Talk:English Defence League

Decided to stop the exercise

Hi. I have decided not to continue with this exercise. The main reason is that, although I am responding to the suggestion of another editor in going about it this way, it gives the impression that it is I who am demanding this level of time and attention, and it's affecting the neutrality with which other edits are being addressed. Essentially, this discussion is making it hard for my other edits to be taken at face value. I also don't like arguing but love grammatical discourse. Sadly, the former has become regular and the latter is not occurring at all (or at least not in grammatical language). I believe that I was mistaken as having an agenda which I didn't have, but also accept that I didn't handle that as well as I could have, and demonstrated behaviours which I hadn't done prior to this and don't want to after it.

I do think there are a few issues with the tone of this article, and there are certainly grammatical improvements to be made. The nature of Wikipedia, however, and perhaps rightly, makes it difficult for a single editor to accomplish both of these tasks. And I shouldn't have attempted both, as it resulted in neither being as simple as it should have been. And that's my fault.

I would ask that this whole discussion be archived.

Thanks to Midnightblueowl, particularly, for being very reasonable. I'll scuttle off to less controversial articles. Peace.

NEDOCHAN (talk) 09:38, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Links to Zionism

The EDL has taken a very strong Zionist position with flags of Israel present at EDL marches and slogans such as "we support Israel". The EDL has also been backed by prominent Zionist figures such as Shillberg, Horowitz and Rosenwald. Tommy Robinson has made inaccurate revisionist history videos and statements on the situation of Palestinians, blaming their situation solely on Arabs and removing any blame from Israel or Zionism. A general hatred of immigrants, Muslims and Arabs, Zionist backing, or a combination of both, seems to be culturing a strong Zionist and anti-Palestinian position within the EDL. Strong backing from Zionist sponsors may explain the EDLs support for Jews and links to far right Zionist political groups - typically unusual among far right white nationalist groups, it may also partially explain support for Islamophobia.

I believe that Zionism should be added under the purpose of the EDL and a section on this and on Zionist backers could be added to the information.

"Tommy Robinson visits Palestinian Arab 'refugee' camp" (Leah Rosenberg, March 2019. https://israelunwired.com/tommy-robinson-visits-palestinian-arab-refugee-camp/ )

5.69.67.194 (talk) 06:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I disagree, the enemy of my enemy mentality does not mean (and I think there is some evidence they are not) they are Zionist. Also (at least in the UK, many of our far right parties have (in the last 10 years or so) started to make common cause with Zionists.Slatersteven (talk) 08:47, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Slatersteven, we don't need a whole section on the EDL's links with Zionism in the article. We already mention that the EDL have flown Israeli flags and sought to cultivate links with Jewish groups in the article. However, this is not an issue that the WP:Reliable Sources written by political scientists and other academics stress in any depth, and the claim that Zionism is a strong part of the EDL's ideology probably constitutes WP:Original Research on the part of the IP. Moreover, I'm not convinced that such a claim is actually true; at the very least, it's debatable. Professing support for Israel and the Jewish community may be more a reflection of the EDL's desire to shake off the accusations of anti-Semitism which dog the entire British far-right than anything else. In this sense, it might be more tactical than ideological. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:00, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Well it's not just about "the enemy of my enemy must be my friend" speculation, but the EDL has openly declared that it is Zionist and Tommy Robinson openly declared he is fiercely Zionist. Stating that if a war broke out he'd go to fight for Israel and stating "f**k Palestine". Which is a very clear political position, making Zionism one of the main declared ideologies of the party's leadership: https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20190215-far-right-tommy-robinson-declares-himself-a-zionist-in-leaked-video/

He in this video is wearing an "I am a Zionist" button and he said he is a Zionist https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6liK7-3DGk&bpctr=1562792249

He has made his Zionist position 100% clear.

Here the EDL openly confront pro-Palestinian protesters, making their political stance clear and going out of their way to be on the streets demonstrating against Palestine https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/sep/13/english-defence-league-protest-palestinian

The EDL is/was aggressively funded by Zionist lobbyists. So it may be the case that the EDL wasn't meant to be Zionist starting off but took on that spin due to heavy Zionist funding, or it may be that the EDL started off pro-Zionist and therefore was backed by Zionists. Either way the EDL presents a fiercely pro-Israel, pro-Zionist (which is different to pro-jewish and may be different to pro-Israel) and anti-Palestinian view and has since its conception.

So it's more than just a minor thing, it's a huge defining aspect of the EDL, especially given how politically important a stance on Zionism is in the current political climate: It can influence amount of financial backing and media support and where the two come from, it can influence number of votes received. Can you imagine Labour or Conservative confronting a pro-Palestinian demonstration in a counter demonstration? It's a very politically significant stance to display. http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_dEMVONHYexw/TQE9CpDnAVI/AAAAAAAAArk/2iPmFmk0n1M/s1600/EDLplacard.jpg http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-v7dPmI0JGxQ/T5hRz-QbKgI/AAAAAAAAZmo/dE1oHuLJ8us/s1600/EDL+true+English+will+never+abandon+Israel.jpg 5.69.67.194 (talk) 20:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

None of which changes the basic point, we know they say they are Zionist. What we need is independent third party sources saying it is a significant part of their ideology, and not just Islamophobia in different clothes. Also My Yaxley-Lennon is not longer part of the EDL.Slatersteven (talk) 09:20, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:English Defence League/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: David Fuchs (talk · contribs) 21:47, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

{{doing}} Should have comments up by the end of this week. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:47, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! Hope you find the article to be of some interest to you. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:26, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay—I didn't really realize how lengthy an article this was when I picked it to review :) Overall, I think this article is in pretty good shape. Comments broken out into general themes are as follows:

• General and prose:

• • High-level: this article is 11,500 words and 73 KB readable prose size. That's by no means "too long", but I think there's an argument to be made to trimming and summarizing—especially since you have historical longform pieces rather than contemporary news articles to use, and especially since the article is fragmented into sub articles at present.
    • Especially given the length, I'm not sure why there's a separate 4,800-word article of the organization's ideology but there's still a roughly 3,800-word section in this one. The organization section is 67% of the spun-off article, and the membership 62%. The relatively small differences between these numbers suggests that either the spin-off articles are going into excessive detail, the summaries in the main article are going into excessive detail, or the content should just be cut down in whatever form to fit in the main article.

• I've been trying to get the overall length of the article down by splitting off many of the sections into separate articles. Obviously, I've been able to cut down some sections a lot more than others as part of this process. Are there any paragraphs/sections that really strike you as being ripe for pruning? Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:33, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

• I think it's more a general look at condensing thoughts and pruning extra words wherever possible. To take an example from the ideology section:

Pilkington characterised the EDL as an "anti-Islamist movement",[3] although noted that "there is slippage at movement level, and among individual supporters, into a broader anti-Islam or anti-Muslim position".[126] Officially, the EDL stated it only opposed certain types of Islam and certain types of Muslim,[127] being against the "Islamic extremist" but not the "ordinary Muslim",[128] a distinction also drawn by many of its activists.[129] However, the EDL's rhetoric regularly failed to make this distinction.[130] On its website, the two are often conflated: a 2011 article stated that "The sheer number of cases of Islamic extremism should suggest... that the problem should not be seen as being with a sub-sect of Islam that no one can really define... but as a problem with Islam itself."[131] It is likely that many who encountered the EDL's rhetoric were not able to appreciate a distinction between different interpretations of Islam,[127] and research among the group's grassroots found that many did not do so.[132]

• We could shorten this, for example, to something like:

Pilkington characterised the EDL as an "anti-Islamist movement",[3] but considered there to be crossover with broader anti-Islam or anti-Muslim positions.[126] The EDL stated it only opposed the "Islamic extremist" but not the "ordinary Muslim",[128] a distinction also drawn by many of its activists.[129] However, the EDL's rhetoric regularly failed to make this distinction.[130] It is likely that many who encountered the EDL's rhetoric were not able to appreciate a distinction between different interpretations of Islam,[127] and research among the group's grassroots found that many did not do so.[132]

• There's some redundancies removed (if we're saying the EDL says something, you can safely assume it's an organization position) as well as summarizing positions rather than wholesale quoting. The subsection on the dithering about whether or not they're islamophobic likewise feels like it could be a paragraph or less—these people say they meet the definition X, the EDL disagrees.

• I've gone through and carried out some pruning to the "Ideology" section. If you feel that it could be cut back even further, let me know and I'll have another go. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:54, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • And I've done some more trimming today. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:28, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

• The article is certainly better, but there's still a huge amount of duplicated content here versus the subpages. I would suggest in particular a good place to condense is anywhere you currently have level-four headings—so stuff like the subsections under "Anti-Islamism and Islamophobia". If we've got a sub-page, then you should be much more aggressive in applying summary style to the contents here. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 13:24, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• I'll have another go at pruning back "Anti-Islamism and Islamophobia". Hopefully it can be further condensed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:05, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

• • Im a bit confused about the tense of some sections. The article makes it clear that the EDL is a shadow of its former self, but there's very little dated past 2015 and the tense used in some sections makes it sound like the EDL is defunct entirely.

• I've struggled with this issue. It's true that the EDL are now much diminished and as a result fewer and fewer academics have researched them, and this means that the article is inevitably going to focus on their heyday. Would you recommend making much heavier use of the present tense or rather ensure virtually everything is past tense? Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:27, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

• I'd recommend leaving it present then. Until you get enough sources talking about it in the past tense I think that's more appropriate when referring to the extant and non-historical elements. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:26, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

• I've now been through the article and switched many instances of past tense to present tense. In some cases I've left it as past, if the sentence is discussing (for instance) the revelations of a particular researcher. If you spot any cases which I've missed and where you think I should also change it to present tense, do let me know. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:29, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

• • The English Defence League (EDL) is a far-right, Islamophobic organisation in the United Kingdom. A social movement and pressure group that employs street demonstrations as its main tactic, the EDL presents itself as a single-issue movement opposed to Islamism and Islamic extremism, although its rhetoric and actions target Islam and Muslims more widely.—to me the second sentence has a lot of redundancies with the first mentioning it as an islamophobic org. I think it would be better to just say it's a far-right org in the UK in the first sentence and keep the expounding on their goals in the second sentence.

• Initially, I worded the opening sentence so that it described it as a "far-right, counter-jihad organisation". Other editors then changed it, arguing that "Islamophobic" would be more familiar to most readers than "counter-jihadi". However, I think that linking to Counter-jihad is more precise than simply "Islamophobic" and better mirrors the opening sentences on articles like the GA-rated National Front (UK). Do you think that restoring "counter-jihad" over "Islamophobic" here would also deal with the issues of possible repetition that you raise? Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:58, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

• Eh, counter-Jihad is more precise, but doesn't really read much better than islamophobic to a casual reader, I imagine. I think you're better off leaving it out of that sentence and letting the much clearer second sentence clarify the nature of their activism. If I had to pick, though, I'd use counter-jihad given that it's a more precise term and one the EDL itself agrees with in their presentation. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:26, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

• I've replaced "Islamophobic" with "counter-jihad" in the lede. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:54, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

• • It is presently chaired by Tim Ablitt. out of the lead, I'm not sure why this statement is here. It doesn't logically follow off the previous sentence, and gives no indication Ablitt is particularly notable (he's not introduced nor blue linked, after all.)

• I decided to include this to mirror the structure of the lede paragraphs in various other UK political articles, which specify who the current leader is (Liberal Democrats (UK), National Front (UK) etc). I generally thought it a good idea to specify who the present leader of the organisation was, regardless or whether they were independently notable or not. However, if you really think the lede paragraph is better off without this, then I have no strong objections to its removal. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:35, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

• If the organization leader isn't really notable, I don't see the benefit. Ablitt isn't the important thing, the article subject is. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:26, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

• That's fair enough. I'll remove this sentence altogether from the lede. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:21, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

• • Officially, it presents itself as being opposed to Islamism, Islamic extremism, and jihadism, although its rhetoric repeatedly conflates these with Islam and Muslims more broadly. This is redundant with the first paragraph.
    • Agreed and removed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:00, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

• • By early 2013, commentators believed—which commentators?

• The source used here (Alessio and Merdeith 2014) simply says "In early 2013, a number of commentators suggested that the movement appeared to be on the decline". Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:54, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

• • There's places throughout where you just introduce a name without any explanation, especially if they're blue-linked—Roger Eatwell, for example. I'd recommend adding a quick explanation of who they are in these cases; you don't want readers to have to link away to get the basic gist, so just saying "academic Roger Eatwell" would help (as you have clarified some people like "Salafi Islamist preacher Anjem Choudary", etc.)

• I've clarified that Eatwell is a political scientist (probably a bit more precise than just "academic") and I'll keep my eyes peeled for other examples of names needing explanations in the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:44, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

• • when Ray emigrated.—where'd he go? You mention Malta later but I think it's better to just put that detail here rather than at the end of the paragraph.

• My concern here would be providing more information in the text than the cited sources offer. For instance, Copsey (2013, p. 13) is cited at the end of the sentence stating that Ray emigrated, but the source does not stipulate where Ray actually went at that point. Other sources later relate that he subsequently was based in Malta, but I am unsure if he moved directly from the UK to Malta or whether there were other countries in which he lived in between the two. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:49, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

• Fair enough. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:26, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

• • While it's understandable why some terms are put in quotes to avoid the appearance of editorializing, when those terms are specifically cited to commentators I don't think you really need them; you're still meeting WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. For example, It faced opposition from anti-fascist groups and media commentators, who described it as a "racist", "far right", and "extreme right" outfit—we understand the descriptions of them as racist and far right comes from the anti-fascist groups and media (I'd also switch the order so it's more clear that the media commentators are not anti-fascist.)
    • Another element of "newsy" writing that can be avoided throughout: awkward passive-voice constructions. Instead of saying The EDL was further damaged after it was revealed that it had links to Anders Breivik,, say The revelation of links to Norwegian far-right activist further damaged the EDL. or similar.

• I've changed the examples that you have highlighted. I'll read through the article and see if there are other examples where I can make a change. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:13, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

• • Robinson's imprisonment coincided with Carroll's bail conditions,—unless I'm missing something, the text doesn't explain Carroll went to jail previously, so this comes out of nowhere.

• You're right, but I'm not quite sure how to fix this one. The source itself (Pilkington p. 45) says "while Tommy Robinson was in prison and Kevin Carroll on bail conditions that did not allow him contact with other EDL members". It doesn't go into any further detail on that particular page. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:06, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:23, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

• • I'm not really sold on the quoteboxes in the ideology section; these seem to be used to break up the text, which I appreciate, but it also introduces potential issues of WP:UNDUE weight (I don't know who 'far right historian Paul Jackson' is, and whether he's really such a big deal that he should be quoted in full. The quotes also feel like they run up against summary style issues; we should be using less copyright content than more where possible.

• To be honest I'm a fan of quoteboxes and I'm loath to lose these examples. I've used them in other British politics articles like Referendum Party and National Front (UK) which have reached FA or GA quality so I do think they are permissible. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:08, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

• There's way more in this article than either of those, so I don't really think it's a good comparison. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:23, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

• I see your point. There are a lot of boxes here. I've taken two of them out. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:43, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
• I've taken a couple more out as well. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:28, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

• References:
  • Sources used appear reliable and appropriate.
    • Do you have copies of the materials you can send me temporarily for verification purposes? Otherwise I'll see what I can pull from my public library access to spot-check sources.

• The cited articles by Goodwin, Copsey, and Garland and Treadwell are all available freely online so you could use those to make things easier, rather than having to go the library. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:04, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks. I'll do a spot-check this week. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:26, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

• Checked statements attributed to said sources and didn't find issues. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 13:24, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• • You've got a dead link for [1]; there's no archived link unfortunately. Is it possible to replace this source?

• I've found a different (and functioning) link to the published report. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:41, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

• Media:
  • Images licensed freely, have appropriate description and source text/
    • As a matter of editorial, File:Tommy Robinson PEGIDA.png isn't as good a photo as the overall quality of the rest of the images and is redundant with another photo of Robinson earlier, so I'd cut it.

• I've replaced it with File:Tommy Robinson (2).jpg, which is of a much higher quality. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:37, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 14:11, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Posted some responses and struck some addressed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:26, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi David, did you have any further thoughts about the article? Any areas where you think I could have another go at cutting it down or otherwise improving it? Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:02, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I still think additional summarizing could take place. I will take a stab tonight at demonstrating. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 22:00, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I've taken a cutting pass to the ideology section; I was a bit conservative in that I wanted to avoid unduly synthesizing things without proper familiarity with the sources, but I think the basic structure is there—that you describe its overall classification, how it is different from classic far-right organizations (welcoming LGBT and non-muslim minorities), and then go into a (little) more detail in the main page about the islamaphobia. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:43, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, David. There are a few bits that have been removed but which I think should be restored, however. Given that the 'anti-Islam' message is so central to the EDL, I think it important that we at least cover all areas of this issue, if briefly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:10, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi David, did you have any further thoughts on this? Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I've posted a request for a second opinion. At this point I still believe the article fails 3b of the criteria by failing to use summary style for sections that have already been spun out, but I'm willing to be convinced by another reviewer. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:03, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, is there is a request here for comments from another editor? I can read the article soon and provide some comments. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 04:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I've reviewed the discussion above. The disagreement seems to be over whether the article is overly-detailed or not (according to the good article criterion, "it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail"). I think there would be some cases in which the article contains too much detail.

The article states, "Protesters held signs stating "Anglian Soldiers: Butchers of Basra", "Anglian Soldiers: Cowards, Killers, Extremists", and "British Government Terrorist Government". I don't think it is necessary to give specific examples of messages on signs. Another example: "On the EDL's social media, many supporters incite violence against Muslims: "we need to kill", "time to get violent", "Kill any muslim u see [sic]", "Kill the curry munching bastards", and "Petrol bomb your nearest mosque". I appreciate why these examples were given; I still think they are arguably unnecessary. Same remarks apply to the immediately following sentence ("Chants during rallies included "Die, Muslim, die",[38] and "Give me a gun and I'll shoot the Muzzie scum").

The article notes at least twice that the EDL established an LGBT division ("In March 2010 it launched the first of its specialist divisions, the LGBT Division, after realising that gay people had attended its events but not under a unified banner" followed later in the article by "The EDL condemns homophobia and established an LGBT division in March 2010"). There are at least two widely separated references to the EDL establishing a Jewish division. I note the article states in "Leadership and branches" that "The latter included a women's division, Jewish division, Sikh division, Hindu division, and LGBT division", so that's more like three references. Definitely some room for cutting back on repetition here.

The article includes the following: "Examples of the first category included "Muslim bombers off our streets", "No surrender to the Taliban", "Protect women, no to sharia", "If you wear a burqa you're a cunt", "You can stick your fucking Islam up your arse", "You can shove your fucking Allah up your arse", "Allah is a paedo", and "Allah, Allah, who the fuck is Allah?". It would suffice if the article noted that the EDL used offensive and obscene chants without giving a whole list of them.

The article states, " recurring joke among the EDL membership was that the group's female supporters were mostly involved so that they could find men to engage in sexual and romantic relationships with". That seems gratuitous and could be removed per WP:PROPORTION.

The article contains two different references to the opposition of EDL members to people they consider "stupid lefties" (" Its online material nevertheless often condemns left-wingers,[105] and members regularly complain about "stupid lefties"" and "Among EDL members, there is much talk of "stupid lefties" who were believed to hate the white working class"). Again seems like unnecessary repetition.

There are actually relatively few cases like this where there is clearly too much detail; the problem is not something that cannot be remedied. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 03:47, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Freeknowledgecreator. I'll crack on with this soon. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:14, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

@Freeknowledgecreator: I've gone through the article and removed all of the bits you highlighted. In a few instances I also trimmed some of the sentences around those which you highlighted. Thanks for taking the time to look at this and let me know if you have any further comments. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I would pass the article if it were my decision. However, obviously it isn't my decision. That's up to the main reviewer. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 07:39, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

If you don't find the length a problem, I will defer and pass. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:04, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

"Islamophobic" vs. "Counter-jihad"

Last year, at Talk:English Defence League/Archive 8, the consensus was to use the term "Islamophobic" and the term "counter-jihad" was rejected. Several months ago, at Talk:English Defence League/GA1, User:Midnightblueowl proposed changing "Islamophobic" to "counter-jihad" and went through with the change without consensus. The only other user involved in that discussion, User:David Fuchs, suggested that it was "better off leaving it out of that sentence" (i.e. neither "counter-jihad" or "Islamophobic"). Earlier this year, at Talk:English Defence League/Archive 9, Midnightblueowl had also proposed "counter-jihad", which was rejected by other users at the time, such as User:NEDOCHAN who explained why the term "counter-jihad" is WP:POV (for example, the term is clearly biased towards EDL's own position). The term "Islamophobic" is what most reliable sources describe the EDL as, and the term most casual readers would be familiar with, so "Islamophobic" would be the most appropriate term. But for now, I think it would be better to remove both "counter-jihad" and "Islamophobic" until more users provide input on this matter and a clear consensus is established. Maestro2016 (talk) 02:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I prefer "counter-jihad." Removing it leaves the first sentence of the article stating, "The English Defence League (EDL) is a far-right organisation in the United Kingdom", which is vague and completely unhelpful to readers. Obviously there are different types of "far-right organisation", so that sentence leaves the reader with no idea exactly what sort of organisation the EDL is. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 02:08, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

"Counter-jihad" is a WP:POV term. It's a term EDL uses to describe themselves, not what most reliable sources describe them as (i.e. "Islamophobic"). That would be like using the term "socialist" to describe Nazism. Please see previous discussions on this matter at Talk:English Defence League/Archive 8 and Talk:English Defence League/Archive 9. The general consensus was "Islamophobic", not "counter-jihad". You do not have consensus to use the term "counter-jihad". Please seek consensus before adding back the term "counter-jihad". Maestro2016 (talk) 02:11, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

BTW, the second sentence already explains to the user what the group's ideology is: "A social movement and pressure group that employs street demonstrations as its main tactic, the EDL presents itself as a single-issue movement opposed to Islamism and Islamic extremism, although its rhetoric and actions target Islam and Muslims more widely." Like user User:David Fuchs said at Talk:English Defence League/GA1: "I think you're better off leaving it out of that sentence and letting the much clearer second sentence clarify the nature of their activism." Maestro2016 (talk) 02:14, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

An incorrect comparison. The Nazis never identified themselves simply as "socialist" without qualification. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 02:15, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

"Nazism" literally means "National Socialism". The Nazism article doesn't open with "Nazism is a far-right, national socialist group" in the lead sentence. That's the equivalent of opening this article by describing EDL using its own self-designation ("counter-jihad") in the lead sentence. It shouldn't open with what they describe themselves as, but what most reliable sources describe them as (i.e. "Islamophobic"). Maestro2016 (talk) 02:22, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Also, please stop trying to shift the burden of proof. I already showed you previous discussions from 2018 (Talk:English Defence League/Archive 8) and early 2019 (Talk:English Defence League/Archive 9) where the general consensus was "Islamophobic" and where "counter-jihad" was rejected. If you want to use "counter-jihad", a term that has no consensus behind it, then I'm afraid the burden of proof is on you to cancel out the previous consensus with a new consensus. Maestro2016 (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I am aware of the derivation of the term "Nazism". The term's derivation does not contradict my point, it supports it. Nazism obviously doesn't begin with "Nazism is a far-right, national socialist group", because, as the article explains, "Nazism" is not a "group", it is an ideology and set of practices. The description of the EDL as a counter-jihad group is accurate, much more specific than "Islamophobic", and should be restored. The comparison you make with your hypothetical wording at Nazism is flawed. As I said when I first reverted your change, old discussions do not establish present consensus. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 02:28, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Here is another analogy mentioned at Talk:English Defence League/Archive 9 in early 2019, by Slatersteven: "The Democratic republic of North Korea is not Democratic, Most (all?) racists never say they are racist, they do not hate people who are Jewish or black according to them. We go with what third party RS say, and they say it is Islamophobic." And like I said, there is no present consensus favouring "counter-jihad". The change was made entirely without consensus. Again, the point still stands that the consensus is "Islamophobic", not "counter-jihad". If you disagree with the previous consensus, then the burden lies with you to establish a new consensus. Maestro2016 (talk) 02:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

No but Nazi Party does, in the same way, we are describing an organisation here, not a political philosophy.Slatersteven (talk) 10:04, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

• TBH what does "counter-Jihad" mean? Like what is the Jihad that they are countering? The immigrants? It doesnt make much sense to me. I would say that Islamophobia is the most accurate term here and most sources use Islamophobia. I only know this group from this video which shows that this group is anti-immigrants.--SharabSalam (talk) 02:29, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

We tend to go with what RS say, and that is the EDL is Islamophobic.Slatersteven (talk) 10:04, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

That point was already noted in the lead prior to the recent edits ("Political scientists and other commentators have characterised this Islamophobic stance as culturally racist"). Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 10:12, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

So? Do nay say it is not Islamophobic?Slatersteven (talk) 10:20, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Since the lead already noted clearly that the organisations stance is "Islamophobic" adding the word "Islamophobic" to the first sentence of the lead serves little purpose. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 10:22, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

No more then saying the Nazi party was far right. We can remove the caveat about "Political scientists and other commentators have characterized this Islamophobic stance as culturally racist" as we do not need it. It is only there because of this kind of question "Ahh but are they Islamophobic?". RS say they are, so we can without the need to justify it in the lede.Slatersteven (talk) 10:37, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

The "caveat" obviously does more than simply describe the EDL as "Islamophobic", and there is no reason to remove it. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 22:28, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

"Counter-jihad" refers to a specific (international) ideological movement, one which the EDL belongs to. The counter-jihad movement is, by most reckonings, Islamophobic. So it isn't wrong to say that the EDL is Islamophobic in the opening sentence. But is it actually the best way of accurately presenting what the EDL is? The Nazi Party, for example, were committed to the ideology of Nazism, and Nazism was anti-Semitic, but we would not open the article on the Nazi Party by saying "was a far-right, anti-Semitic group". We would be more specific than that. If you look at the GA-rated National Front (UK) article, you will see that we refer to it as "a far-right, fascist" group; not "a far-right, anti-Semitic" group, even though it is undeniably anti-Semitic. For the purposes of actually keeping things really clear and accurate, I think it is very important that we open this article with "far-right, counter-jihad". However, I would not be averse to then using the term "Islamophobic" in one of the subsequent sentences within the opening paragraph. That, I think, would ensure that we retain the sort of precision accuracy that this article needs while at the same time not hiding away from the term "Islamophobic". Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I think the difference is it is possible to be anti Jihadist (well Islamic terrorism) and not be Islamophobic. It is hard to see how you could be Nazi and not antisemitic.Slatersteven (talk) 16:36, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I think that there is some confusion here, Slatersteven. Despite its name, the "counter-jihad" movement is not simply opposed to Salafi jihadism, it's pretty much against Islam full stop, or at least Islam's presence in the West. Unfortunately the counter-jihad article is not presently in a very good state but hopefully it can be improved in the near future so that such misconceptions do not continue. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:20, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Midnightblueowl, yea I noticed that misleading term. Although counter-Jihad is described as a movement in reliable sources, a movement that it is anti-Muslim. It is not an ideology/thought like anti-Muslim so I think anti-Muslim is better as a description.--SharabSalam (talk) SharabSalam (talk) 21:24, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

No there is no confusion, I was not saying they were not anti-Muslim, I was just responding to the specific claim its like Nazism.Slatersteven (talk) 10:11, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven, Jihad is not terrorism and Jihadists are not terrorists.--SharabSalam (talk) 21:27, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

True, but it is extremist Islamism that groups like the EDL portray themselves as opposing (whilst kicking in anyone who is brown skinned and wears a turban). The point is that their "counter-jihadism" is so unfocused and ignorant that it crosses over and them firmly puts its foot down into Islamophobia and beyond into general racism.Slatersteven (talk) 10:11, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Jihad is the Arabic word for struggle. Counter-jihad would therefore mean opposition to a struggle. It would be more accurate to describe the EDL as a jihad group where their jihad is against Islam. Maybe anti-islamist would be a better description. I note that en editor said the term far right is unhelpful, but it is in fact helpful in placing the EDL within a specific British political tradition that includes the BUF, NF, BNP, EDL and BF. TFD (talk) 16:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

"Counter-jihad" is a confusing ambiguous term. It could easily be confused with actual counter-terrorism against "Jihadist" terrorist groups, which the EDL has nothing to do with. The National Front analogy also doesn't make sense, as they were not exclusively anti-Jewish, but were against all non-white migrants, particularly Asians (i.e. "Paki-bashing") and blacks. The EDL, in contrast, is almost exclusively anti-Muslim. So describing them as "Islamophobic" (or "anti-Muslim") makes a lot more sense than "counter-jihad". Maestro2016 (talk) 18:29, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

"Islamophobia" is flame rhetoric, as Jihad, or counter Jihad.

Despite consensus or what have you so called "controversy", there is absolutely nothing wrong with protesting islamism. The Article had accusatory rhetoric, and not encyclopedic, or academic. I invited myself to reword the accusatory, flaming rhetoric, to a more neutral one. The of the article also needs fixing, it sounds like it was written by an angry editor Biomax20 (talk) 06:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Freeknowledgecreator Please explain why i should undergo any process or "Consensus" by anyone else regarding an edit that removed words such as "islamophobic" and obvious rhetoric that was politically motivated to demonize, and flame the subject, rather than be academic about the subject, following factual principles, even though it is the "EDL" or any other group. How can anyone brand a large number of people within or without the EDL as "islamophobic", a modern term, and a very political one. Biomax20 (talk) 06:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Biomax20, reliable sources call this group "far-right" "anti-Muslim". We rely on what reliable sources say. You might find this essay (WP:YESBIAS) helpful.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 07:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@SharabSalam Do those sources also mention the words "islamophobia" ? Is this source Aljazeera news network perhaps? :) - I see you reverted the edit again. I see our brothers have little shame nowadays. The muslim brotherhood seems very proactive in the UK. Im sure your "sources" would agree. Biomax20 (talk) 07:39, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@SharabSalam Perhaps your reliable sources is Zakir Naik. :)) and his gulf sponsors. Biomax20 (talk) 07:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Biomax20, you can find all the sources in English_Defence_League#Ideology. Aljazeera is considered a reliable source in Wikipedia. I dont know who is Zakir Naik and I am assuming you are making fun of me. I don't have much patience, if you continue making such comments e.g "I see our brothers have little shame nowadays", you will find yourself reported.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 07:57, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

You can be all of them at once, and we go with what RS say, and they say "islamophobic", as they beat you up for just looking Muslim.Slatersteven (talk) 08:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Islamophobic https://www.hopenothate.org.uk/research/investigations/tommy-robinson-far-right-islamophobic-extremist/ https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/articles/news/british-far-right-activist-tommy-robinson-stand-eu-elections https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/dec/07/tommy-robinson-global-support-brexit-march https://www.dw.com/en/british-anti-islam-activist-tommy-robinson-freed-from-prison/a-44916274

@SharabSalam @Slatersteven Source 1: speaks of 1 man. Source 2, speaks of 1 man. Source 3, Speaks of 1 man. Source 4, Also speaks of 1 man. Generalizing and demonizing as "islamophobic" sure sounds academic and fitting under encyclopedic. I dare say, it echoes politically motivated edits. I heard Tommy Robinsons arguments, and they were all based on resisting a politically motivated growth of a islamic community within the UK. whats wrong with that? Biomax20 (talk) 08:14, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

You are not an RS (read wp:or) we go with what RS say, not what we know to be true.Slatersteven (talk) 08:20, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Edit about terrorism

This edit was reverted and the comment was, "reverting well-meaning addition; this is not necessarily the sort of material we need in the lead." So I put it back well away from the lead. Please explain why it was reverted a second time. Proxima Centauri (talk) 15:44, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Well (for a start} read wp:lede, it is a summary of the article, and this does not appear to be a summary of anything in the article. Secondly, its one poll so may fail, wp:undue. Thirdly, it may fail wp:rs (especially given its origin is the Daily Mail). I can see a number of issues with this, but the lede is not the place for it anyway.Slatersteven (talk) 16:30, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Steven, this clearly isn't lead material. In fact for the reasons he listed, I'm not sure it has any place in the article at all. — Czello 17:04, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I concur. Emeraude (talk) 07:54, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I think the source (Counter Extremism Project, a neo-conservative NGO) fails rs. If so, even if we can reliably source the statement, we have to establish its weight in reliable sources. Also, when we quote raw data, we need explanation. Could it be for example that there was a particular reason for the poll results or has it subsequently changed. TFD (talk) 12:00, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Why is this article locked?!

This article makes serious accusations about violence without citations. 2604:3D08:5B80:B70:4FAE:C089:E195:43E7 (talk) 14:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Give one example, ohh and to answer your question, to prevent vandalism. Slatersteven (talk) 14:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

The entire section on violence is well sourced. — Czello ^(music) 14:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Why don't you give me at least one quote?! The "section on violence" is basically the main introductory section at the very top. There is not ONE source in that section.

Here's a quote: "Both online and at its events, EDL members have incited violence against Muslims, with supporters carrying out violent acts both at demonstrations and independently."

No citation for that whatsoever! No citation whatsoever in the entire (very long) section where that quote is located. How is that possible?! How can anybody lock an article like this?!! 2604:3D08:5B80:B70:4FAE:C089:E195:43E7 (talk) 19:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

That is the lede, (read wp:lede), the cites are in the body. Slatersteven (talk) 19:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I stand corrected and I apologize.

Look, violence is a serious charge. The (sub)section on violence shouldn't be under "organization and structure"; it's probably best to arrange it differently.

Now, here's a quote from that section:

"...EDL members stormed and ransacked an Ahmadiyya Islamic bookstore in Sandwell,[120][258] and in August 2011 an EDL member was convicted for vandalising a mosque.[259] Demonstrations also led to physical attacks on Asians themselves.[260]".

These are really serious charges.

The first citation in that quote is a paper that I don't have access to right now.

The second citation is from a (small?) town news source that I haven't heard of before and could find very little information on it.

I must wonder, why isn't a serious charge like this linked to some of the more prominent, internationally recognizable news sources?

The third citation is an article on the Independent which talks about graffiti "attack" on a mosque. I don't want to downplay the seriousness of a graffiti offence. I recognize that historically this sort of thing might have evolved into more violent acts. But the article doesn't even tell me what the graffiti damage or message was. Under what conditions did she admit to "conspiracy to commit racially aggravated criminal damage," which is very serious. Did they have proper representation? Those details aren't clear to me at this point. It's a very short article apparently.

The fourth citation, again, is a book by a journalist that I don't have access to right now. The charge is very serious, and again, I must wonder why more references from recognizable news sources haven't been provided?

So, this (Wikipedia) article is important and has citations, but appears to have shortcomings for general consumption on the web. 2604:3D08:5B80:B70:4FAE:C089:E195:43E7 (talk) 21:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. Have added the 2013 Centenary Square riot sentencing to the violence section as another example. I think you'll find the BBC to be a prominent, internationally recognised news source. I also just assume contributors got bored of providing examples of EDL violence after 2011, as there are many more to be found with a little research.

I wasn't sure about the following sources though [2] [3]. It describes July 2023, Centenary Square, but no specific date. Also reports of 30 officers injured, rather than one for July 20. I assume it's the same event, which is already covered anyway.

FYI there's also the 2012 Walsall protest [4] CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 22:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)