Talk:English Defence League/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 8

How about

How would people feel about this..

"The English Defence League (EDL) is an English right-wing movement formed in 2009, Its stated aim is to oppose what it considers as the spread of Islamism, Sharia law and Islamic extremism in England."

Using far right does seem to concern more than one editor so perhaps right wing is a more acceptable term that both sides can accept. After doing some google searches, "Right wing" does seem to be used by a wider range of reliable media sources. BBC, Sky, Telegraph, Daily Mail, Times, The Guardian etc have all used "right wing", im not sure they have all said "far right" in the same way. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

"Far Right" is used consistently in the references and in particular the detailed report from the Guardian. I think the issues are simply around the following:
  • Political/quasi-political/no reference to politics &
  • Street movement/protest movement/single issue movement
If we can resolve those two then we are there, removing far right is not acceptable --Snowded TALK 08:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Im ok with far right or right wing. I think there are more sources justifying the use of right wing from a bigger mixture of sources to ensure its seen as balanced enough, which some question of "far right".
Inclusion of "far right" is not acceptable. I again say, the MPs chairing the EDM, as sourced, clearly stated the group was "non political" and a "social movement". There is no evidence that any of the quoted reliable sources have called the MPs incorrect or as liars - as one of the editors here had the audacity to do so.Awmyth (talk) 10:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I do not like "street movement" Its a rather strange term and considering a lot of its activity happens online which is how they organise their protests it seems rather strange. just "Movement" or "group" would be better. I also do not like "political / quasi political" and think that should be removed completely. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I hate to add a new word to the mix at this stage but, on reading the article, it could be described accurately as a grassroots movement. That covers things in terms of identifying it's objectives as political, it's formation as very fluid (especially given how it formed) and also tends to suggest a loosely organised group of activists (again, which sounds accurate) --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 09:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I added that in, although it would be nice to see a source --Snowded TALK 10:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
A poll such as this cannot rule out the bias of a small group of editors.
This attempt at a straw poll is incomplete and invalid. The issue of Wikipedia introducing the Organisation as "far-right" has been repeatedly disputed down this entire page, yet it is not the subject of a poll. Awmyth (talk) 10:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
You have been asked several times to produce a source which says they are not right wing/far-right. If you would respond to that request then it would be easier to take your POV seriously --Snowded TALK 10:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
And I have given you the source. You refuse to accept it as relevant. There are many editors who have criticised the description of far-right. It is obvious now, it is you, Snowded, who is obstructing a resolution here. It is a wastage of time and effort liaising with you. That is why I have requested help in initiating an ArbCom referral. Awmyth (talk) 10:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Awmyth, what are your views on saying "right wing" rather than "far right"? There is a case to be made that far right should be replaced by right wing, but it certainly needs one of the two in the introductions first sentence. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
At last some sensible options. Right wing is appropriate. Far right is not.Awmyth (talk) 10:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Awmyth, you have given us a source which does not use "Far Right" that is not the same thing in fact. If a RS says that "Wales is the land of song" it does not follow that Wales is not a part of the UK, just because the term was not used. Basic logic. All the reliable sources consistently use "far right" and that is the basis of decisions here. --Snowded TALK 10:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I am no longer prepared to discuss with you Snowded. You are not prepared to accept any POV other than yours. You simply hide behind what you prefer to accept as relevant sources. I do not have unlimited time to spend on this, I have other things to do.Awmyth (talk) 10:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Sources, Awmythits the way we avoid POV --Snowded TALK 10:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Rubbish. Sources have their own POV. Being selective in publishing sources that supports your own POV deepens the bias. You do not want to include the MPs description of the group as "non-political and social organisation" as reliable source, but you will quote an article from the Times that quotes on hearsay that a BNP person had created the EDL website. Hearsay is worthless as evidence.
At the risk of being sanctioned and banned, I call your role as an editor on this article as deeply and deliberately baised with an attitude that can only be likened to a gangland boss. (talk) 12:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
You're not alone, Awmyth. There have been numerous editors seeking an adjustment to the far-right label for some time now. Snowded's response is always the same (the sources say it is). He is right that most sources do say it. What continually is ignored is that his POV (along with most but bot necessarily all of the media's) can still be presented while preserving neutrality by saying it in the second line with a mention that the EDL disputes it. Probably won't ever happen though since no one has the patience to put up with these shenanigans. It shouldn't be that hard to present the group as they are (I think Young, British and Angry source says that some in the group are more far-right and racist than others) with all of the sources documenting the wort parts of their demos while still making it clear that the group as a whole may not necessarily be far-right and certainly officially disputes the common perception. Simply moving "far right" to the second line would stop many of the complaints raised on this talk page and (more importantly) the edit warring while (most importantly) still being just as factually accurate.Cptnono (talk) 10:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I do not get why some editors keep getting singled out in this debate, lets focus on the issue. Many sources use the term "far right" there for it is justified and has been justified to be in that first sentence. I am prepared to support changing "far right" to "right-wing" which appears to have even more reliable sources and from a bigger mix of sources if that addresses peoples concerns and brings this particular dispute to a close. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Because Snowded has so far been adamant that the terms "far-right" has to be included. Has not open it for polls. Is only prepared to accept sources as reliable which suits his/her agenda. The only editor who has threatened me with sanctions, here and on my page. (talk) 11:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
The term is backed up by sources so there is nothing wrong with its inclusion and Snowded is simply defending its use which has been agreed in the past by editors here. You were breaking the rules before, he advised you to stop in a reasonable way but going over that incident will not solve the problem, so lets just focus on the issue. Id support including a straw poll below about if Right wing should be used rather than Far right if enough editors are concerned about "far right" remaining. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I may well have missed this discussion somewhere up above, but has there been any consideration of whether "movement" is the best term to use? "Group" or "organisation" seem to me to be more neutral - "movement", to me, seems to give it greater substance and significance than the refs seem to support. If refs consistently suggest one word rather than another, we should go with that, but they don't seem to. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I can put another option up if you want, any idea on the source balance? --Snowded TALK 10:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I think it makes more sense to consider it as an organisation. I would also consider adding that it works primarily through online social networking and its own forum aswell as through the casuals united network --Omar418 (talk) 10:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I would oppose "organisation", but i would be fine with "group" rather than movement". BritishWatcher (talk) 10:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  • They are pretty organised...hats, scarves, badges, t-shirts, website, posters, demonstrations, networking, leadership struggles, organisational structure coming in with regional leaders... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omar418 (talk • --Omar418 (talk) 11:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
No declared formal structure though, more self organising with some main players --Snowded TALK 10:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

New Section "Violent Incidents" and a simplified list of protests?

There have been known to be a few violent incidents involving EDL demonstrations. Notably at Swansea (?), Dudley and Bolton. There is a general feeling they go hand in hand with violence among many.

Perhaps we can have a list of the protests with a simple breakdown of attendance and a section on violence and arrests? --Omar418 (talk) 10:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Someone mentioned above about changing the activities section. I would support a table with Date/Location/Numbers involved/basic notes about what happened like violence, arrests etc. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

A table with protests would be a good idea but there are points, when it comes to Dudley, the violence has been the main issue. --Omar418 (talk) 11:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

How about a table and then text on major issues etc.? --Snowded TALK 11:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the protests deserve their own table and its important to keep impartial. A section on violence, intimidation (i.e. the death threats that have been posted in the article) needs to seperate the two. There are hard facts to be laid out statistically and there are important events and actions that need to expanded upon. Need to go through the whole activities section seperating wheat from chaff as there is a lot of un-necessary repetition. The chanting could be summed up in a quick paragraph about the protests. Violence needs expanded upon. --Omar418 (talk) 11:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree fully with that --Snowded TALK 11:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Agree that a brief table or list of specific demos should be combined with more thematically structured prose discussing the group and its activity. Without lapsing into original research or unwarranted synthesis of course. N-HH talk/edits 13:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Consensus on adding a reference for Dudley protests

Posted above in the POV section but would like to see if I can get consensus so the reference can be posted through the admin. Stated below what I had above:

I'd like to update my reference for the Dudley demonstration where the Hindu Temple was attacked during a protest. The link I posted was simply to a comment about an article saying trouble had occured. I would simply like the current reference for the attack on the Temple to be replaced with the one below or to have this added to it.

This reference: contains an informative quote from West Midlands Police: “Amongst the premises attacked were residential homes around Alexandra Street, cars parked in roads surrounding Stafford Street, restaurants on Wolverhampton Street and the Hindu Temple. “Many of these locations saw windows smashed, and damage caused to fencing. A couple of vehicles were damaged as they were targeted whilst being driven through the town.” The main point is that a Hindu Temple is being smashed up by a group that claims to be anti-Islamism. --Omar418 (talk) 11:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The implication being that it is racist and/or ignorant rather than anti-islam? That would need to be specified in a source for us to state it or imply it? --Snowded TALK 11:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
The source in the article should certainly be replaced with the source you linked above. Its replacing a local news source with another local source that provides more accurate information. Nothing controversial about this change. The fact a hindu temple was attacked can be interpreted by the reader themselves. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I wonder if our Hindu EDL colleague Awmyth brought a sick-note for that particular incident? --FormerIP (talk) 12:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Reply to FormerIP. How is this comment of yours have any relevance to the purpose of this discussion. Its moronic comments like this that hijacks the purpose of this page. (talk) 12:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Just in case this comment gets deleted again, I will record this.
::I wonder if our Hindu EDL colleague Awmyth brought a sick-note for that particular incident? --FormerIP (talk) 12:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I dare you to delete this. (talk) 12:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, I thought it was cute of me, but I then thought better and posted on your talkpage instead. I'm happy to leave the comment here if you are, though. --FormerIP (talk) 12:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Agree . FormerIP, I appreciate that you removed the comment (it was re-added in an edit conflict but comments like this would be best not made in the first place. Comment on contributions, not contributors. TFOWR 12:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC), you're signed-out. It's generally best to remain signed-in where possible - otherwise it causes drama because other editors may think that two different editors are commenting, or that you're trying to give the impression of two different editors commenting. TFOWR 12:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC) is me. I must have lost my logged in status just before I hit Save Page. Isn't the first time it has happened to me. I did try to correct it, it didn't work.Awmyth (talk) 12:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
No worries. There's clearly no attempt to mislead anyone here, it's just that it can be a cause for drama - which I'm keen to avoid ;-) TFOWR 12:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Oppose use of local news articles, as above, per WP:RS, WP:PRIMARYand WP:UNDUE. AJRG (talk) 12:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I disagree, but think it may be good to raise this at RSN, since a couple of editors seem to be in favour of it. --FormerIP (talk) 12:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Mainstream news sources, especially those at the high-quality end of the market, are considered to be generally reliable. However, it is understood that even the most reputable news outlets occasionally contain errors. Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article is something that must be assessed on a case by case basis. When using news sources, care should be taken to distinguish opinion columns from news reporting. (WP:RS). AJRG (talk) 12:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
...which says something about a "case by case basis" (ie no blanket rules), but nothing about local press. --FormerIP (talk) 12:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Not many local newspapers could be described as being at the high-quality end of the market. Most are so close to the action that they count as primary sources. Unless you can show national interest in a local story (which would then give you a proper secondary source), inclusion is likely to give the story undue weight. AJRG (talk) 14:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I will admit to doubts in one respect. none of the sources indicate how may of tose arrested, or which violent incidents were EDl and which may have been others. I would be happier if we left out material that does not actualy be dirrectly attributed actions to the EDL.Slatersteven (talk) 12:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Important Point Here: I think arrests are rarely attributed to a group by the police. Still, if we are going to have a tabled protests section stats of arrests for that section would be important. It has to be noted that there is riot police dispatched, large numbers of counter-demonstrators and the reason for that is highlighted by the arrests. --Omar418 (talk) 14:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Replacing a local news source with a more accurate local news source seems like a reasonable thing to do for the time being. As this whole activity section is going to be gone through, we could deal with potential concerns about local sources during that larger change. I do not see the problem with this small alteration being made for the time being. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Seems fair enoug, if the whole sectio is going to get worked over then we can deal with each peice at t atime.Slatersteven (talk) 12:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
On the local press issue. It seems to be that we cannot rely on them for opinion, but reporting of statements by the police seems fair enough --Snowded TALK 12:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Agreed BritishWatcher (talk) 13:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Happy with that as a general rule of thumb, but would leave open the possibility of exceptions. Opinion pieces in local news sources may be notable in some cases. The guidance says to distinguish between news and opinion in all cases, not to reject opinion in certain categries of news source. --FormerIP (talk) 13:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
On the issue of local press. I can vouch that my local newspaper the Evening Times is probably the least political of all the newspapers sold in my area, including the national broadsheets (it also outsells many of the national newspapers). They are well known for giving the news without a political slant. I can't speak for the local newspapers used as refs for this article, but thought I'd stick up for at least one local paper. Unless there is a policy restricting sources to national newspapers I'm not sure the locals should be dismissed so easily. Jack 1314 (talk) 13:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
There's a lot of awful, amateurish content in the local press of course, but equally it's often the best place to go to for detailed coverage of local events. Some papers are "better" than others of course as well (often simply because they have more resources). Straight reporting on specific protests, or of the reaction/comment from local police or whoever should be fine. Probably better sources can be found for analysis or overarching themes though. As noted, looking at this on a case by cse basis seems to be the best option. N-HH talk/edits 13:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Far right or Right wing

Whilst there are sources to back up Far right being used in the introduction, as several editors seem concerned about its use (and its come up several times) i have spent a little while looking through usage by media organisations. I think there may be a case to change far right to right-wing which seems to be used a lot too and backed up by a wider range of media sources (including the Mail, Telegraph, Express which are not left wing papers).

If "right wing" is just as bad to those opposing "far right" we may as well not even bother discussing this, but if the change would satisfy some editors concerns i would be prepared to support the change.

Whilst some of these organisations may also refer to the group as far right, ive found the following where the EDL or their protesters are just described as right wing. Daily Mail [1] [2], Daily Telegraph [3], Daily Express (Describes activists as far right, but the group as right-wing in the same article)[4], The Times [5] , BBC (right-wing protesters) [6] [7], Sky News (Right-Wing protests) [8][9] and (controversial right-wing group) [10] , Evening Standard (right wing protesters) [11] .

Those will do for now. As i said before there are plenty of sources to back up use of far right, i came across ones including The Sun and Evening Standard, along with the guardian which has already been mentioned often and the BBC and Sky along with the express have also mentioned "far right" . Seen as some people in the debate above have questioned use of far right, i think its worth us debating this matter properly or to hold a vote on it like we are with other parts of the introduction above. But again if "right wing" is just as problematic as "far right" then there is no point. Both terms are absolutely justified, ill only support a change if it creates a wider consensus and deals with some peoples concerns. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Far right per previous discussion, consensus, and multiple reliable sources. The goal here isn't to satisfy editors with a POV to push, but to write an encyclopaedia according to reliable sources, the vast majority of which have and continue to label this group as a far right political one. Why do we have to go through this rubbish again? Verbal chat 16:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Right wing covers a very broad spectrum, while far-right is more specific. All the broadsheets and other source material uses "far right" and it is the main designation in the investigatory piece in the Guardian. Attempting to compromise sources on that reduces rather than increases the possibility of a wider consensus. Verbal, would you tone down the language a bit please, we have been making progress today --Snowded TALK 16:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
True right wing is less specific, but that would make it less controversial and problematic, and people can judge the group more from the rest of the article rather than how the media describe it. It is certainly the case there are plenty of sources to back up Far right and i have no problem keeping the present term. Having this debate now and getting it over and done with one way or another can atleast show the current use is justified and its not "some editors" and their personal POVs as has been claimed. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Right wing would be plenty, basically they are worried about mass immigration of the muslim people and the immense and recent mass changes to population demographics in some England cities. And they go on marches about it, they are not exactly far right Nazis are they. Actually if the Anti fascist league had not come disrupting them there would not even be any controversy. What is far right about saying, hello my town is being invaded by people from Pakistan? Off2riorob (talk) 16:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think that comment is pretty far right (in that the BNP or National front would say it, but the Conservative Party would not). Would you mind removing it from the talk page, please. --FormerIP (talk) 16:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
The talk page is not for discussing the rights and wrongs of immigration policy or the factual nature of your last sentence Rob, its for discussing evidence --Snowded TALK 16:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
we should go with what the bulk of sources call themSlatersteven (talk) 16:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
yea, evil flag waving Nazis. Off2riorob (talk) 16:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Motion to close per Godwin's Law. /thread Verbal chat 16:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

OK list,list all the source that call them far riight, then all the sources that call tehm right wing and see which is more commonly used?Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

(EC) The suggestion that "all broadsheets" and other mainstream news sources [always] call them far right is simply not accurate. As noted above, and as per several sources I recall highlighting a while back, many papers sometimes use the broader "right wing" - a spectrum that includes the far right of course. Possibly for reasons of variety if nothing else, who knows, and it's quite likely they mean to imply that they still fall within the extreme end of the right wing. A rough guesstimate would say that 97% of articles refer to them as "right wing", while 60% of articles use the "far right", separately or in addition. Either description probably follows the majority of sources, but it seems obvious to me which description better follows the sources, and also includes the "far right" within it, by implication. I think the vagueness, or rather broadness, is in this case a bonus, as it means we're uncontroversially covering all the options. Attribution can be used for more specific claims of being "far right" (we're not short of them, after all). N-HH talk/edits 16:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
(ec)I see it more as a matter of precision. If all the national newspapers use "far right" and also at times use "right wing" then the former is a more precise definition. The context of the use of "right wing" would also have to be examined, it looks to me like a watering down. If it is a serious proposal then I would want to start to argue to add in "extremist" as that is also used in the sources --Snowded TALK 16:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
As long as any lables are propley attributed (as per policy) no probloms. But I will say agai we should call thyem what the majority of sources call them.Slatersteven (talk) 17:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is some "Far right" usage - Telegraph [12] , BBC [13] , Express (far right activists) [14] , The Guardian [15] , The sun [16], Evening Standard [17] , The Times (far right protesters) [18] . There are more, but those are just a quick few. Like i said before, when it comes to sources either Right Wing / Far right are justified. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The term "far right" has a clear meaning, while "right-wing" does not. Yes, it means that they are grouped with the BNP and the French National Front, which is how they are seen in the media. There strategy of direct action separates them from UKIP. TFD (talk) 17:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I think right wing is slightly inaccurate because their issues are on the far right. Right wing covers far right and centre right. Bearing that in mind it seems sensible, to my mind, to be as specific as possible (based on the sources). If a reasonable number of sources refer to the movement as far right it seems a justified term. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 18:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
If right-wing papers like the Telegraph and the Express, along with the BBC, regard the group as far-right. It makes sense. --Omar418 (talk) 00:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Straw Poll issue 1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
"No reference to politics". Arguments for including "political" or "quasi-political" are that both terms can be cited, making no clear mention of "political" would be leaving out an important fact, and that "political" isn't controversial. The majority view appears to be that "political" is a tautology (i.e. redundant) if we describe the EDL as "right-wing" or "far right", that "politics" is a relatively minor part of the EDL's aims, and that "political" and "quasi-political" are ambiguous (they mean different things to different people). A greater number of editors appear to support "no reference" to either of the other two options. TFOWR 11:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


  • preference but OK with quasi ca live with removal as long as far right is retained --Snowded TALK 08:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Prefer this by a small margin. Think it depends on the contents of the rest of the sentence. I don't like "street movement" at all, so if this stays then I think it def needs the clarifier "political". Otherwise I would prefer it, but can live without. --FormerIP (talk) 10:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Preference per reliable sources, non controversial verifiable fact, and because this is an encyclopaedia not a whitewash. Verbal chat 16:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
How is not calling them political a whitewash? How are we covering up something about them? If Far right means political then we are still calling them political, we are just not calling them political political.Slatersteven (talk) 16:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Then if it is obvious why do you want it removed? Verbal chat 16:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
It is how, besides you have still not answerd how is this a whitewash?Slatersteven (talk) 16:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


  • Most reliably sourced. AJRG (talk) 09:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Neutral It sums up both the issue on this page (are they political or not) and is sourced. As well as the fact that whilst thet have some political leanings they ae not actualy politicaly active (and I suspect are not in it for the politics), they just shout at people.Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. I don't think there is such a thing as "quasi-political". It is just poor use of English in the source. --FormerIP (talk) 10:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Unexpectedly, there is. Actual proof here. See also Blackshirts (India), Social class in ancient Rome, African Agricultural Union, Akhter Husain, Jerry Horan and many more. AJRG (talk) 11:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
The fact that people have used the word does not necessarily mean it has a cogent meaning. I don't see how something can be nearly but not quite political. --FormerIP (talk) 11:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
In the same way that the above comment is somewhere between WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:OR. AJRG (talk) 11:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Even if its a reliable term, its just one of those phrases that sounds awful and should be avoided unless absolutely necessary which in this case it clearly isnt. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
As it sums up what they are, not quite but almost something, and its about the best sourced use of the word political we have I would have to say just 'not liking the sound of it' does not seem to be a valid reason for exclusion.Slatersteven (talk) 12:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes it is. Good style and precise English is important. --FormerIP (talk) 12:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
So how is calling them far right political (as opposed to what far right cake baking?) good English? Besides we use what the best source availible uses. Lets stick to how RS describe them shall we.Slatersteven (talk) 12:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I do not think "political" is needed at all (although id prefer it to this). Having the intro say it is Quasi-political which you described as "not quite but almost something" seems like something that would need more clarification in the introduction. It would make an even bigger deal of "political" when it really is not needed. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Equal worst solution (with below), with poorest sourcing. Political is better and clearly true. Verbal chat 16:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
So a national newpaper is less reliable then two local papers?Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that newspaper is, and you forget all the other sources and the dictionary. Verbal chat 16:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
What dictionary has been used as a source? what other sourcfes say tehy are political? also see [[19]] which says that on balance we should not say poliitcal as the buolk of sources do not use the term.Slatersteven (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
That was one person's opinion in a very short discussion. Hardly a strong consensus. AJRG (talk) 16:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree , but its all we have so far from community on this matter.Slatersteven (talk) 17:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Pick any dictionary you like. Verbal chat 16:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
That counts as WP:OR. Local papers rarely make reliable sources. AJRG (talk) 17:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
So in fact no disctionary was used as a source then.Slatersteven (talk) 17:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

no reference to politics

  • far-right is sufficient to identify it as political, quasi-political is.... a horrible word :) --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 09:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  • No need for political to be mentioned in the introduction. Many groups have political aims, it doesn't mean the term political must be mentioned in the lead and it is already covered by "far right". BritishWatcher (talk) 09:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Agreed --Omar418 (talk) 10:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Why do we need political if Far Right (or right wing) mean it. What the sentance is then saying is that they are a political political movment, which is plain daft. Either Far right means political (in which case we don't need to hammer it home like some one slaming your face into a table shouting "DO YOU GET IT THIER POLITICAL". Or it does not mean that which means we have too not really very good sources supporting the tem.Slatersteven (talk) 11:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  • As argued above, the term - or equally any explicit claim that they are not political - just means too many different things to different people. They clearly are political in the broadest sense of the word, but arguably not in one of several narrower senses. Best avoided, and just keep to other descriptions that are clearer, and more consistently verified in sources. "Quasi-political" is even worse in my view, and is anyway only used once, in passing, in one source AFAIK. N-HH talk/edits 13:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
In what sense are they not political? Verbal chat 16:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Per my reasoning here, and noted previously elsewhere. More specifically, the EDL themselves claim - for what it's worth - not to be political, presumably in order to suggest that their views count more, as being somehow unbiased or non-factional, rather than being rooted in traditional far right politics. Marsha Singh's EDM, signed by Jeremy Corbyn and others, describes them as "non-political" in a very different sense and for very different reasons, presumably simply to suggest they are simply street thugs, and that there is no need to be squeamish about curtailing their right to express themselves, since they are not part of standard, reasonable or democratic political world. That's my point - the word means different things to different people, and carries no real information. Why not just describe what they do, rather than try to add one-word subjective labels unless we have relative clarity, and/or relative unanimity within sources? Several sources use the term, but many more do not. N-HH talk/edits 16:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
The EDL is not a RS. Which dictionary definition of political does this group fail to meet? Verbal chat 16:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Which one do they fit?Slatersteven (talk) 16:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
The EDL are a very reliable source for what they say about themselves. Whether what they say is bollox is another matter altogether. Plus, we are talking about common use of the term, not dictionary definitions, which often will not capture every nuance of language use. However, I can see several bits here that could easily be seen to exclude the EDL and its activities/aims. For some people, everything is political. For others, it refers simply to established party politics and to government policy. N-HH talk/edits 16:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  • No reference to political in opening sentence. Happy with the 2nd sentence 8 month consensus version where "their political direction is being discussed within the group" - per source. Also gets rid of the grammar tautology use of the redundant adjective "political" following "right wing". Leaky Caldron 14:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose per multiple reliable sources. Political should be included as this group's stated aims are overtly political. It is not a tautology at all (I think you mean inference or implication). Verbal chat 16:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Far right political (according to the way you have defined far right to mean) is the same as Political political, that is what is meant by a tautology, saying the same thing twice in different way, a bit like using different words to say the same meaning.Slatersteven (talk) 16:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
A straw man, and incorrect to boot. Nowhere have I done that. Far right and political are not interchangeable, and since a lot of people seem to think you can be far right with political, and the EDL have made a point of this word, then we should be explicit in using the correct designation of "far right single issue political group" or similar. Verbal chat 16:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
"The following references all attribute political designations to the group, hence support the text" so you are saying that the sources support political becaseu they call them far right, thus saying that the two terms are in fact interchangible. that they mean the same.Slatersteven (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
¨No, you have it backwards. I'm sorry you don't seem to be able to understand this, but I've explained it as clearly as I can. Verbal chat 16:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
How do I have it backwards? you have explained nothing. All you have said is that sources that ue teh term far right are calling them political. how have I mis-understood?Slatersteven (talk) 16:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Straw Poll issue 2

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
"Single issue X". There's a clear consensus for this, based on long-standing acceptance, clarity and accuracy. TFOWR 11:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

street X

protest X

  • "protest movement" sounds good, although i would be fine with just "movement" BritishWatcher (talk) 09:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  • --FormerIP (talk) 11:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

single issue X

  • most accurate --Snowded TALK 08:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  • as above, also more easily understood by a reader (street movement can have multiple definitions and we shouldn't need to define what we mean in the lead) --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 09:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree. AJRG (talk) 09:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Cosign --Omar418 (talk) 10:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Prety much about what they are.Slatersteven (talk) 10:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Agree that this is clear and accurate. N-HH talk/edits 13:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  • agree - per 8 month consensus version. Leaky Caldron 14:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  • single issue political group, like we had before (8 month consensus version) and per multiple sources. Verbal chat 16:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
That’s odd because the change to political was made 2 months ago, not 8 or have a mis-understood what you are saying? And this version was immediately reverted[[20]]. Moreover teh consensus version was the one that left out the word poliitcal (consensus actualy requires people to agree with you).Slatersteven (talk) 11:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

grass roots X

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Straw Poll issue 3 what is X

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
"Group". Most editors seemed happy with most options, but "group" seems to be the option most editors are comfortable with. There are concerns that "group" may imply small size: I feel this concern is unwarranted: the EDL are relatively small when taken in the context of wider opposition to immigration or the growth of Islam in the UK. TFOWR 11:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


  • Think "organisation" is more accurate than "movement". To me, a movement implies no single leading organisation, whereas everyone on an EDL demo is nominally representing the EDL. --FormerIP (talk) 11:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  • First preference. They are clearly an organisation in that they are organised, and organise. They describe themselves as a "grass roots social movement", and such a self-assessment needs to be considered very carefully. To me, the word "movement" implies a much greater substance and significance than refs would suggest - "group" is OK, but they do seem to have some form of organisation which justifies the use of that word. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Good point about movement implying something bigger and more significant. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


  • easier on the tongue and makes sense to me --Omar418 (talk) 11:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Group is probably more clear than movement but i am fine with either. (i just strongly oppose Organisation) BritishWatcher (talk) 11:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Can live with group. May be considered POV because it tends to denote a small size. --FormerIP (talk) 11:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Pretty easy with all these options - group is broad and probably includes the other two, hence may be better. Yes it can suggest a small size, but then again they are not a massive movement, as documented by most sources that discuss them. Organisation fine too; movement not so sure about, but purely on personal irrational grounds. Perhaps because I tend to read "mass" or "bowel" in front of it. N-HH talk/edits 13:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


  • not too fussed on this one, but think this is more accurate --Snowded TALK 11:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Seems to me this is what they are.Slatersteven (talk) 11:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Very slight preference for this - the sources seem balanced. AJRG (talk) 11:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Just to let everyone know a mediation request has been opened here BritishWatcher (talk) 14:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to say, I have requested this process to get an independent and neutral perspective on the issue of "reliability of sources" and the appropriate use or rejection of the references. Reading the whole discussion page, I am convinced if no consensus could be reached for months, it is wishful thinking it will happen within this active group of editors.
This is the last chance to resolve this issue logically and rationally. I do not have the time to spend arguing with bigoted individuals. But I do not quit on the face of unfairness. This is no exception. Awmyth (talk) 17:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The realistic place to get those opinions is on the NPOVN and RSN boards. But, fair enough, if you want to go to mediation. On the other hand calling us all bigoted is, well, hardly the language of someone open to constructive mediation. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 17:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Well when you have finished insulting us all there is a debate below on use of far right or right wing, something you felt strongly about. There is a poll above on what type of entity to describe the EDL as (movement, group, organisation) along with if it should mention its political. You could contribute to those sections to help influence the article rather than simply continue to get yourself into trouble by attacking editors. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

As most seem to support the path of mediation, are all of the debates above and below about potential changes now void? There is no point in us debating and agreeing to make changes now, if the whole thing is being questioned and challenged during mediation. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

We may not get to mediation, since there is at least one clear objector at the moment. --FormerIP (talk) 23:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
As above. Plus there is no harm in completing discussions here too and seeing where that leaves us - if the result is that mediation is pointless then so be it. I also have a feeling that a couple of people just will not drop it even if we hit consenss. Perhaps if a weak consensus comes to the fore here on the talk page a mediator can comment on that. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 23:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi everyone. I want to say I am pulling out. I have a family bereavement. A couple of words on Wikipedia now seems pointless, I no longer care what you write.
I do not know how to withdraw the Request For Mediation. I am happy for any experienced editor to do so on my behalf. Awmyth (talk) 17:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

My condolences. AJRG (talk) 18:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
and mine, come back when you can --Snowded TALK 18:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to hear that, Awmyth. --FormerIP (talk) 21:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Demonstrations Table

Okay I have made up a table of demonstrations based on the references in the main article. Where information was lacking I have added my own references. A BBC report and a Sky News report. I think this should go below a paragraph dealing wioth violent incidents, abusive behaviour and intimidation. These would include the points on death threats. "Aggro" at demonstrations and noted points of violent intimidation. This should help sort out the Activities section a little.

Date Town/City Attendance Arrests At Event (includes non-EDL)
8th August 2009 Birmingham Unknown 35
5th September 2009 Birmingham Unknown 90
13th September 2009 London Unknown Zero
10th October 2009 Manchester 700 48
31st October 2009 Leeds 900 8
5th December 2009 Nottingham 500 11 [1]
23rd January 2010 Stoke-on-Trent 1500 17
20th March 2010 Bolton 2000 74
3rd April 2010 Dudley 2000 Unknown
1st May 2010 Aylesbury 800 12 [2]
17 July 2010 Dudley 500 21

--Omar418 (talk) 07:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Nice work! Couple of quick thoughts: I presume "N/A" is "not available"? It might be better to use "unknown": "N/A" could appear to be "not applicable", suggesting that no one attended, whereas it's obvious (from the arrests) that some people did attend. Also, is it possible (for that matter, is it desirable?) to have two sets of arrests - for EDL and non-EDL? As it is it might appear to make the EDL look bad by possibly suggesting that all arrests are EDL arrests. I realise the column header specifies both, but a casual reader might miss that. TFOWR 07:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Given the evidence you would need three columns EDL/non-EDL/unassigned as different reports have different levels of data --Snowded TALK 07:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It is annoying that you can't get the arrests for each group down but even figures that state each group are approximated. I think its quicker to disclaim which group the arrests were appropriated to. The only place we have figures for that is Bolton. --Omar418 (talk) 08:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec):Looks a good job to me - I am happy for that to go into the main article --Snowded TALK 07:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Very nice, support that being included. I too think "Unknown" would be better than N/A in this case. I would still support a fourth column where a basic description of what happened in each event could be stated. It could state there if most of the arrests were UAF rather than EDL etc. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Edited the N/A to unknown but a fifth column I don't know. What would you call it? Whats the word limit? --Omar418 (talk) 08:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Well this is the sort of thing i had in mind (just example text)

Date Town/City Attendance Arrests (includes non-EDL) Description of Event
8th August 2009 Birmingham Unknown 35 EDL and UAF protesters clashed in New Street, with trouble flaring around 7pm. Bottles, sticks and banners were thrown as police in riot gear struggled to stop the skirmishes. There were 35 arrests, mainly for disorder and atleast 3 people were injured before most of the violence was brought under control by 8.30pm.[3]

Along those lines. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

That would be great if we have access to stats like that it would even up the table considerably. Just wshen it comnes to including to details I'm not the best at drawing a line. Are they real stats or you just make them up? --Omar418 (talk) 08:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Completely made up the whole paragraph. But having a description column like that means we can include detailed information (a few rows at most) if there are sources and dont have to worry if none are available which would be a problem with having separate columns for other things like number of individual EDL / UAF arrests etc which in many cases probably are not declared. We could also link to the violent (serious) incident section where the biggest protests are explained in more detail. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I put in some basics of the actual incident in the example above. On my screen it looks fine but i guess for some who have their pages more zoomed in it may be too large and would have to contain less text for it to fit in the current article without taking up too much room. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Date Town/City Attendance Arrests At Event (includes non-EDL) Description of Event
8th August 2009 Birmingham Unknown 35 Clashed with UAF supporters [25][26]
5th September 2009 Birmingham Unknown 90 Clashes with socialist protestors[29], West Midlands police claims "No intent to protest" [34]
13th September 2009 London Unknown Zero Counter demonstration to pro=Palestinian rally. Chants of "We hate Muslims" and "Muslim Bombers off our streets."[9]
10th October 2009 Manchester 700 48 Counter-protested by 1400 UAF. Riot police on hand to seperate sides.[35]
31st October 2009 Leeds 900 8 Counter-protested by 1500 UAF. Leeds council and West Yorkshire Police thank all participants..[37][38]
5th December 2009 Nottingham 500 11 [4] Demonstration following Mercian Regiment homecoming parade, clashes with Asian students and UAF. Policing cost estimated at £1 million..[39]
23rd January 2010 Stoke-on-Trent 1500 17 EDL break through police lines, injure police officers and damage police vehicles.[40]
20th March 2010 Bolton 2000 74 Counter-protested by 1500 UAF, 1300 police dispatched at a cost of £300 000.[43] 55 arrested from UAF and around 9 from EDL..[45][46][47][48] Policeman states "we have seen groups of people, predominantly associated with the UAF, engaging in violent confrontation."[48]
3rd April 2010 Dudley 2000 Unknown Several EDL supporters knocked down fencing and escaped the police cordon.[50]
1st May 2010 Aylesbury 800 12 [5] Peaceful protest against militant Islam. Eight of the arrests on suspiscion of carrying an offensive weapon.
17 July 2010 Dudley 500 21 Hindu Temple attacked along with shops, restaurants, cars and residential homes by a group that broke off from the main demonstration.[6]

Alright's that for a start? --Omar418 (talk) 10:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thumbs up looks excellent to me - a lot better than what exists at the moment --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 10:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree this is far better and easier to follow. Where we have some kind of information as to who was arrested it should be included (by that I mean groups not person) as we appear to have. I would add there were they were part of a larger demo this should be noted, rather them make it seem like EDL alone.Slatersteven (talk) 11:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Have amended Bolton to highlight UAF arrests. How do you mean part of a larger demo and not the EDL alone? --Omar418 (talk) 11:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
This So this should be in the table.Slatersteven (talk)
I do not think that should be included in this table. It should be just about clearly sourced EDL protests. We could have a disclaimer above or below the table pointing out this may not be a complete list of EDLs activities, just well sourced EDL led events. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Agree, first off MPAC isn't an impartial source and has a lot of opinion and propaganda in there. Secondly, theres nothing there to links the EDl is a few sympathetic Zionists. They may be members they may not. Nothing is openly stated and we shouldn't be looking to report clandestine stuff. If we did that we could go ON and ON! --Omar418 (talk) 11:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Looks good, it is so much better than the huge block of text currently in the article, some additional info could be included in the description column, but that is fine for the time being. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
The dudley text needs re-writing, no source says it wqas a brakaway group from teh main demo. the source says (if its the one that actualy mentions the attack on the temple) that it ws away from the main Demmo so it should read. "Away from the main demmonstration a Hindu Temple was attacked along with shops, restaurants, cars and residential homes."Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
That sounds okay. --FormerIP (talk) 14:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

What is the sourcing for the attendance figures? I think it is quite normal for there to be varying estimates (organisers usually give a much higher estimate than the police, and media reports may vary in reliability). Think it is important to be consistent on the one hand and also try and get sourcing that is likely to be neutral. I appreciate that might be quite a tall order. --FormerIP (talk) 14:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Its all media sourced figures. Just took the references that were already in the "Activities" section. --Omar418 (talk) 15:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Straw polls

There are three straw polls, above. I apologise for the lack of advance warning - I should have let you all know yesterday - but I'm planning on closing the polls in one hour, i.e. at around 11:30am BST (10:30 UTC). TFOWR 09:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Running a wee bit late, but hoping to close before mid-day. TFOWR 10:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
All closed now. I'd imagine you will all want to congratulate me on the wisdom and diplomacy I've exercised, and I'd suggest that this section might be the best place to do just that. I can't think what else you might wish to say in that regard, however I never fail to be impressed by the imagination and creativity of Wikipedia editors, so I accept that there may be things to wish to say about my closures that I've not considered. You may find these useful: {{minnow}} and {{trout}}. I'm going to be offline for the next hour, so don't feel in any way restricted in the fulsomeness of your praise for me ;-) TFOWR 11:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
i am ok with the outcomes of the strawpolls and your conclusions on it so i guess i cant use the trout today :( So the new wording for the introduction should be...
"The English Defence League is an English far-right single issue group formed in 2009" .
Its short, clear and to the point and should be introduced to the article. This can then be debated again during mediation if people have big concerns. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
You are truely an arromatic god amoung men .Slatersteven (talk) 11:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I can safely say I have never been described like that before! And it makes up for yesterday's collective feeling that many of us might suffer from personal hygiene problems ;-) TFOWR 14:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Works for me. {{barracuda}}. --FormerIP (talk) 11:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Agree that wording --Snowded TALK 11:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Where's Off2Rio? --Omar418 (talk) 12:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm around. I didn't much support the creation of these straw polls and the way they were framed and I also didn't see any need to rush to closure so I have restricted my involvement so as not to give the impression of support for the process. Off2riorob (talk) 12:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Fair point, but I think this gives us something we can work with that we're broadly happy with, even if it's not ideal (and - covering my backside - "I take no view as to whether the new lead is or is not ideal"). All this represents is the current consensus among a small group of editors. Consensus can and usually does change, and consensus in a wider forum would override any consensus here, etc etc. In other words - this isn't set in stone, but it's a useful jumping-off point for further work on the article. TFOWR 12:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I assume the existing references are OK? Can you all check that you're happy with the references I've used in the edit request below, and shout loudly and early if you're not happy. TFOWR 12:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editprotected}} Could a non-involved admin please edit the lead to incorporate the text BritishWatcher proposes above? Note that the discussion follows on from three straw polls (above): you may wish to consider whether the three polls were appropriately closed. Thanks! TFOWR 12:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Detailed request: please replace:

The '''English Defence League''' (EDL) is an [[Far right in the United Kingdom|English far-right]] single-issue political<ref>[</ref><ref>[</ref><!-- The following references all attribute political designations to the group, hence support the text: <ref name=Newsnight /><ref name="BBC 20091012" /><ref name=Times1 />{{Failed verification|date=July 2010}} <ref name=HarrowTimes1 />{{Failed verification|date=July 2010}} <ref name=BirminghamPost2 /><ref name=SkyNews1 /><ref name=Independent1 /> --> or "quasi-political"<ref></ref> street movement formed in 2009.


The '''English Defence League''' (EDL) is an [[Far right in the United Kingdom|English far-right]] single issue group formed in 2009.<ref>[</ref><ref>[</ref>

TFOWR 12:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow 3 straw polls for this "tweak"?  Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Don't knock it, I'm proud of the structure of those polls! --Snowded TALK 14:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree. Well done to TFOWR for initiating the polls. Leaky Caldron 14:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
no Disagree ... Snowded initiated the polls, I merely closed them ;-) TFOWR 14:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


Is the EDL a single issue organisation when it opposes several things, notably a) Sharia law b) Islamic extremism c)Islamism. Or am I being pedantic? Francium12  13:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Its single issue in the sence that it opposes what it sees as islamification, I.e. all of the things above. Its a bit like saying that some one who is antismeitic oppose n ot one thing but Rabinic law, Kosher buthcery, circumcision and as such are not single issue.Slatersteven (talk) 13:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

EDL links to the BNP

Copied the following from a section above to ensure it gets debated and not overlooked as there is so much activity on this talkpage right now. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

An example.
The alleged link to BNP is based on a Russell Jenkins writing in The Times "The groupings have attracted the support of BNP activists including Chris Renton, who created the English Defence League website." That is not evidence that is hearsay. What is recorded evidence is that the website owner is someone called Trevor Kelway.
I do not understand the Wikipedia editors' hierarchy. There are serious issues of neutrality evidenced in this article that needs to be addressed. Awmyth (talk) 22:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your concerns about the section on the BNP. Start a new section at the bottom of the talk page so this area does not get overlooked. The BNP sources no longer work, i did a quick search on the BNP site for English Defence League but found neither of the two originally sourced articles. As for the bit about describing him as an activist, the fact someone was on the illegally leaked BNP members list (which seems to be all that is based on) is a problem. There is no confirmation he is a BNP activist that i can see and the evidence of his involvement with the website is not even as clear as it should be. BritishWatcher(talk) 11:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The current wording and sources do seem problematic and some changes are needed or the whole section removed if more sources can not be found BritishWatcher (talk) 13:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

This was just added as an attempted slur, mostly OR and weak claims in an attempt to associate and connect them to the BNP, laughable, no actually depth to the claim at all. Off2riorob (talk) 13:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I support, entirely, it's removal. If we can source (via a third party) the BNP's stance on the group that may be relevant at some point in the article. But a section called "links to the BNP" which establishes the link via the programmer (who may be a BNP member but certainly does not represent the party and so is not a link) and then a statement which basically says "they are worse than the BNP". Pure attack --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 13:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
There have been allegations of links between the EDL and BNP and also denials by both organisations. Think it is probably notable, though I am not sure it deserves its own section. That the EDL have attracted the support of BNP activists is not at all controversial, I would suggest. Think the website issue has been discussed previously. Chris Renton appears to have set up an EDL website, this was disclosed in the press (through a WHOIS search) and after that the WHOIS details were changed. Looking at the "evidence", as Awmyth suggests, would be OR. What we have is an RS for the claim. --FormerIP (talk) 13:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
This is simply rubbish. The Times article does not say that Chris Renton was identified through domain search. Moreover, the records on (since 1 Oct 2009 the first day of creation of that domain) does not show the domain registrant has changed - only the webhost and IP of the domain did. This is a classic example of deliberately selecting hearsay evidence as reliable source without cross checking the authenticity of the claims, simply because it appears to support the opinion of the editor.Awmyth (talk) 14:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I think the quote comes from the early days when people were trying to work out what was going on and who was behind the EDL. Remember that the BNP have a history of front organisations. Given that there has been nothing since then its probably a dead issue and should be deleted --Snowded TALK 13:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
It's maybe worth noting that the EDL is proscribed by the BNL, much like Militant was proscribed by Labour (and I'm fairly certain there are organisations proscribed by the Tories?) It probably doesn't warrant its own section, however. TFOWR 13:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Also Mr Renton is listed as seting up the EDL website, not as an actiove member of the EDl, nor as a link to the BNP.Also the EDL have turned upo at pro-israle demos, so we should have a section that isd about the EDLs links to zionism.Slatersteven (talk) 13:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
If links to zionism are sourced and notable, then I'd agree with that. On Renton, the source does identify him as a BNP activist. If he is not an EDL activist (I reckon he must be though), then I would suggest that this makes the incident more notable, since we would have to infer that the BNP were doing the EDL a favour and helping to set them up. --FormerIP (talk) 13:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I seriously doubt there are any solid links to Zionism within the EDL. Given the Ha'aretz article on the Jewish Division starting I'd dismiss the idea initially until there was some link found to the WZO or the JNF. Both of which are highly unlikely! --Omar418 (talk) 14:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually, it's a funny old world. Some Eurpoean far-right organisations do have links to right-wing Israeli organisations, as depressing as that may sound. I suspect the EDL do not, but would like to. --FormerIP (talk) 14:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
since we would have to infer that the BNP were doing the EDL a favour and helping to set them up; Uh. Does it? or does it simply mean that a BNP activist set up their website. Without any form of source that links Rentons actions with the whole party I cannot see how we are able to infer it as a link to the BNP without OR :) --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 14:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
If he is not himself involved in the EDL (although, like I say, I reckon he must be) then how did he end up doing their website? I can't see what explanation there would be other than he did the EDL webiste on behalf of the BNP. I'm not saying this is the case, just pointing out the logical consequence of arguing that he may not have been an EDL member. --FormerIP (talk) 14:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
We could infer it was a commercial transaction, and he was cheap.Slatersteven (talk) 14:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
We have sources that say that hey have turned up at pro-israle demos, if evidacne that the BNP are linked to the EDL is based on BNP members supporting the EDL (or visa versa) then the same would apply to zionism, that is my point. If a source say teh BNP and EDl are linked we can say that accusation has been made, but we cannot say there is a link if RS do not dawr that conclusion. how about this, which actualy does say Join Hands (affectivly liks), not a link we infer Slatersteven (talk) 13:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
───────────────(Ec)As ever it's about decent and reliable sourcing of significant facts and opinions, whether in terms of actual, practical links, or of analysis that makes more theoretical connections between the two groups and their agendas. Same for anything about links to other political agendas. Hints and speculation aren't enough. As a side-note, I'm still a little bemused by the efforts of each group to disassociate themselves from the other and to claim the moral high ground. But there you go. N-HH talk/edits 13:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Then you should check this out (which has not been allowed in the articel by the way) its a hum dinger.Slatersteven (talk) 14:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually, it has been allowed. It was taken to three or four noticeboards, but they all approved it. Someone obviously removed it anyway. --FormerIP (talk) 14:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually there was rejection at most or all noticeboards, plenty of it if I remember, that was why it was dragged round multiple noticeboards by Slater, accompanied by FormerIP (correct me if I am wrong) and I for one got a bit bored of it and they must have finally added it, yes they were using this daily star source as well and going a around saying how it was a great reliable source...absolute twaddle, opinionated twaddle as I say likely dreamt up in some corner of a very dark room using a searchlight and with rumors originating from Unite_Against_Fascism members, hilarious, keep it in there because it helps people to see just how POV and biased and false this article is, hilarious. Off2riorob (talk) 15:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually WP does allow a lot of these types of publications as RS: The Sun, Fox News, The Washington Times. TFD (talk) 16:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
IN fact one of the sources was Mr Darbys own blog which has the live interview between himslef and Mr Griffin in his car.Slatersteven (talk) 16:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually there is at least a general position that we should use the highest quality citations, as such the daily mirror and the sun and the star are quite regularly recently rejected and removed. Users reveal themselves easily in this way, they support such low grade citations as the daily mirror when it supports their POV and they reject them when it doesn't. 16:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
IN derbys own blog, what did he say, the EDF is a branch of the BNP, no he did not because it is not and it is so many times refuted and denied, you might think it is true but it absolutely is not a generally held position at all it the real world and as I say, keep it, enjoy it, add some more, claims. go ahead make my day. Off2riorob (talk) 16:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I was not aware I was saying he said that. What he (mr Griffin) says is what the star reports him as saying, that the EDL is a zionist false flag operation (et all).Slatersteven (talk) 16:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

So how many people would oppose the removal of this section from the article? It seems like the best option. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not aginst its removal, the material is at best inuendo really.Slatersteven (talk) 13:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree strong support for removal from here :) preferably with a big stick --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 13:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

As currently constituted, the section isn't great, and relies too much on allegation and speculation. I think though there is a case for some content looking at the relationship - or lack of it, if that happens to be the case, or even perhaps rivalry - between the two. It's something that is a topic of discussion among reliable and serious sources, and at the same time of course both groups try to deny any links to the other (at least the BNP definitely has to the EDL, not sure what's on the record the other way round). N-HH talk/edits 13:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, yes, I'd support writing about that if there are reliable sources that look at the connection/arguments etc. But not the content or the section heading as it is --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 13:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Now the page is unlocked, can we delete this BNP section? If someone is prepared to do a whole new section on it with proper sources that seems notable enough we can add that back into the article, but for the time being i think the section should be deleted. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't think there is any disagreement on that rationale - I say go for it. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 20:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted for the time being, if someone does want it readded then i will be sticking a few tags back into that section. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't think the section as it stands/stood is great, but think the question of links is notable and should be covered (or, probably better, the wider question of the relationship - ie although links have been suggested, there is also the fact that the leadership of the two organisations don't appear to like one another). Suggest copying to the talkpage for improvement and re-insertion. --FormerIP (talk) 21:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Copying the text here.

According to Searchlight, as reported in The Times, the EDL website was developed by Chris Renton, a British National Party (BNP) activist.[7] EDL member Paul Ray has accused Renton and others of hijacking the group.[8]
The BNP has sought to distance itself from "the sort of confrontation which the EDL seems to seek".[9] 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.[10] Searchlight has said that proscription is BNP standard practice when attempting to establish 'deniability'.[11] (version of article before i removed the section)

The first sentence is very problematic, the only evidence we have about the man being a BNP activist is based on an illegally leaked membership list. Searchlight is hardly a neutral group to take their word on this and with the exception of the guardian i cant see much media attention about this guy, which suggests it is not notable. The second line has one EDL member attacking another member, how notable this incident was at the time is questionable. The first two sources in the second paragraph about the BNPs response no longer work, i did a quick search on their website and found nothing. Final sentence again seems pretty questionable, what Searchlight says or thinks on this does not seem to justify inclusion. So in reality i dont think there is anything there worth saving. I agree a mention of the BNP VS EDL thing is noteworthy, its ironic two right wing organisations appear to hate each other so much and go out of their way to distance themselves, the BNP proscribing them is certainly noteworthy, but thats the only thing originally mentioned that belongs there, and it needs a working source. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Lead - sentence 2

Is there a better was of fashioning the second sentence, now that the opening has good support? I'm refering to the bit about political direction. For background, I proposed that content about 9 months ago following a similar period of dispute. It didn't read too well then but was seen as a compromise for the "political" debate raging at the time.

I just don't think that saying ...."although the EDL's political direction is being debated within the group" hangs very well with the begining of the sentence. Could we agree to split this into 2 sentences as follows: "Its stated aim is to oppose what it considers as the spread of Islamism, Sharia law and Islamic extremism in England." "The EDL's political direction is being debated within the group.[3][4]".

Any suggestions? Leaky Caldron 14:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Happy with that change --Snowded TALK 14:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Seems fine be me. Though mabe (and this is only a mild susgestion, i'm happy with your text) "The EDL's political direction in undecided, and is still being debatd within the EDL".Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I think that is a further worthwhile improvement. Leaky Caldron 14:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually I have just thought of an objection, in the first sentence we say they are ‘far right’. And in the second we say that they have not decided what their direction is. Perhaps we should have the lead say
“The English Defence League (EDL) is an English far-right, although the EDL's political direction is being debated within the group.[3][4], single issue group formed in 2009.[1][2] Its stated aim is to oppose what it considers as the spread of Islamism, Sharia law and Islamic extremism in England.”
Or any other way we can oviod saying they are something but have not decided they are that yet.Slatersteven (talk) 14:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I read those articles as deciding the direction in the sense of staying a street movement or moving more mainstream --Snowded TALK 14:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Then it should revome the word political as its not thier political direction they are debating but "should stay as a street based protest movement or something more organised and political." Say "The EDL's direction in undecided, and is still being debatr within the EDL as to what kind of movement they should be"Slatersteven (talk) 14:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Agree it shouldn't hang on the far right issue (as suggested, any debate, such as it was, was implied as being about tactics, not where they should present themselves, if anywhere, on the left-right axis). Also, as noted previously, the interview/comments being cited in support are from the early days of the group, some eight months or so ago now. Do we know if this debate is still happening? The group's MO seems pretty much established and settled now. If we mean something more general, don't all organisations have internal debates of some sort or other most of the time, so what are we actually saying by this? N-HH talk/edits 14:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I'd support dropping that piece and just sticking with their stated aims. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 15:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Agreed BritishWatcher (talk) 15:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm content with that. IIRC - and I will need to check this - the qote about "political direction being discussed within the group" was a quote by an "expert" in street based activists in the UK. 9 months later EDL's direction doesn't appear to be materially diferent to its original football hooligan culture so I'm happy to drop it. Leaky Caldron 15:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
There has been some leadership changes within the group recently with this statement from Tommy Robinson. some fellow called Kev Carroll and he suggests the leadership is a group including Robinson himself, Jack Smith, Trev Kelloway and Geoff Marsh. He also talks about regional organisers and makes a point of mentioning people don't want to liaise with the Old Bill. So yeah, theres changes all the time in terms of tactics. Theres even talk of going to Amsterdam to support Geert wilders. --Omar418 (talk) 16:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

─────────────────────────do we have consensus on this? can I make an editprotected request to change the second sentence to: Its stated aim is to oppose what it considers as the spread of Islamism, Sharia law and Islamic extremism in England.[12][13] (sorry if this is "quick" but it seems a fairly non-contentious edit) --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 12:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Seems fair top me.Slatersteven (talk) 12:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
The edit protection should have expired - it states until 29 July which it is now. Leaky Caldron 12:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Still looks in place.Slatersteven (talk) 12:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh, fair point (I was confusing this with another article that has bee indef protected). It expires at 20:04 tonight so rather than other an admin I guess wait till then :) --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 12:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I've been busy all day and havn't been paying attention. I realise this is too late, but for future reference ping me and I can make non-contentious edits. (I should really have made the lead edit after the straw polls but felt it safer to get a non-involved admin to do it). TFOWR 20:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
It wasn't horribly urgent :) all fixed now. (What I really want to see now is Omar et al. finish the table above and to get that in place :D) --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 20:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Violent & Inappropriate Behaviour Section?

I've drafted this up. I'm sure it can be discussed:

The group states that its aim is to demonstrate peacefully in English cities,[10] but conflicts with Unite Against Fascism (UAF) and other opponents have led to street violence and arrests, resulting in some EDL marches being banned.[8] There is normally heavy policing of these demonstrations due to the likelihood of violence and the cost of policing these has ranged from £300,000[43] to £1m.[39] Journalists that have covered EDL marches have received death threats.[23] Guardian journalist Jason N. Parkinson wrote about receiving a death threat by email from someone he described as an EDL organiser, as well as death threats sent to Marc Vallée, a fellow journalist.[24] The National Union of Journalists also released a statement about journalists who had been intimidated after covering EDL marches.[23]

Four specialist national police units involved in policing hooliganism, extreme violence, and terrorism are investigating the EDL. After their second demonstration in Birmingham Assistant Chief Constable Sharon Rowe of West Midlands Police: "Really, there was no intent to protest. It think they knew that the community was very much against them coming to the city, which...potentially would generate violence".[34]

Before their Manchester demonstration of October 2009, the EDL held a press conference, during which they burned a Nazi flag and asserted that "There is no militant undertone. We will peacefully protest but we will not be scared into silence". In the press conference, the EDL wore black balaclavas and T-shirts with the name of different EDL divisions on the back. They justified wearing balaclavas by suggesting that the burqa was just as intimidating a garment. In response to the suggestion that EDL had been described as a drinking club with a website, the members laughed.[5][10] In Swansea on 17 October 2009, Nazi salutes were made during the first demonstration by the Welsh Defence League.[36]

In Stoke-on-Trent in January 2010, EDL members broke through police lines and there was a fracas in which four police officers were injured (two of whom needed hospital treatment) and police vehicles damaged.[40] In March 2010 in Bolton, 74 people were arrested in the demonstrations; reports state that at least 55 of the arrested were from the UAF and nine from the EDL.[45][46][47][48] At their second Dudley protest, on July 2010 a group broke off and attacked a Hindu Temple.[57] The leader of Dudley council, Anne Milward, stated later "We are extremely saddened that Dudley has again been targeted by the English Defence League. Yet again this group of outside extremists have shown they are incapable of demonstrating peacefully and have brought public disorder and violence to our town."

The EDL plan to hold further demonstrations in Bradford and Tower Hamlets after the Guardian revealed that the EDL were plan to target some of the UK's highest-profile Muslim communities and "hit" places like Bradford.[54]

  • This should be saved for the views and reactions section in my opinion: The creation of an EDL "Jewish division" in June 2010 was condemned by the Israeli newspaper Haaretz[56] --Omar418 (talk) 08:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Again, its a good job and I agree in the Jewish division location--Snowded TALK 08:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Good start. I'd say that The EDL plan to hold further demonstrations in Bradford and Tower Hamlets.... fails WP:FUTURE and that members were shown to include a Scottish Asian man with a Rangers flag is not especially notable (IIRC when I reviewed the source that had been cherry picked). --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 09:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Very good yes. Id leave out the whole second paragraph. Unless a more detailed paragraph on the BBC documentary is possible. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Second para cut out as I agree. It was a good documentary but there wasn't enough substance to merit its inclusion on this section. --Omar418 (talk) 10:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I have to ask one question how is burning the Nazi flag or planning demonstations that are yet to be banned Inappropriate Behaviour?Also source 57 does not support the assertion made that a group of EDl supporters broke off ans attacked the Hindoo temple, at least as far as I can see (in fact we need a neew source as it makes no mention of the attack).Slatersteven (talk) 11:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC) I think this is the source we need. I thought I hade referenced it. On the burning of the flag, yeah I kinda rushed thos together before breakfast. Felt it was inappropriate in that they a) compare the burka to the balaclave and b) have nazi salutes at their next demo. Also to "hit" places like Bradford and Tower Hamlets implies the use of force. --Omar418 (talk) 11:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
The source these occured away from the main demmo, not that they were casued by a breakaway group, also the sources niether says (nor intimates) that the EDL were responsible. Thus whilst we can say that "away from the main demmo a hindoo temple was attacked" we should also say that "police have not attributed this to the EDl". Its also cystal balling, adn we do not do that. waite untill; after the eventy a report it do not try and predict what the evetn will be like.Slatersteven (talk) 11:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
We shouldn't say anything that is not supported by the source, which would include "police have not attributed this to the EDL". Perhaps they have - it obvious way they might not feel it necessary to make this explicit. --FormerIP (talk) 11:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Agreed; also I am not sure the suggested section header is appropriate given the contents of the section anyway. In terms of the balaclava/bhurka comparison - it might well be inappropriate, but we could really do with a source that says so. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 11:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Fact is a Hindu temple got attacked when the EDL had a demonstration next to it and after a group broke away from that demonstration. Its part and parcel of the events of the day. Balaclava/Burka sure but its more that in context with the Swansea demonstration where there are Nazi salutes there is the burning of a Nazi flag and a rejection of Nazis the week before it. This show the mixture of beliefs in the group. Its quite a molotov.. --Omar418 (talk) 12:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
The sources says it occured away from the main demmo, not next to it. It does not say anything about a break away group (and certainly not a break away group from the EDl demmo, it makes no claim as to who atracekd the temple).Slatersteven (talk) 12:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Okay, so we don't say those things. --FormerIP (talk) 12:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Would like to open up suggestions for a name for the section. i'm Going with "Violent and Questionable Behaviour" --Omar418 (talk) 12:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

What types of behaviour do we have in RSs, all in all? That overview might help with the naming. --FormerIP (talk) 12:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
if its called that we can only include that.Slatersteven (talk) 12:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I would have to add two things. 1. We do not need to mention things twice in the articel. If its in one section it does no0t have (or need) to be duplicated here). 2. We should only include in this section actions that have been directly attributed to the EDL by RS.Slatersteven (talk) 13:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

"Questionable behaviour" reads a bit oddly. How about "Violence and arrests". A bit simpler, and less judgmental, which is probably what is needed for wp:npov purposes. Plus also, as noted, even if the EDL are ultimately at fault, the reality is that the violence and arrests are not all one way - including the word "behaviour" suggests that those only apply to the topic of the article, ie the EDL. Oh, and broad approval from me as well for the general restructuring proposals above, btw. Although of course, as it does currently, the material needs some detailed reference cross-checking so that what is said here is 100% accurate to the reported material. N-HH talk/edits 13:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
"Violence and arrests" would cover it IMO - some of the content may need to be shunted into other sections (if it doesn't consist of violence and arrests :)) but that is ok. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 14:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm thinking about the death threats and the Nazi salutes need to be included in a section like this seperate from the Views and Reactions thats why I've got vague language. These are the main reason the mainstream doesn't engage with the group. There are groups like One Law For All which campaign and involve ex-Muslims and practising Muslims against the spread and practise of Sharia abroad and at home. These guys are anti-social and the saluting, the caricaturising all adds to why they aren't accepted. Need a title for a section that can lump a load of behaviour that deligitimises the group together. It is general bad behaviour, naughtiness and simple ungentlemanly conduct. I can only contribute what i have said above or "Violence and Improper Behaviour" as this is whats alienating the group in my opinion --Omar418 (talk) 16:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Get where you are coming from, but think "inappropiate behaviour" may not be the correct phrase. WP:NPOV doesn't take a position on whether or not Nazi salutes are appropriate. What about "Violence and intimidation". This would cover everything, IMO, and I think it would remain legitimate to talk about arrests within the section, because these are likely to be linked to violence and intimidation. We of course need good sourcing for any suggestions of violence and intimidation. --FormerIP (talk) 16:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Only planning on using sources already in the article, like your idea. Am seriously considering anti-social behaviour even though the legislative connotations are annoying.--Omar418 (talk) 16:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Ah, fair point. Hmm, can't think of the best way to describe/categorise that off the top of my head. And yes, as you point out, there are plenty of other groups who are prepared to protest against "extreme Islam" or whatever, without waving St George flags, fighting, giving Nazi salutes and singing "Allah, Allah, who the .. [you know the rest]". I mean where all these liberal biased press reporters pluck the "far right" description from is of course a mystery. N-HH talk/edits 16:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I notice that the nazo flag burning (anti-social?) and the attack on the hindoo temple (not atrributed to the EDL) are still in the section, as is a planned event. These should be removed.Slatersteven (talk) 10:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


Just to say thanks to all the editors who worked together over the last few weeks - its been a real pleasure in contrast to previous experiences. --Snowded TALK 08:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, it is pretty impressive the progress that has been made. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Thumbs up thirded. Good work everyone --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 13:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Indeed! ;) Leaky Caldron 20:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Problem with references

Hmm I made that edit to put the table in and make a couple of changes and have messed up a little with my cutting and pasting of references. Need to get to work. So if anyone has spare time could they sort through and check that the end refs are put in properly.

Sorry about this.

--Omar418 (talk) 08:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

No worries! I'm taking a look now, I've not got much further that a wee bit of copy-editing so far. I can see the problem you mention: there are named references that don't seem to exist (six or so). I'll dig further... TFOWR 09:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
The 2 BNP ones will probably have been because of my edit when i deleted the BNP links section. However those two links were dead anyway and i did a quick search on the site but could not find the articles they talked about. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I have removed the 3 source errors relating the deleted BNP section. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm still seeing three broken refs, but it's entirely possible these unrelated to the new table removed BNP section. I'm looking into it, and thanks for fixing those three BW. TFOWR 09:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I really need to read comments properly... ;-) TFOWR 09:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Mercury3 - relates to 5 Sept 2009 protest. Nothing of real value in this source unless we go into more detail.

Walesonline_10-18 - is about the welsh protest in Swansea, it is not mentioned in the protest table, but i will add it to the introduction where it mentions about the WDL.

LutonToday1 mentions one march in Luton, but is mostly about the fact the Home Office granted a ban preventing the EDL from marching through fear of violence. This seems noteworthy for the violence section. So i will remove Mercury3, link Walesonline to the introduction and leave LutonToday1 for the time being. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

None of these three seem to result from the BNP section removal. (You're in the clear, BW!) Still digging... but it seems like you're aware of where the missing refs come from? TFOWR 09:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
3 were my fault, the two BNP ones and a times one. The other 3 are related to the change from lots of text in the activity section to the protest table. 1 goes into details about the specific event with little worthy information which i just deleted. one was about the WDL which ive now linked to the sentence in the introduction. Which just leaves the one about luton where the Home office banned them from marching for fear of violence, which seems worthy of a mention in the violence section. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
All sorted, i linked the Luton ban to " This has resulted in some EDL marches being banned." which was already in the article. The sentence itself there could probably be expanded to mention Luton and why/how/when the ban came into force but for the time being atleast all of the errors are now removed. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

There is also a problem with duplications of references. For example.. 23 jan 2010 Stoke on Trent has sources 31/32/33, one in each column but they are all the same link. 31 Oct 2009 Leeds links 27 and 28 in all 3 columns. What is the best way of dealing with these? Should we just link everything in the description box rather than the other columns? On some tables they have a small separate source column which would keep them neatly apart. Just having refs in the Description column seems like the easiest solution.

One other separate issue, at present the first sentence of the article is referenced by two local newspapers. We should probably have national sources for the lead sentence to strengthen it. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The lede summarises the article so you can just get rid of those references, its not normal there the material is elsewhere--Snowded TALK 11:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks folks well done! Looks like a tidier article now! --Omar418 (talk) 13:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

its violance or anti-social behaviour, but not as we know it

how is any of this "Before their Manchester demonstration of October 2009, the EDL held a press conference, during which they burned a Nazi flag and asserted that "There is no militant undertone. We will peacefully protest but we will not be scared into silence"." violance or anti-social behaviour? So burning a Nazi flag is anti-soclialo or violant? is saying tehy are not violant anti-social or vioolant?Slatersteven (talk) 14:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that should go, but I think the attack on the Hindu temple is significant and should be included. Can we all follow WP:BRD here please. --Snowded TALK 14:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Has any RS attributed the attack to the EDL, if not it can't be included as an action they carried out. Also former IP did say we should not include it here [[21]] Formerip has cleared up one error on my part, he only said that we should not include material not in the source, so does the source say the EDl carried out the attack (by inclusion in the section we are saying they did)?Slatersteven (talk) 14:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
The flag burning seems notable for some part of the article as evidence of their claimed anti-Nazism, if not as anti-social behaviour per se. In a sense making Nazi salutes and burning the flag are contradictory actions. The reader can judge what value to place on the flag burning as a statement of course. The Hind Temple does seem to be guilt by association, but equally, if we are talking more broadly about the violence that surrounds the protests, noting it seems valid, and was mentioned in context by a local media source. I think we are including for example UAF arrests in the table? N-HH talk/edits 15:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
If the section is just about violence or anti-social behaviour generally associated with the protest then the section needs to be a but more balanced and discuses all sides of the riots, not concentrate on the EDL. By the way I am not sure that the UAF arrested should be in this section (but have place in the table, unless we removes all non EDL arrests from total arrested). We can’t imply more Edl arrests then there were..Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Steven, the sourced fact that a Hindu temple was attacked following and EDL demonstration is clearly relevant to the article. We shouldn't frame it in a way that the source doesn't, of course, but the wording you removed doesn't do that. Are you suggesting it might be the case that the temple was co-incidentally attacked by someone unconnected to the demonstration? --FormerIP (talk) 15:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

its in the articel, where it should be the table about demmos (why does it need to be mentioned (or any material) twice?), but n o RS have said the EDL attacked it, so we can't. Either this sectioin is about the EDL, or the demmos which is it? |BY the way it may have been attacked by any number of person, including local yobbos taking advantage, we don't know who did it. At least one new source I have found goives aas much wiehgt to hte idea that the UAF might have been reponsible.Slatersteven (talk) 15:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
RS say it happened and clearly link it to the EDL (the source is titled "EDL protest bill tops half-a-million pounds" not "EDL protest and other possibly unconnected incidents..."). Anyway, it looks like your on your own in wanting to delete this, so if you feel strongly about it, I would suggest and RfC. I'm curious as to why you didn't post this new source, though.--FormerIP (talk) 16:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Re: RS: I'm not sold on the source, to be honest. I'd be happier with a national paper or news source.
Regarding who did it and the idea of it being a UAF false flag - so long as we stick to the way the RS frames it I'm happy (it's an interesting idea, though - and I can think of one or two other groups besides the UAF who might consider a stunt like that...) TFOWR 16:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Sky (bless 'em) have something - "Police are also investigating possible damage to a Hindu temple in Dudley." Bit vague though: I'm not sure we'd want "something possibly occurred" in the article ;-) I'll keep digging... TFOWR 16:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Can't find anything from the BBC or ITN - their coverage of Dudley doesn't mention the Hindu temple. Unless there's something in a major newspaper (I've not got that far yet) I'd be inclined to say it's WP:UNDUE: so far it seems to be local and left-wing (i.e. to the left of the Guardian) news sources that mention the temple attack. TFOWR 16:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Can't see why the sources we have would fail RS here or UNDUE (we are only gicing a passing mention). In any case, just started looking to see if I can find a national source also, and came across this - not what we are looking for but interesting: [22] --FormerIP (talk) 16:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
It would be undue because most sources covering the event don't mention the temple incident, and those sources that do either mention it only as a possibility (Sky) or are otherwise less than reliable - local or partisan.
The mosque bomb plot is far better, in my view - good source (no one's going to write the Mail off as a socialist rag). We still need to be careful to reflect what the source says: everyone was released without charge, for example. TFOWR 16:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Local doesn't equal unreliable though. I'm not familiar with those papers, though, so maybe the thing to do is take a look at what the unfailingly reliable wikipedia says about them. --FormerIP (talk) 16:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
True, but local will be a bit more primary. Which papers are you referring to? The Daily Mail is a UK national, right-wing tabloid, but not that bad - I hate it, but it's got an OK reputation compared to the "red top" tabloids (the Sun, the Daily Star, etc). TFOWR 17:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I meant the local papers. Don't worry, I'm familiar with the Daily Fail. --FormerIP (talk) 17:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I wonder how many articles are referenced by the Sun, Star, etc. Quite a number I would imagine. Maybe we should have a clear out. ;) Jack 1314 (talk) 17:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Too many ;-) They're OK for unexceptional claims, I guess. In this case we're aiming to source something contentious, so we need good sources to support it. TFOWR 17:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Heh ;-) I think someone here earlier called it the "Daily Heil" - it took me a while to work it out... anyway... I think most UK local papers will be neither right- nor left-wing, that's not really my worry. It's more that a local paper covering a local incident is almost a primary source. TFOWR 17:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:NPOVN#English_Defence_League - Sceptre also punned on The Express ;-) TFOWR 17:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Not sure I agree with you that local papers are almost a primary source. Would a UK newspaper be a primary source in comparison to an international newspaper? Jack 1314 (talk) 17:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
No (national papers are almost always a RS - exceptions for the more tabloid end of the market, obviously), and I'm not totally saying that a local paper (when reporting on a local event) is primary - just that it's less satisfactory - and for an exceptional claim we need exceptional sources. In this instance I'd regard the local-ness [sic] of the source as compromising it. A different local paper (i.e. a non-Dudley paper) might be OK, but even then a national paper would still be more satisfactory. The problem here is that very few sources seem to mention the Hindu temple attack. If we had only one source, and it was the BBC, I'd be happy. If we had multiple sources, including the Dudley paper, that would be OK for me too. TFOWR 17:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Can we junk the second mention of the Hindu temple incident - it seems out on it's own and lonely there and I see no rationale for having it twice (could be confusing). I wouldn;t like to see it given undue weight (by being mentioned twice) seeing as there is no source directly identifying it as EDL action --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 19:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

TFOWR: Don't agree at all with your idea that local papers are primary. To be primary, they would have to be actors in the events described. Being close to those events contributes to their reliability, but it doesn't make them primary sources. Is your thesis about the comparative place of local papers, per what Jack says? Or is it the idea that local sources reporting on local events somehow adds up to primary? (In which case, what about national sources reporting on national sources).
In any event, you say that you would be happy if we had multiple sources, and we do in case you hadn't noticed. The Sky source attests to the notability (per your standards) of the event, but leaves some doubt as to whether it actually happened. The Dudley news source does not prove notability (again, per your standards) but confirms that it happened. I think what we have here is a notable event that was based on unconfirmed reports when the national media were interested in it and by the time the police and local authorities had assessed the damage and Dudley News reported two days later the national media had lost interest.
The EDL don't actually get much press except on days when they demonstrate, and I think in many cases we may have to get what we're given in terms of sourcing.--FormerIP (talk) 20:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I'm not saying they're primary per se, I'm saying they're moving in that direction. My main objection to the whole Hindu temple thing is that we have one local source, a few very left-wing sources, and a totally WP:RS source (Sky news) which says it "maybe happened". Again: exceptional claims require exceptional sources. The local paper isn't exceptional. Socialist Worker isn't exceptional. Sky's good, but only says it "possibly happened". With the mosque/bomb incident we have a clearly WP:RS source (a right-wing national: no one can accuse the Mail of being biased towards the UAF) reporting on it. With the Hindu temple incident we don't. Given that, why bother with the Hindu temple incident at all? We have an equivalent incident with a good source that illustrates the same concept. TFOWR 21:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Tom: Depending on what other editors think, I wouldn't mind compromising at only one mention of the Hindu temple thing within the article. --FormerIP (talk) 20:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I have never said it should be removed from the articel, just from a section that seems to impoly the EDL casued it (which no RS has claimed, this is about as undue as I think you can get). It should be removed from the violence section and retained in the table of demmos.Slatersteven (talk) 13:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
For the sake of impartiality I'd agree with slater. Keep the Temple incident to the table. It obviously happenned as the paper quotes a police regarding it. Whats not clarified is who did it. Nevertheless the EDL aren't exactly going to admit to it so keep it to the table. --Omar418 (talk) 22:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Why does this section require a citation for violence, arrests and anti-social behaviour? I'd have thought that was apparent in the content of the article. --Omar418 (talk) 23:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what yiu mean, But if you mean why do we need citations for claims. I think its best to avoid probloms whe someone tries to remove an 'unsourced' claim.Slatersteven (talk) 00:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I mean in the text of the violent and anti social behaviour section it says citation needed when it says the demonstrations have been associated with violence arrests and anti-social behaviour. One would think this was evident from the numerous examples in the main body of the text and the table above. Are they not citations that validate the claims. To note each and every one of them after the claim in question would surely be pointless given the evidence of the fact from the stats given, --Omar418 (talk) 18:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


I seem to recall that the demo table should only include demos organised by the EDL, not just ones they show up at.Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


According to this Guardian article Tommy robinson is a pseudonym.

How do we address that? --Omar418 (talk) 23:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

By also saying that it's a pseudonym, perhaps? --FormerIP (talk) 22:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. I'd suggest the best way would be with a note (something like a regular cite, but more like this[note 1]). I've got an example of notes in one of my sandboxes. Incidentally, this source also hints at it being a pseudonym (and implies where the pseudonym comes from...) - it's not necessarily a good source though (it's anarchist, though to be fair it is surprisingly mild). TFOWR 22:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Seems fair to me.Slatersteven (talk) 22:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Done. (I assume you meant the notes idea was fair, and not using Freedom as a source? ;-) Incidentally, part of the reason I suggested doing that - rather than, say, putting quotes round his name - was that this is more neutral. There's a general feeling that "scare quotes" are bad. I've noted that the Guardian says it's a pseudonym - I don't know if we need to cite that (I suspect we should - but I can't think of an easy way to do it in the infobox. If we put his name in the article - which we possibly should - we should mention it's thought to be a pseudonym and cite it to the Guardian). TFOWR 23:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Another thing this article alludes to another incident where Robinson "may" have been arrested Yet more anti-social behaviour fodder? --Omar418 (talk) 23:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I would rather have a more definate sources.Slatersteven (talk) 00:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

BNP links

I think this article is looking better than it did a few weeks ago but I'm a bit concerned that the section about BNP links has been completely removed. Surely the content should have been improved rather than completely deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Francium12 (talkcontribs)

Agree. --FormerIP (talk) 20:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I think the issue was it wsa not really a lot to work with. Perhpas if you can susgest a new section then can we see it before you insert it?Slatersteven (talk) 20:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Relationship with the British National Party - Both the English Defence League and the British National Party have denied that the two organizations are in any way linked. However, Paul Ray a founding member of the English Defence League has stated that the EDL has been infiltrated by "extremists" including Chris Renton whose named appeared on a list of BNP members leaked in 2008.[14] Documents leaked to the anti-fascist campaign Hope not Hate show that several English Defence League activists who demonstrated in Luton were previously members of the local BNP branch.[15] An English Defence League website was set up by a known BNP member but this website was later taken down.[16] Hope not Hate claim Alan Lake a key financier of the English Defence League made distancing the organization from the British National Party a condition in return for his funding.[17]

 Francium12  21:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I this almost exactly the saem as material removed as nit fitting the bill? It does not seem to address any of the reason the secion wsa removed, and esentialy uses the same sources.Slatersteven (talk) 22:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I have some concerns about that being included. Several parts of it are simply based on leaked information, in the case of the BNPs membership list a name on an illegally leaked text document. Depending on claims by Hope not Hate or searchlight (which i seem to recall made the comment about Chris Renton) which clearly have a political agenda regarding this group is problematic too. Most of it does not seem notable enough either, its got very little media attention besides the Times. The article seems well done and balanced at the moment, i dont think we need a whole section on potential links to the BNP. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
The sources seem fine. We should not question them except with other reliable sources. TFD (talk) 23:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't see why "leaked" information, whatever that means in this context, is problematic. Some of the best information in history was leaked. The EDL overall have not had that much media attention outside of their demonstrations, but it seems to me that wherever they come under significant attention, links to the BNP are mentioned. True there are not exactly hundreds of sources for this, but there are also not hundereds of sources for anything about them. --FormerIP (talk) 23:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I think the issue is that the 'leaked' information does not really establish any official and clear cut links but a few persons who may, not definitively do, belong to both groups (and in some cases the case is not even that strong). There is also the fact that no one has picked up on this other then the Times (which in truth is rather meagre in this paragraph) and Hate not Hope who are hardly neutral, and unlikely to over analyse the information. No neutral party appears to have shown interest in these links, which tends to imply that are not that strong (and tends to ring litigation fear alarm bells). In addition there is the fact that the information in some cases has never been verified by third parties, and is nearly a year old from the beginnings of the group (again this issue has not been addressed, it’s the same old sources).Slatersteven (talk) 23:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. I dont have too much concern about the leaked info that some EDL protesters were previously members of a BNP branch, but i think mentioning it is questionable and possibly WP:UNDUE weight (would it be a big deal if a couple were former conservative party members? im sure there are a few). My main concern is the illegally leaked membership list. Naming someone as a member of the BNP because an organisation with a clear political agenda said they found the persons name on the list, seems to be risky when taking into account WP:BLP. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
No one is suggesting that we use the list as a source. It would be a primary source in any case. We should use reliable secondary sources. And if there are articles about the past political activity of EDL members in other parties, that should be included. There have been lots of articles about where the far right came from, whether from the left, right or apolitical. TFD (talk) 00:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
None of the reason that this paragraph was removed have been addressed, what has changed?Slatersteven (talk) 00:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't think there was any good reason to remove it and nothing to address. It has sources and it is of interest to readers of Wikipedia. --FormerIP (talk) 00:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Have any one (apart fro the rather meager amoun t in the times) reperated or reported Hate not Hopes accusations,? If not we do not have third party RS reporting this we have an organisation that is not neutral making an accusation that has been ignored by RS.Slatersteven (talk) 00:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
there was very serious problems with the previous paragraph that got removed, i accept that the proposed wording above is better than before, but it still has flaws and potential serious ones when it comes to WP:BLP by naming the Chris guy as a BNP member. It also still has the undue weight problem. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

If we are seriously considering adding a new section on the BNP links to EDL, could we try and create a list of all sources detailing it? That would help us assess notability and choose reliable sources and content if someone is to be added. I do think the vast majority of "links" info will relate back to 2009 when the group was very new, and people obviously wanted to try and figure out who they are and connected with. It doubt its been much of an issue recently. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a fair enough request. It should be remembered though that "links" also encompasses "antagonism" - at least it does in my mind. It is not just about where the EDL come from, but about their relationship in general with the country's other significant far-right organisation. --FormerIP (talk) 00:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I think the BNP / EDL rivalry is more notable than the fact a few members may have been former BNP activists, or a BNP member made one EDL website at one point. If it is true the BNP prescribed the EDL and banned its members from joining, then that is notable and should be mentioned. The source for that statement which was removed, was unavailable on the BNP website, i did a search but couldnt find it at the time. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
BNP view
Daily mail this is only 7 months old practically current news. Repeats some of the claims. It’s about the most recent source I could find.

.Slatersteven (talk) 00:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Inclusion about the BNP proscribing them is certainly notable and recent enough considering that post reminding members its banned was made yesterday. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
There is enough contents in that BNP article from yesterday to justify inclusion of a section on the BNP although it should not use the term "links to" in the title. It should also avoid potential violations of WP:BLP, so the naming of a BNP member renton should be left out. So id say it should be something like..
Since the EDLs formation there has been speculation in the media and by some groups about the EDLs links with the BNP.
In September 2009 the BNP in a formal statement announced the proscription of the EDL, inlcude the statement within the article.
In August 2010, it was confirmed BNP chairman Nick Griffin had written to the head of the BNP Lgal Department Lee Barnes removing him from his position following Barnes call for all British nationalists to join the EDL demonstration.
Something along those lines. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
We follow what mainstream sources such as The Times say. We do not balance reliable sources with the non-reliable sources of the EDL or BNP. If these groups are unhappy with how they are seen by the mainstream then they should complain to The Times. TFD (talk) 04:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Prety much that is all the RS say. OK we could Name Names, but does that really asdd that much to our knowledge? Also again why are we concentrating on something from 7 months ago?Slatersteven (talk) 12:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Chris Renton is mentioned to be a BNP activist in This Times article. This surely passes W:RS? (  Francium12  16:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
He did some work professionally for a client? You'll need evidence of a stronger connection to include him. AJRG (talk) 19:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
The Times says, "The groupings have attracted the support of BNP activists including Chris Renton, who created the English Defence League website". If anyone has a problem with that statement they should first write to the paper and request a retraction and if that is unsuccessful complain to the Press Complaints Commission. Until then it is RS. TFD (talk) 19:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
The source supports his BNP affiliation but not an EDL one. Creating a website for a client doesn't imply affiliation. AJRG (talk) 20:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Also the link is over a year old. Does Mr Renton still have links?Slatersteven (talk) 16:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
This brings us back to the Chris Renton is a pseudonym for Tommy Robinson article ARRGH! --Omar418 (talk) 00:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Tommy Robinson is Paul Harris

From the EDL website (everything beyond this point is lifted from the link below):

Channel 4 Tomorrow Evening Tommy Robinson "Unmasked"

"Yes this IS the face of Tommy Robinson and here is his passport!!!

Contrary to the left wing effluent that spews from the unpatriotic Anti-English, Anti- Democratic, Anti-Jew and Islamist loving ranks of the unwashed who seem to think they have "exposed" Tommy we again laugh at their feeble attempts to cause him harm.

In fact all they have done is actually put some poor innocent peoples lives at risk and for what? For the sake of their own egos? For the sake of the Islamists we protest against?

Whatever the motive they have undoubtedly put innocent people in harms way, we hope they are proud of themselves and their despicable ways, lets hope that none of their identities get out into the public domain eh?

Of course if that were to happen the English Defence League would at least have the intellectual and moral integrity of getting it right rather than endanger innocent "joe public".

As the loony left celebrate we cant help but extinguish their party bonfire with this "FACTUAL" information. What kind of moral compass do these people have? What right have they to put peoples lives at risk? And for what exactly?

So for 5 minutes they can indulge their own egos with utter contemptuous fabrication?

The minds of the "far left" are incredibly warped, so much so they care not for the safety of innocent peoples, nor do they care how idiotic they expose themselves to be. Still if they had a brain between them they could be dangerous, lets thank God for small blessings eh?

At least Tommy, or should i say "Paul Harris" has done the right thing and publicly admitted who he actually is, lets hope that is enough to save innocents from getting hurt.

Tommy or "Paul" as you all know know was arrested recently so here we have his bail papers that strangely enough collaborate his REAL identity, at least he has the balls to come out and say who he is.

Would any of those who are intent on "exposing" him do the same? I use the term "exposed" in the loosest of terms obviously!

Congratulations you lefty idiots for putting people in harms way, if you decide to try and expose people then at least have the decency of getting it right you numpties!!!

Tommy or "Paul" will be on Channel 4 "unmasked" at 7pm tomorrow night talking about the problem of Islamism and Islamists here in the UK, another FACT that the brainwashed unwashed seem unable to comprehend."

(my own words) Picture of Bail notice for Paul Harris:

--Omar418 (talk) 00:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Omar. You may want to make it clearer which parts of the above are quotes from the website and which are your own words, though... --FormerIP (talk) 00:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Amended as suggested. I guess we could add more to the note. I dunno. --Omar418 (talk) 21:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
On Channel 4 News tonight, he was unmasked as Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, and the caption said that during his interview . . . but then, at the end of the show they suddenly changed their mind and the newsreader said his name is actually Paul Harris. Catch the repeat on 4+1 at 8. -- (talk) 18:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Channel 4 make a mistake? I am stunned. Either way i am not entirely sure any of this needs a mention in the article though BritishWatcher (talk) 18:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Well its all over the EDL website that Tommy Robonson is Paul Harris but reading the EDL can we change the note of a Guardian claim of a psudonym to "The EDL stated that Tommy Rosinson is a pseudonym for Paul Harris citing a passport and bail notice as proof of identification." or is the way the article is worded an obstacle to establishing this as fact? Note there are plenty of inverted commas etc --Omar418 (talk) 22:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

What is this discussion about exactly, tommy is jonny. ? Off2riorob (talk)Can I get the simple cited version please, It looks like cut and copied photo shop rubbish with lots of BLP issues if you ask me, please point me in the right direction if my spidey senses are tingling for another reason. Off2riorob (talk) 22:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Well Tommy Robinson is a pseudonym for Paul Harris according to the EDL source here:

The article clearly states (direct quote):

"Yes this IS the face of Tommy Robinson and here is his passport!!!"

This picture here:

is a scan of his passport from the same link

and this is a bail notice he recieved that suggests he has been arrested:

From this info we can immediately state that Tommy Robinson is a psudonym and that has been established by the EDL. The question is whether to put his real name up to respect the right to privacy or not and also on the grounds that his real identity seems under dispute from the Guardian amd Channel 4 during their report where they used three names to refer to him.

I guess the EDL would be happy for us to put this name as his real name and psudonym but given that he has been named as Stephen Yaxley-Lennon by the Guardian and Channel 4 raises a dispute over whether this is genuine or, as you suggest, shooped. I'm just wanting the text that the Guardian CLAIM its a pseudonym changed. To either "The EDL acknowledge that Tommy Robinson is a pseudonym" or "The EDL unmasked Tommy Robinson as an individual named Paul Harris." its just changing the wording of the note on Tommy Robinson so this talks less like EDL or UAF speak and more like wiki speak --Omar418 (talk) 01:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

news Bradford, Guramit Singh, spokesman for the EDL. I also note, the group are again referred to as a right wing campaign/protest group, I also note no reference to fascists either. Off2riorob (talk) 19:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The Channel 4 Report this evening said far-right and then the website has this report which say right wing: ...swings n roundabouts me old china...swings n roundabouts and CONSENSUS --Omar418 (talk) 22:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Call them what you like but the Sky reports were all the same as well, 'right wing campaign group, my old consensus china. Off2riorob (talk) 12:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The consensus for "far right", per endless discussions past, was based on that term's prevalence in most media reporting and third party comment, not on the basis that it was used every single time every single media outlet mentioned their name. It is used in a pretty clear majority of reports and mentions. So citing one or more other occasions when it might not have been used doesn't really change that. N-HH talk/edits 13:39, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Far right is not representative of the media as is reporting now, consensus on this talkative or not. Off2riorob (talk) 22:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I care less about your claimed per endless discussions past . Consensus on this talkpage was for fascist but we have moved on from that also. Off2riorob (talk) 22:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I'd just point out that "right-wing" does not negate "far right", in the same way that thousands of sources describing Lenin as "left-wing" do not negate the description "communist". --FormerIP (talk) 00:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Or saying that a lion is not a "large cat" because some sources merely call it a cat. TFD (talk) 00:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
The media seem to be using the "far right" description just as much as they have done for a while now - see for example the Mail, the FT and local papers from the past couple of days - as well as sometimes the broader "right-wing" term, just as they also always have. I'm not sure that the overall mix between the use of the two has changed much, just as consensus here seems not to have done. And my reference to "endless discussion" was quite a general yawn, not aimed at anyone in particular - I was actually on the side of simply using the broad "right wing" description in the first sentence, before attributing the more specific, majority view of "far/extreme right" further on, for reasons explained here, including, as noted, the fact that "right-wing" does indeed include the "far right", as well as much else besides. I can see the videos and make up my own mind fairly quickly about where exactly on the right I'd place them, but that just seemed to be the ultra-safe option to me on wp:npov grounds. However, others disagreed, preferring merely the super-safe option, which is fine. N-HH talk/edits 18:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
I've researched this group and they do not appear to be a far right group, so why are they being referred to as such? The media can say what they like of course but isn't this place supposed to be more accurate than the media? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
We have to go with the reliable sources on this, a huge amount of the news media describe them as far right, including the BBC and Sky News and "rightwing" newspapers. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
There are also plenty of reports describing them as right wing campaign group ,insisting on the most extreme representation of the group is extreme in itself. Off2riorob (talk) 18:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
We have to use reliable sources. The way to be more accurate than the media is to use academic sources, but in this case they would say the same thing. TFD (talk) 18:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Do we really need reference from the horses mouth?

I am not concurring with this group(s)? at all, however I fail to understand, the need to quote a line from a politician not officially backed-up by any other individuals. This makes it seem to be POV. Thank you.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 02:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


I seem to recall that the demo table should only include demos organised by the EDL, not just ones they show up at.Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree--Omar418 (talk) 23:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Membership figures

There are currently around 16,000 registered users on the EDL forum. Obviously not all of them are supporters, but the majority of posters in all sections are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Leicester Protest

News is coming in today (9/10/10) of the protests in Leicester. Incidents reported include the International Arts Centre has had its windows smashed by the EDL and that a police officer has been hospitalised after a leg injury:

Leicestershire police say five have been arrested:

One for a drug offence:

Fireworks, smokebombs, beercans and bricks have been thrown at police:

More on arrests: 5 arrested all male between 30 and 42 and none from the Leicester area. One for a drugs offence, two for posession of an offensive weapon and two for minro public order offences:

--Omar418 (talk) 15:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Lets wait untill its over. Also please do not remove my posts wihtourt at least giving a reason. The last update fro exapmel says that one rumour is not true.Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Which one? Won't remove anything but this is very busy and its good to get a rolling feed so we can report.

Reports of clashes with local black and Asian youth:

Video of EDL breaking our of designated protest site: (talk) 15:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

This is you removal of my post. [[23]]. If you mean which rumour the one about the EDL breaking into the UAF area. Whilst you may not have posted this report here the fact that errors are having to be corrected makes a live report really rather pointless from the point of view of the article.Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Theres nothing on the EDL breaking into the UAF area in my posts is there? sorry for removing any posts of yours, accident. i'm just posting as it happens as there have been discussion about what has happenned on the day on the article and the facts involved. I'd intend to post a draft here and then change the article once the draft is accepted. Most reliable source is the police feed and local news. --Omar418 (talk) 15:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

As I have sadi you did not post that rumour, but it demonstrates that this is still a fluid situation in which falsehoods are begin reported (well erros) by the press.Slatersteven (talk) 16:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Nah, that was a twitter comment. There was no report from either local press or police on that. The police tweeted that it didn't happen and the local paper retweeted. I'm only posting reports. Police say 8 arrests from people aged between 21 and 42. --Omar418 (talk) 16:28, 9 October 2010 (UTC) Details of arrests from police: "6pm update

•37-year-old man of no fixed abode arrested for possession of a controlled substance and possession of an offensive weapon •30-year-old man from Wales arrested on suspicion of possession of an offensive weapon and public order offences •39-year-old man from Boston, Lincolnshire arrested on suspicion of criminal damage •42-year-old man from Holland arrested on suspicion of public order offences •21-year-old man from Alvaston, Derby arrested on suspicion of public order offences •38-year-old man from Gateshead arrested on suspicion of public order offences •27-year-old man from Long Eaton, Notts arrested on suspicion of public order offences •23-year-old man from Wigston arrested on suspicion of public order offences and assaulting a police officer." --Omar418 (talk) 17:12, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Edl members also injured A sky news van attacked Slatersteven (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

More reports on arrests: 6.30pm update Police have confirmed five more arrests:

•30-year-old man from Leighton Buzzard, Bedfordshire arrested on suspicion of assaulting a police officer •37-year-old man from Leicester arrested on suspicion of possession of an offensive weapon and public order offences •39-year-old man from Leicester arrested on suspicion of public order offences •27-year-old man from Stoke on Trent arrested on suspicion of public order offences •23-year-old man from Halifax arrested on suspicion of public order offences This makes a total of 13 arrests at this present time, only 3 in custody from the Leicestershire area. --Omar418 (talk) 17:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Final poloce press release: --Omar418 (talk) 20:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Bolton Inquiry

There has come to light an inquiry towards incidents at the Bolton demonstration and I thought they may be relevant to the story. Apparently a man protesting against the English Defence League, Alan Clough, who was arrested and charged has had charges dropped against him and there are parts of his case which indicate police brutality.

According to this article:

Clough was due to stand trial at bolton malgistrates court but:

"the Crown Prosecution Service dropped the case 24 hours before it was due to go ahead after viewing footage from the rally, filmed by Granada TV. It shows police in high visibility jackets pushing back crowds of protesters before a skirmish breaks out, with riot police and mounted officers involved. Batons are drawn and Clough is punched by an officer in riot gear who is lashing out at demonstrators. He is then dragged away and arrested."

It also quotes a spokesman for justice4bolton as saying: "The latest footage must be seen against the background of an overwhelming number of reports already received by justice4bolton describing violent and oppressive behaviour on the part of police on 20 March.

"The emerging body of reports already received raises serious questions, not only about the acts of individual officers, but about the broader approach taken by the police towards those seeking to stand up against racism and fascism."

It also indicates that the Greater Manchester Police is to have an nquiry into what happenned on the day in question

Thoughts please.. --Omar418 (talk) 20:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

If you mean should we include this I would say no, its not about the EDL but the UAF (or at least someone protesting against the EDL). Also we do not kow what the reslt of any inquiey will be.Slatersteven (talk) 20:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Wilders "denounces" EDL

Apparently the EDL are not too welcome by Geert Wilders:

‘This demonstration means nothing to me. It is nothing to do with me, nor is the EDL,’ Wilders said. ‘I only know the group from the newspapers and I have never had any contact with them.’

"I have no involvement with this demo, I've never been in touch with the EDL," the MP told daily De Telegraaf on Tuesday.

Their demonstrations have a tendency to spark counter-protests and violence. Referring to this, Mr Wilders said, "Should this demonstration really happen, I would like to emphasise that I abhor any form of violence. If there's the remotest chance of escalation, I'd rather they call off the protest. Perish the thought that this turns into a battle. That's the last thing I need." --Omar418 (talk) 12:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

As Mr Wilders is not mentioned in the articel I fail to see what value this has.Slatersteven (talk) 13:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The demonstration scheduled on the 30th October that is mentioned under International links is advertised as being in support of Wilders. That he rejects the support is surely worth mentioning? Also the council in amsterdam are considering banning the demonstrations. --Omar418 (talk) 13:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

As no mention is made of that in the articel it will read a bit odd. So the whole sectio will need re-writen to make it clear that the demo is in support of him, but he does not support it. Also if the march ism to be baned then we should not even be mentioning it, its crystal balling to say they will hold a demo. I susgest we remove it untill the demo goes aheadSlatersteven (talk) 13:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Israeli Embassy

The last item on the demo table claims it was a protest at the Israeli Embassy. They weren't protesting the embassy they were rallying for it, and Israeli flags can clearly be seen flying prominently on video of the event. I think protest isn't an appropriate word for the event. (talk) 05:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Changed.[24] [ Here is a link to the article used as a source. TFD (talk) 13:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


the article claims 40,000 from and old source, but the facebook page says 55,500 and has been growing at about 500/day over the past week. What should we do about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Alan lake of the EDL

what is his real name if not this one? what does he do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Use of the word Violent as an ideology of the group

In light of the recent attempt to install the world "violent" as one of the opening descriptions to the EDL I would like to state the following. All things should be considered when assigning such a word to a Pressure group. 1 NPOV 2 WP:V 3 Manual of Style .

1)What am I achieving by describing this group's founding activities as "violent". In most articles, the only things I think in which a founding statements of the group the word "violent" is applicable are terrorist organisations who openly advocate violence with direct statements. There are suitable sections for describing the activities of the group, and criticisms and other commentaries should be dealt with here. The opening phrase should deal with the largely indesputable solid information about the pressure group

2) Ask yourself is the source reliable/suitable in context to the group. You are citing the Harrow times. Not a big enough paper when the other British Papers have also written articles on the EDL. You must find something in context.

3) I suggest you read it.

If you wish to add further information to the group, you are invited to do so. But it is my opinion that your recent edits could be construed as mild vandalism, or at least provocative. Impartiality shall reign (talk) 00:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The word violent was added because the EDL's involvement in violent activities is well chronicled (and, indeed, a number of the sources provide examples of its track record in this regard). However, this part of my edit has been reverted and I will make no further attempt to reintroduce the word so long as the term "far right" is allowed to stand (because this fact is widely sourced and in itself implies a violent aspect). Most of the rest of the opening paragraph seems to read a bit like EDL propoganda, so the far right description should be retained for purposes of accuracy and balance (especially given the group's links with the BNP and its penchant for provocative street activities, the latter clearly differentiating it from centre right groups like UKIP). Multiculturalist (talk) 12:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Surely clear differentiation is that UKIP is a political party whose policies are clearly what would be called 'right-wing', i.e. conservative, where the EDL are a single-issue protest group who do not have policies outside of their stated aims. The term 'far right' is being used to mean violent/nationalist and not to distinguish them from conservative political parties - they are not part of the same spectrum. It is an 'accurate' tag only insofar as Wikipedia's definition of far-right is 'violent/nationalist'. Xyster (talk) 11:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes you're right, it is well documented. No one is disputing that there has been violence at EDL rallies. One is disputing where this information should be contained. If you take a look at the UAF page for example, by your regulations they too should contain the banner "violent" in the opening line, as should all sorts of unsuspecting groups. Perhaps John McEnroe should be described as a "violent" tennis player because of his frequent outbursts on the court. Do you get where this is going? If you continue to approach all articles as "them" and "us" then you will rarely be able to contribute worthy information. Thank you for your understanding. Alexandre8 (talk) 13:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

This does seem a fair point. Whilst I suspect that their 'ideology' is violence we need RS saying it is. Otherwise they are just anothr poplitical group (like students) who use violence asa a means of protest. Its what they do not what they belive. And they appear no0 more violent then say UAF.Slatersteven (talk) 13:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Quote that may be suitable for the article

From a documentary today on Channel 4 in the UK entitled "Coppers", episode entitled "Public Order". Showed a senior officer from Greater Manchester Police (not named) briefing police before an EDL demo in Bolton earlier this year. The quote is about 4 mins 30 in.

The English Defence League...claim to be a peaceful group protesting against miltant Islam and extremism. What is fact is that they are largely made up of football risk groups. They have links to the far-right, including the BNP and Combat 18.

Mentioning this because the article seems to me to be unduly careful at the moment in not mentioning that the EDL are, according to some assessments, not much more than a sort of flag of convenience for pre-existing groupings of people. I'm assuming this is because of a lack of citable quotes.

Cheers. -- (talk) 01:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for that - I saw it and made a similar comment to you further up this page. Had not seen your comment at the time. Clearly they are far right. Multiculturalist (talk) 18:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

"arrests" vs. convictions

Notice a lot of mentions of arrests but "arrests" are not a very useful measurement of anything. The police will often arrest someone but take it no further. Good example is the Bolton demo, many more arrests on the UAF side but virtually no convictions, and the most serious charges all dropped (I think). Just because someone has been arrested doesn't mean they did anything wrong, so I;m not sure what the obsession with numbers of arrests really shows?

Essentialy it was there to demonstrate that trooble follows the EDL I suspect. Much like the association with violence sectioin.Slatersteven (talk) 16:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

It's standard practise to cite arrests, you're right, convictions hardly ever follow. It's also very hard to get citations for the ones that do since they tend not to be printed whereas arrests are always made available to the press. Best not to change anything there unless it's a significant member of the protesting parties. Alexandre8 (talk) 22:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate image use

The image used in the organization info box shows a police officer and an EDL supporter that is masked and probably about to be (or just having been) engaged in something inappropriate. That's hardly neutral. How about the organization's logo which is usual in this place for most every other organization? __meco (talk) 20:45, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can see EDL are proud of their masks and protest activity - its how they define themselves. --Snowded TALK 20:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Unless you can back that up with reliable sources I think caution demands that we do not present them as law-breaking violent thugs by default. __meco (talk) 20:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Can we find a picture of and EDL demonstator who is just hagnin about in order to avoid another edit war.Slatersteven (talk) 20:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Regardless of whether they are law breaking violent thugs or not, the picture as far as I can see has a smiling policeman in it with no confrontation. No problem with looking at other options but I'm not sure Meco's interpretation is correct. --Snowded TALK 21:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Why shouldn't the organization's logo be presented in this spot as is customary? __meco (talk) 21:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Looking at their web site, the first image you encounter is the masked face. Its not clear what the logo is other than variations on the cross of St George Which image did you have in mind?--Snowded TALK 21:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
I have no idea what their logo looks like. I'm Norwegian. But surely they have one? __meco (talk) 21:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
It's a good picture and it was uploaded by an editor. I think we should stick with the best image we have, which is this one. As Snowded points out, the EDL website [25] has on its banner a the words "English Defence League" and a picture of two members wearing masks and hoods just like the one in our picture. So I think that the argument that we are treating them unfairly by featuring a similar picture is blown out of the water. --FormerIP (talk) 21:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
There apears to be a logo in the top right hand corner of their site. Also I think it might be the police presecne that might cause concrean, why not use a picture of just an EDL member?Slatersteven (talk) 21:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
The EDL organise demos. That's what they're most known for, right? Demos are policed, so a picture with a police officer in gives a good, informative, representation of what they do. They guy in the photo is not being arrested and the police officer does not appear concerned about his behaviour. If that really was a concern, we could crop the picture. But I really don't think its necessary.
If we were to replace with a logo (which would seem like bowing to POV-pushing to me), then we would need to ensure conformity to WP:LOGO. --FormerIP (talk) 21:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Morning Star

The Morning Star quotation is not replicated in another other national newspaper as far as I can see on a google search. Here it is used as part of a British Communist Party attack on Police investigations. The Morning Star is not a broadsheet newspaper and the insert in the first paragraph gives undue weight to something which to all intents and purposes has not been reported in any mainstream source. In any event WP:BRD says it should be reverted and discussed. --Snowded TALK 21:28, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Whilst I diagree with the broadshet comment (no where does it say we can only use broadsheets) I agree that this has not recived any otehr media attention. Odd given its nature which implies it may not be true.Slatersteven (talk) 21:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
It's in a reliable source. There's no reason to demand more than one reliable source for this. From that article it's very hard to perceive that it should have been made up or be a misrepresentation, so unless any such points arise this should suffice nicely. __meco (talk) 22:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
I'd be surprised if the Morning Star is considered an RS in relation to this article. But if it is, I've just had a look through their archive and there is a fair bit of other information, less positive to the EDL cause, that could presumably also be added. --FormerIP (talk) 23:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
DCS Tudway did not say the EDL were not "far right", he said that, "The present particular challenge to us, constitutionally, is they are not extreme right-wing organisations".[26] While the term "far right" is part of the headline, the article does not say that he used the term. More recently he also said, "I think it's a very significant threat, It's one I know the police service are taking very seriously, together with the Home Office and local authorities."[27]
I oppose calling the EDL "extremist", although Google-mining will no doubt find countless newspaper articles that use the term. Instead we should use clearly defined terminology. Since the lead does not claim that the EDL is extremist, there is no need to say that it is not. Also, Tudway is using a clear definition of extremism, which one may read here. Note that in the United Kingdom it is not part of the role of police to describe the ideology of political groups. While the police view of the EDL is interesting, there seems to be too little notice of it to warrant its inclusion.
TFD (talk) 04:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Okay so you're saying that he was saying that the EDL don't fit a particular police definition of "extremist" because they don't (in his view) break the law to further their cause. Am I understanding that right? --FormerIP (talk) 04:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I assume that is what he is saying, but would like to see his full explanation. The website says, "The term only applies to individuals or groups whose activities go outside the normal democratic process and engage in crime and disorder". While some EDL members do this, the term (as defined) probably does not apply to the organization itself. TFD (talk) 06:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
All of which means (and I think we came to a similar conclusion before) that the insertion should be deleted? --Snowded TALK 07:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Agree. TFD (talk) 08:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. I cannot see any valid reason why the position of a police official which has caused a newspaper article (reliable source in this case) headlining this position, and which is so different from what is usually being stated from official quarters, should be deemed irrelevant for inclusion. __meco (talk) 08:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

This is clearly just an attack on the article line which is not classed as anti-EDL. There are many smaller newspapers used throughout the article, including The Harrow Times, The Uxbridge Gazette, The Birmingham Post, The Scotsman, The Birmingham Mail, The Stourbridge News, Luton Today, The Leicester Mercury and so on. None of these have raised any objections. Questioning the Morning Stars' place in light of these sources is clearly just a push for an anti-EDL bias in the article . This is an Encyclopaedia, not a forum for pushing one's own views, and it must remain to be unbias and informative; the views of the UK's Domestic Extremism Unit is clearly valid and is an example of the counter-argument to the anti-English Defence League sentiments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Neither of you have addressed the information provided above as to what the police mean by extremist. I'd also point that that you need to achieve a consensus for this change, per WP:BRD --Snowded TALK 11:56, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
It seems clear to me that if the officer had intended what is supposed then it would have been highly controversial and would have been reported elsewhere. The Morning Star is not known for being sympathetic towards the police and I think it is highly likely that the quote has been taken out of context and the officer concerned probably did mean only that the EDL do not fall within his remit, as TFD suggests.
I'll admit to being slightly anti-EDL (ie normal), but I'm also committed to NPOV. If it turns out that we are not concerned about possible bias in sources such as the Morning Star, then as far as I can see that's useful for addressing insufficiently anti-EDL tone of the article at present. --FormerIP (talk) 13:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
It is hardly a valid position to assert all sorts of things about the context of the Morning Star article information that are pure speculation. This is the highest ranking police officer in charge of countering domestic extremism in the UK giving two relevant (per the text in the present article) quotes. Firstly, "...constitutionally, is they are not extreme right-wing organisations," and then, "...they are most certainly not extreme right-wing organisations." You present nothing to support your assumption that the Detective Chief Superintendent actually didn't mean what is contained in these quotes. That's very curious. __meco (talk) 13:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
If it was a significant statement then it would have been picked up in other newspapers - it wasn't. The Morning Star is not generally considered a reliable source without some corroborating material. It has also been pointed out that the phrase used has a specific meaning in the context of the police which is not the common meaning used by you here. Per the discussion here there is not a consensus for the inclusion of the material so it will need to be removed. If people are unhappy with that then they should raise a RfC or take it to some other forum. --Snowded TALK 13:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Meco: TFD provided the material that should be looked at the interpret the comments. From the website of the officer's unit: "The term only applies to individuals or groups whose activities go outside the normal democratic process and engage in crime and disorder". --FormerIP (talk) 14:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I would oppose including the police view on the EDL because the coverage has been sparse and we do not have a source that explains it in detail. If we do include it we should explain the police definition of extremist and include their comment, "I think [the EDL]'s a very significant threat. It's one I know the police service are taking very seriously, together with the Home Office and local authorities." BTW I am surprised how many editors read the Morning Star. TFD (talk) 18:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
IN two minds, I think on balances its not RS (its a blatantly left wing bias paper but he is quoted as saying that "but they are most certainly not extreme right-wing organisations". So if tehy have not taken it ouot of context (and that is conjecture) and they ae found to be RS then he did say the EDL are not far right. As to why this has not been more widely reported, again thats specultion.Slatersteven (talk) 12:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Random section break

I have posted an inquiry at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Morning Star (UK newspaper) that could possibly yield some valuable opinions and facts to assist in deciding on this issue. __meco (talk) 10:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Per the majority opinion here and the discussion at RSN, I've removed this for now. I would agree that it can be included in the article if more mainstream sourcing can be found or if a way of appropriately contextualising it without synthesis can be arrived at (although for now I don't see how that can be done). --FormerIP (talk) 03:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I find that action inappropriate and not supported by the two discussions. __meco (talk) 08:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
You had partial support from Collect at the RS noticeboard, otherwise none. So I don't see how you can say that the action was not supported. --Snowded TALK 09:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

List of marches

The list of marches is a synthesis of primary sources (news reports). We do not need laundry lists of this kind. A prose description of the development of their marches, supported by reliable independent sources so as to avoid original research, would be fine.

Reports of nazi salutes are very widespread, that should also be included at some point, if possible with some reliably sourced version of the group's reported statement that it has expelled people for doing this (though how you expel people from a mob is not entirely clear). Guy (Help!) 20:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I do not see this list as impinging on WP:SYNTH. These rallies all seem to me as noteworthy incidents and collating and presenting them in a table[28] provides a valuable reference in addition to any prose discussion of the general nature of these events. __meco (talk) 20:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
It was agreed by several editors as an alternative to contentious narrative. I think its fair enough and support its retention. --Snowded TALK 20:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
It is certainly no sysnthasis, it only says what RS say. As to its inclusion, as has been pointed out it was a compromise solution to what should and should not be in the articel regarding what is (essentialty) a holligan club (thier about as political as half a house brick up the jacksie). I agree it should stay, unless a better option is availible.Slatersteven (talk) 20:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I tend to agree that prose would be better for this. But I don't think SYN is correct as an objection. It's just another way of presenting the information - no more SYN than juxtaposing two sentences that use different sources. The list may be good if it prevents edit warring. I think, though, that it should be considered whether it remains a good idea as the number of marches grows. --FormerIP (talk) 21:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
You can't fix contentious narrative with a laundry list. The fix to contentious narrative is to improve the narrative with better sources, not to replace it with a list compiled entirely from primary sources. Guy (Help!) 22:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
And so you removed the list again, this time with the edit commentary "The default with disputed material is *out* f the article, remember?" Why so confrontational. This has been discussed on this page previously and apparently there is a consensus for having this list for the time being. What's the rush that you cannot see a new consensus form around your assertedly impeccable argument before taking this out of the article? __meco (talk) 22:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
If you check back you will see the list resulted from a consensus descision and it reduced edit warring over what was or was not included in the narrative. That said the number of demonstrations may now justify replacing it with a paragraph summarising that activity. --Snowded TALK 03:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
But we would have to be very carefull in tone, that was why the first dipute arrose.Slatersteven (talk) 13:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I would agree the list is wholly unnecessary for an encyclopedia article, which is what we're supposed to be writing here. If you were reading an article on the NF or the Brownshirts you wouldn't expect to see some lengthy table with arrests, injuries, attendance etc, so why does this article have them? It's recentism, looking back in 50 years time would anyone writing an article include all that information? I doubt it, so why do it now? The same value can be given in a few short sentences saying that EDL protests have increased in size, they've been repeatedly opposed by anti-fascists, there's been arrests and violence on both sides etc. Once you do that, things like the actual number of arrests at a particular protest or the attendance becomes just trivia. Obviously mention the bigger/more important protests in greater detail, but you don't need this level of crust in an encyclopedia article. 2 lines of K303 14:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


I see there's been another attempt by a virtual far-right SPA to promote EDL claims regarding things like Sharia law as fact. Here's what several sources say, with emphasis added:

  • The Times says "It was supposed to be a “peaceful” protest by a group opposed to Islamic law and what it perceives as radical Islam"
  • Reuters says "A little-known nationalist group calling itself the English Defence League met in the town centre to protest against what they see as Islamic militancy in Britain"
  • Metro says "The right-wing campaign group, which claims to be taking a stand against what it sees as the rise of radical Islam in England"
  • The Daily Mail says "The aim of the EDL — to counter what it perceives as the Islamification of Britain — is just a cover.

Based on these, I assume there's no objection from non-SPA editors to the reinstatement of the original long-standing wording in the lead? 2 lines of K303 14:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Have they been reported as an SPA? So i object untill proof is provided of your claims.Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
We should focus on edits rather than editors (although, Steven, "SPA" normally just means any account that edits only in one place - it isn't necessarily an accusation of wrongdoing).
Obviously, given the choice between third-party sources and the self-depiction of the subject of the article, we should always go with the former, so "what they see as" would be correct in this case. --FormerIP (talk) 14:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
I would say that we should 'represent' what they say (especialy as it does not seem substantavly different from the above). Indead I am having trouble finding exaclty what is being objected too.Slatersteven (talk) 14:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it breaks down like this: "EDL is opposed to radical Islam" implies that, by some objective standard, the things that the EDL oppose are "radical". However, this is a judgement call and we only have their word for it. But they are not the right people for us to call on for a judgement as to whether they are right or wrong about it. The right place to go for that judgement is third party sources. They seem to consistently add a qualifier such as "what they see as", and we should follow suite. On a more discursive note, it is clear that some things the EDL opposes are the building of Mosques and the sale of Halal food. These are things that all Mulsims, whether radical, half-interested or whatever, would consider to be essential parts of their religion. This does not seem consistent with the idea that the EDL only opposes "radical" Islam. We should therefore be cautious about reporting the EDL's view of itself as if it were unquestionable. The sources do subtly question them, and that's the lead we must take. --FormerIP (talk) 15:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

OK thanks for calrifiy what is being objected too. I can't see in the lead where it says "EDL is opposed to radical Islam".Slatersteven (talk) 15:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Oh. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the issue. Do we have a diff that shows it? --FormerIP (talk) 15:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
The sources are summarising the EDL's aim, which is stated in the lead as "Its stated aim is to oppose the spread of Islamism, Sharia law and Islamic extremism in England". That used to have "what it sees" or "what it perceives" after oppose, it doesn't any more. Just in case there's any feeble attempt to claim that none of the sources add their qualifier to that exact sentence, I'll be happy enough to stick to a more summarised version of their aim in the lead with the type of qualifier used by reliable sources. 2 lines of K303 13:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Can we have a diff showing the older version?Slatersteven (talk) 13:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Diff is in the page history, but is of no direct relevance anyway. The proposal is to add back either "what they see as" or "what they perceive as" immediately after oppose, or add back either qualifier and amend the sentence so it is a summary of the EDL's aims instead of the "spread of Islamism, Sharia law and Islamic extremism in England". 2 lines of K303 12:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Okay I have made the change. WP does not have an official position as to whether "spread of Islam" etc is a particular phenomenon in the UK, so we need to properly attribute this view. --FormerIP (talk) 13:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^
  2. ^
  3. ^
  4. ^
  5. ^
  6. ^
  7. ^ Cite error: The named reference Times2 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  8. ^ Defence League: chaotic alliance stirs up trouble on streets | World news. The Guardian. Retrieved on 2010-01-24.
  9. ^ Cite error: The named reference BNP1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  10. ^ Cite error: The named reference BNP was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  11. ^ Cite error: The named reference Telegraph4 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  12. ^ Cite error: The named reference Newsnight was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  13. ^ Cite error: The named reference BBC 20091012 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  14. ^
  15. ^
  16. ^
  17. ^