a b Allen 2011, p. 282.
  2. ^ a b Allen 2011, p. 283.
  3. ^ a b Brindle 2016, p. 457.
  4. ^ a b Pilkington 2016, pp. 132–133.
  5. ^ a b Pilkington 2016, p. 136.
  6. ^ a b Brindle 2016, p. 445.
  7. ^ a b c d Richards 2013, p. 187.
  8. ^ a b Allen 2011, p. 291; Jackson 2011, p. 14.
  9. ^ a b Jackson 2011, p. 12.
  10. ^ a b Garland & Treadwell 2010, p. 29.
  11. ^ a b Pilkington 2016, p. 48.
  12. ^ a b Jackson 2011, p. 28; Trilling 2012, p. 193.
  13. ^ Thomson, Alex (11 August 2011). "Police clash with vigilantes in Eltham". Channel 4 News. Retrieved 17 September 2011.
  14. ^ Thomson, Alex (11 August 2011). "Police clash with vigilantes in Eltham". Channel 4 News. Retrieved 17 September 2011.
  15. ^ a b Allen 2011, p. 290.