Talk:English Defence League/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Website

• What does it matter who built the website? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.84.15.34 (talk) 14:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

changes

Changes made to this article by Yorkshirian:

• Criticism of the EDL removed.
• Reference to civil liberties etc. not found in sources added.
• Unite Against Fascism accused of being a front group and instigating violence, again without sources. If reliable sources call them a front group, sort that out on Unite Against Fascism first.
• Media description of the group as "far-right" prejudicially described as a "claim," implying that the description is untrue.
• Reference added to multiple clashes with UAF--I'm not aware of any violence between the groups other than the August Birmingham protest, but if there have been other clashes add a reference.

Prezbo (talk) 22:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

CBC reports that more clashes occurred on Sept. 6/09 [1].Mike McGregor (Can) (talk) 01:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Bias

This article is a Joke. It is well known that the 'EDL' is simply a bunch of violent drunk thugs who go around stirring trouble, seeking a response and violence.

This article does not even lean towards this.

This article needs a complete re-write, from a non bias point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Umbongo91 (talk • contribs) 12:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I've added a little more clarifying that it is a fascist organization which uses violence (rather than a 'political' group) and that it 'claims' to allow all people (of whatever race) to join. Unfortunately as Wikipedia is an American oprganization they'll claim that free speech is a right and simply quote the bollocks written on their web site or press releases. The fact is that most of these EDL people couldn't tell you a single fact about Islam or the Quaran (please excuse my spelling) and probably couldn't even tell you anything about Christianity or the Bible either. They probably know a lot about racist insults and which beer is strongest though.--Xania ^talk 20:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I reverted you, per WP:NPOV. No matter what we (or some of us, at least) think of the EDL, we all need to maintain a neutral point of view.

Wikipedia's servers may be (mostly) hosted in the US, and the Wikimedia Foundation may be incorporated in the US, but I'd guess that most of the editors of this article are UK-based. I'm a Glasgow resident, for example. Regardless of nationality, policy is there for our benefit - it stops the fascists running rough-shod over leftist articles just as much as it stops us running amok on articles like this ;-)

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 20:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Xania, Wikipedia isn't a podium for hatred of Europeans. This organisation also has Indian and black activists in Birmingham, so the "race" card is completely POV. Islam is a belief system, not a race (some are white, such as Bosnians). Equally, how many of the Marxist college students who fill the ranks of the UAF could tell you the first thing about sharia law? If the BBC are correct and this group is really "far right", they should stop protesting to uphold a corrupt, atheist-dominated, social democratic society. Look how wonderfully reactionary sharia law is taking Iran as an example; all leftist radicals are actively persecuted against, feminism is nonexistent, anything which moves against heterosexuality and the family unity is criminal. A banking system which is 95% usury free. Very right wing. - Yorkshirian (talk) 20:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:SOAP. Perhaps a letter to the Times is in order, instead. --Calton | Talk 04:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Anjem Choudary video to EDL

Can we quote this video in the article from Mr Anjem Choudary?[2] The press in the UK currently hasn't reported on it. It looks like the communists would be in for Iranian Revolution style purges if the Islamists ever got what they wanted. Interesting perspective on the topic. - Yorkshirian (talk) 18:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• The press in the UK currently hasn't reported on it. That's a no, then. Guy (Help!) 20:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

SWP

At least twice now Unite Against Fascism has been described in this article as a "front" of the Socialist Workers Party. This time it was sourced from Red Pepper. The text of the article says: Unite Against Fascism (UAF), an organisation set up by the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) and National Assembly Against Racism, which also has some union and other backing. This does not support the assertion that it's a "front", only that SWP members were involved (as BNP members are clearly involved in EDL). It's of questionable relevance anyway, as was noted, so I have removed the claim. Guy (Help!) 20:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Its relevence is the fact that the left in Britain use the ambigious title "Anti-Fascism" without any other context at all, so the casual reader doesn't get an idea of what these people are. Here are two left-wing sources (WorkersLiberty.org and CommunistStudents.org.uk), which explicitly calls it a "Socialist Workers Party front =group"[3][4] If very dubious claims that this organisation has links to the BNP can be mentioned (despite that party officially distancing themselves from it) then we sure as hell can mention the fact that their principle opposition, UAF, are founded and ran by the Socialist Workers Party. The most active UAF organiser, Weyman Bennett is SWP. - Yorkshirian (talk) 20:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they are sometimes sloppy in calling all bigots fascists. I don't think this is unique to them, though, and fascist is a lot easier to say than bigoted thug while carrying pretty much the same meaning. In this case we have a government minister who specifically identifies EDL's tactics as fascist, so at least they are accurate in this one case. Guy (Help!) 09:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

We have a former Trotskyite member of the Labour Party voicing his personal opinion, that is all. Denham's comments are not a matter of science, hes a politican not an academic, its his own opinion not fact and should be presented as thus. Considering that the Labour Party back and fund the UAF militia, with taxpayers money, to attack working-class Christians as their grip on power in this country goes into terminal decline, they're hardly in a position to talk about "fascist tactics". As for whether this organisation are "bigots" or not, completey irrelevent to us since that its entirely subjective and undefinable view for an encyclopedia (for instance it can be applied to their Trot opposition). In any case, we seem to have a firmly established set of references, from the left themselves that UAF is known in their circles as a "Socialist Workers Party front-organisation". Do you agree? - Yorkshirian (talk) 10:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

No, and we've been through this on my talk page already so I'm surprised you still haven't understood it - or is this a discussion that needs to be repeated for each individual article? The UAF was founded by a number of organisations, not just the SWP, and is not run by the SWP - a senior UAF official is also an SWP member. I'm a Wikipedian - that doesn't mean the company I work for is a Wikipedia-front (at least, so far as I know - if it is I didn't get the memo).

Ditto for Denham - it's not (just) his own opinion - he's speaking as a member of the Government. When/if the Government distance themselves from Denham's statement - then you can claim that what Denham said is his own view, and draw inferences from his past beliefs. Until then - stick to the facts. And I'm still lost as to what Christianity has to do with Islamophobia - the Christians I know are hugely tolerant people, and promote the concepts of universal brotherlood encapsulated by the notion of "loving thy neighbour".

The "Left" isn't some homogenous lump. That one sect describes the UAF as an SWP front is hardly surprising, and you could point to any number of organisations that have, at one time or another, been described as such by obscure leftist or rightist groups. What do mainstream commentators say? That's the relevant question, not whatever smears one leftist sect currently believes.

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 11:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not fact, much less what the far-left and social democrats try to float as "fact", it deals solely with verifiability. Somebody has an opinion? We attribute it and make that clear in the article to uphold the NPOV policy. It is verifiable that UAF are called a SWP front (even by the left), it is verifiable that they were the only political party involved in founding it (the other being a racial lobby group and a union) it is verifiable that Weymen Bennett, one of the main anti-Christian, anti-Democracy agitators for UAF in the UK, is a member of the SWP. The anology you made is pure sophistry IMO, since your hobby participation on Wikipedia is not linked to business or earning money in anyway. Somebody leading a politically motivated street militia and then just happening to be a member of the political party which founded it, is expicitly relevent. The SWP even link it on their own website, which other political party does? None. - Yorkshirian (talk) 11:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia deals with notability, not every minutely verifiable claim - in this case a claim that can and has been easily dismissed by equally verifiable and more reliable sources. When it comes to picking and choosing verifiable claims that contradict each other - go with the mainstream, not the one that happens to support your own agenda. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 11:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

TFOWR is right. There is a widespread view that EDL is a group of far-right thugs using tactics not unlike those of Mosley's Blackshirts. This is articulated in many places, notably by a minister of the crown. I have no doubt that if the Tories chose to speak on the issue they would say much the same - after all, they publish The Lord Taylor of Warwick calling the BNP "fascist" and "racist" [5]. Incidentally, the reference to Christians is puzzling to me. I am a practising Anglican and every Christian I know recognises that Islam, Judaism and Christianity - the Faiths of the Book - have much in common. Guy (Help!) 18:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The Blue Blairites haven't commented on it yet and I doubt they will, probably because Tony Cameron is already viewed as weak by Essexman. The Blue Blairites also call UKIP "maniacs" and "lunatics" and I'm sure you could dig up derogatory quotes by them made about Labour, Lib Dems and SNP. That is what factionist parliamentary politics is all about, mud slinging and prostituting oneself to get the biggest slice of the pie. Sorry to say the above comment regarding Christianity should probably be taken with a pinch of salt. Such a concept of religion which claim descent from Abraham, is not featured at all in orthodox Christian or Rhabbinic Jewish theology (it seems to have more to do with masonic theosophy, or in Islam trying to maintain that Mohammed is in line of the Jewish prophets).

In any case that wasn't the point I was getting at really, more to do with the Trotskyite fifth collumists UAF attacking working-class Christians (the reds who run UAF are atheists, only using Muslims currently because they see it as anti-West and against European people). In perespective of the ruthless purging of Marxism, atheism, feminism, anti-family values, which happened after the Iranian Revolution, I have no particular opinion one way or the other re "Islamification" (especially when considering the topic of Reconquista). What I think is important to maintain NPOV is that we present the referenced leftist SWP nature of EDL's violent opponents for clarity. If dodgy claims at links to the BNP can be mention, then so should their principle opponents proven party. - Yorkshirian (talk) 09:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Yorkshirian, I can't see what purpose further discussion with you will serve here. Uncle G is undoubtedly one of the most skilled people we have when it comes to nailing down the tricky bits of articles on tricky subjects, his refinement of this article (ably assisted by others) has resulted in something that accurately reflects the general view of EDL. Your desire to use every conceivable article as a soapbox for your visceral hatred of "Trotskyites" is noted but not in the least bit relevant. To be honest you appear to consider anyone to the left of Margaret Thatcher to be a Trotskyite and the Iron Lady herself as being suspiciously soft. I suggest you tone down the rhetoric or keep to articles on subjects that make you less angry. Guy (Help!) 15:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

(od) Completely agree with Guy here. And Yorkshirian, you can hardly claim to want to preserve NPOV after one of the most hate-filled and POV-riddled rants I've seen on wikipedia for a long time. Skinny87 (talk) 07:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Police investigation and general matters

The BBC reference does say that the EDL is being investigated by four police groups, but it also includes lots of other material that could also be included so I have left it out. This article needs to exist, but it should be strictly factual, brief and cited. I've made a series of edits this morning to try and fix that and left one request for citation. --Snowded ^TALK 06:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

England and Wales

I have twice had to remove a reference to this organisation being "England and Wales". The groups web site does not use E&W, the recently inserted reference was to a newspaper report where a local councillor hostile to the group is reported as saying "E&W". That is simply not sufficient to say that it is know as such. The whole emphasis of the groups web site and other material is English --Snowded ^TALK 07:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The group is sometimes known as "English and Welsh Defence League", a Google search returns 14,000 results for that title and its specifically sourced in the Birmingham Post. I presume its sometimes used because it has a lot of members in Newport. - Yorkshirian (talk) 13:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing on the group web site about England and Wales, the Birmingham post report, is as stated, a comment by a hostile councillor, no official statement from the group uses other than EDL and its symbols are all English. --Snowded ^TALK 15:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I had time to check, there are only just over 500 google hits, nearly all of those are blogs, and/or blog references to a couple of press references. There is nothing in any press release from the EDL or anything on their web site which indicates that they regard themselves as anything else but English. They probably think Newport is in England! I am tagging it as dubious pending other editor's opinions. --Snowded ^TALK 16:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a valid enough reason, which seems to be your rationale. Three media references are now in the article denoting the alternative title has significant use, more can be added if you really want. On Google.com I'm still getting 14,000 results. Also looking into this further, the main socialist newspaper in the UK, The Guardian claims of this group, "Robinson said the group has recruited football supporters from clubs including Chelsea, QPR, Wolverhampton Wanderers, Aston Villa, Swansea and Cardiff."[6] Sorry, not everybody in Wales is in cahoots with the hard left it would seem. Oh well! - Yorkshirian (talk) 18:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The fact that they have recruited members in Welsh cities has no relevance to their name. If their web site said that they were the English and Welsh Defence League I would agree with its inclusion. Its nothing to do with if I like it or not, its an issue of fact. It doesn't do that and neither do any of the press releases that I can see from the EDL. Given some of your other comments maybe they should be known as the "English and Welsh group of nice Christians against nasty Trotskyites" --Snowded ^TALK 19:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that- "There is nothing in any press release from the EDL or anything on their web site which indicates that they regard themselves as anything else but English." is pretty conclusive as to their name, That people from Wales are involved seems to me to be neither here nor there. --Alchemist Jack (talk) 19:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Their website makes no reference to a different name. It states here [7]:"We are based All over England." Their Facebook page here [8] states: "This group operates 100% along side sister groups Welsh, Scottish and Northern Ireland defence leagues." Seems fairly conclusive evidence. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

We can't use this organisations site as a direct reference in this article anyway, I don't think. My point is on the alternative name, not that there just happens to be Welsh people who are members to, I just brought up what it said in the Guardian as an extra point to show that there are groups of them in Wales too (Snowded claimed people in Newport thought they were "in England", other ridiculous stuff) In any case the fact that "English and Welsh Defence League" is an alternative name for the organisation clearly passes WP:V as its mentioned in the national media, such as The Telegraph, The Independent, Daily Mail, BBC, The Times and The Daily Star. There we go, I think thats enough for now. - Yorkshirian (talk) 19:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

That changes my opinion. If they have been regularly named as such then that should be included.--Alchemist Jack (talk) 19:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the answer is that they are confused over their name. Yorkshirian's refs can't be denied, but the "..and Wales.." name is not currently used anywhere on their own sites. However, from the Facebook site, it is clear that they are planning (or at least coordinating) future "events" in both Wales and Scotland. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

PS: It seems there is something called a "Welsh Defence League", affiliated in some way - [9]. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I found that as well, two web pages and nothing else, not enough to be serious yet - and its called the Welsh Defence League not England and Wales. For the moment I think its clear that the name of the group is the EDL, it may be worth a footnote which says that they have been referred to by the press as the E&W (which is accurate) with the references. How about that as a compromise? --Snowded ^TALK 21:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that is sensible. Why would we need to riffle away into a footnote one of its widely reported alternative names, just because an editor has taken a personally disliking to it? Thats daft. Its clearly established in the media that it is an alternative name, reported from the BBC to the Telegraph to the Independent and back again. Thats good enough for verifiability, thats all we need to know, lets leave it at what the media has actually reported. Of course this doesn't stop us from expanding at a latter date, or even creating new articles if fully established separate groupings appear prominently, but thats crystal balling at this point. - Yorkshirian (talk) 22:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Its tiresome (rather than your normal amusing postings about working class christians) for you to assume personal dislike as the motive. This discussion is about the name. I have been through each of the references above (aside from the two that don't have a full story or are no longer available) and they are all short news pieces about the two events. Given the way the press work these have all being copy edited from a local news service. If you look at the major newspaper articles otherwise referenced here, where they discuss the league they all use EDL. If this was a name for the organisation, then that name would appear on their web site, or in their press releases. Simply stated it does not. The most that can be said is that the press have referred to them as B&I. I therefore propose a footnote at that point which says "They have also been referred to as the British and Ireland Defence League in the press" with a couple of the references above.--Snowded ^TALK 06:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

It may be just personal preference in avoiding unnecessary footnotes, but I'd prefer to insert words like "..sometimes referred to as..", with a couple of Yorkshirian's more authoritative refs, in the opening sentence itself - in my view it would not be distracting to do that, which is one of the criteria for a footnote. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm OK with that, have implemented with "occasional", if you want to change it to "sometimes" I won't fight over it!. I also removed the bold as it is not an official name and reduced the references to one. --Snowded ^TALK 07:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

John Denham

Snowded,

Mr Denham's status as a member of the fabian society (a left wing socialist organisation)should be included to give this article a fair and balanced POV due to the fact that Mr Denhams criticism's comes from a left wing point of view when taking into account that he criticises a right wing organisation whislt being an active member of not only the labour government(Centre Left) but also Fabian(Left wing Socialism). This article should be Fair and from a NPOV only and this reflects this and therefore i will revert your recent undo to include the information on the fabian society

Johnsy88 (talk) 13:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Certainly his Labour Party membership needs to be mentioned. Denham was a Trotskyite before jumping on the Blairite bandwaggon. We need to put into perspective what sort of character this is. - Yorkshirian (talk) 14:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Absolute nonsense. He spoke as a minister of the crown, appointed by QEII. Reverted. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

How is Denham's membership of the Fabian Society relevant to this article? Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle

Ghmyrtle

"Mr Denham's status as a member of the fabian society (a left wing socialist organisation)should be included to give this article a fair and balanced POV due to the fact that Mr Denhams criticism's comes from a left wing point of view when taking into account that he criticises a right wing organisation whislt being an active member of not only the labour government(Centre Left) but also Fabian(Left wing Socialism). This article should be Fair and from a NPOV only and this reflects this and therefore i will revert your recent undo to include the information on the fabian society"

---

Please leave this section of the article as it stands unless you can provide more than just an opinion which seems may be politically influenced and please edit in future from an NPOV. I would also like to remind you that the discussion page is not a forum so please treat other users with the respect they deserve and participate in discussions without remarks like "absolute tosh"

many thanks

Johnsy88 (talk) 14:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

He speaks as a member of Government, if you want to mention past political affiliations (Yorkshirian) or that he is a member of labour party then you have to show reliable third party material that makes that connection. ALso the point on relative status stands - the Fabian Society is pretty much middle of the road and anyone who went to university in the 60s or 70s and was politicall active almost certainty had some association with a trotskyite group of some type. It is not relevant to their current position. For you to to insert this material because you want to "explain away" their opposition so is original research and breaks NPOV principles.--Snowded ^TALK 14:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC) In addition you should not insert this material again when it is under discussion on the talk page. You need to gain consensus here.

Snowded

"The Fabian Society is a British intellectual socialist movement, whose purpose is to advance the principles of social democracy via gradualist and reformist, rather than revolutionary means. It is best known for its initial ground-breaking work beginning late in the 19th century and continuing up to World War I. The society laid many of the foundations of the Labour Party and subsequently affected the policies of states emerging from the decolonisation of the British Empire, especially India. Today, the society is a vanguard "think tank" of the New Labour movement. It is one of 15 socialist societies affiliated to the Labour Party. Similar societies exist in Australia (the Australian Fabian Society), Canada (the Douglas-Coldwell Foundation and in past the League for Social Reconstruction) and New Zealand." This organisation is a Centre left organisation not middle of the road

Johnsy88 (talk) 14:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

We know all that. But why do you think it is relevant? He made his comments as a government minister, and not as a Fabian Society member. You could say all sorts of things about him - he was born in Devon, he worked for Christian Aid - but they are not relevant. Nor is his membership of one particular organisation. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle

the relevance comes from the fact that a member of the Centre left wing organisation Fabian and member of the centre left labour government is passing comment on a right wing pressure group and therefore this can be seen as in some ways biased and from a Left wing point of view. It seems far more like you seem to not want to allow people to have the opportunity to see this and i would like to know the reasons for this? Inclusion of Mr denhams links to Fabian only help to make this article more fair and unbiased and yet you and others seem to remove any links detailing mr Denhams left wing political opinions and leanings.

Johnsy88 (talk) 14:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

His membership of the Fabian does not seem to be pertinent to the statement he made as a government minister. --Alchemist Jack (talk) 14:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Johnsy - glad you accept the term "right wing". I've consequently added it back in. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Please could you expand on your previous comment Alchemist Jack to outline why you feel this considering that i have taken the time to explain myself

Johnsy88 (talk) 14:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

G, the incidents which the EDL have been involved in, have been a case of Christian working-class people, enacting their right to freedom of protest in a country which claims to be a liberal democracy. In response a bourgeoise Trotskyite controlled force incite Islamists to attack the protesters and sometimes even the police, because they dislike what the EDL is saying. In such an ideologically driven conflict between the two sides, it is notable to present where Denham's own political sympathies lay, to qualify his comment and personal response to this organisation. Other elements of his life are not relevent to the topic at hand, the fact that he is a socialist politician is. - Yorkshirian (talk) 14:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

That is your opinion, which is also not relevant here. Most governments and ministers do come to power promoting political positions, but on this occasion Denham spoke as a government minister. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The Fabian Society is of no relevance to the subject of the article, he wasn't talking as a member of the Fabian Society but as a member of the Government. Don't know about "Christian working-class people" and not sure what that has to do with John Denham. --Alchemist Jack (talk) 14:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the Fabian Society should be mentioned but the fact that Denham is in government as a member of the Labour Party should be, for the reasons above. - Yorkshirian (talk) 14:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

If by "the reasons above" you mean your personal opinions, they can be discounted here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Its not my "personal opinion" that Denham is a member of a self-described (on their own website) "democratic socialist party", I didn't force Denham to join the Fabian Society, I didn't force him to become a socialist. Its verifiable. Funny how you want to throw "right wing" into this infobox, while in the same breath covering up any hint at all of a red hue to their opponets. Ah, propaganda. - Yorkshirian (talk) 15:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

"Christian working-class people"? The sources seem to think their motivation is bigotry not Christianity. I'd be stunned if any of them were regular churchgoers. Guy (Help!) 16:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of his position held in government Mr Denham still made this statement whilst being a member of not only a left wing government but also a Socialist organisation which was formed in its early history from leanings from the teachings of Trotsky(see wiki). To put this into perspective(with slight humour) it is like Hitler passing comment on the jews but then claiming that because he is a member of elected government his political affiliation has no bearing on his opinion and he is talking from a neutral point of view.

Johnsy88 (talk) 14:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

No-one is suggesting Denham was necessarily talking from a neutral point of view - he was talking from a government point of view. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

For what Trotsky thought of Fabian society see here but it is not relevant.--Alchemist Jack (talk) 15:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Its not what Trotsky thought of the fabian society but what they thought of him that i make my point from Jack, Johnsy88 (talk) 15:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle, that government is also a centre left organisation and you and others seem to be of the opinion that this has not bearing on the article. Could you explain the reasons for this? and also with you earlier remark with regards to "adding in Right Wing?" I originally added the group as a right wing when initially improving the article if you check the history Johnsy88 (talk) 15:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, we agree on right wing, apologies for that misunderstanding. My point is, firstly, that his membership of the Fabian Society is of no relevance to this article or what he said, and, secondly, there is no need to preface every mention of every government or ministerial statement with the words "centre left". You haven't set out anywhere why it is relevant to use those, or similar words - and you certainly haven't shown that any verifiable source uses words like that in commenting on Denham's statement. The government cannot be described neutrally as a "centre left organisation", it is the government. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

As for being left-wing, that is a matter of opinion and debate. Whether he is left-wing, the Government is left-wing, the Labour party is left-wing, Christian working-class people are left-wing or anything else is left-wing , is a matter of opinion and debate what is important is whether it is relevant to the subjuect of the article. John Denham's wingness is not clear cut, his wingness is not notable, and the question of the Government as left-wing is a matter of great debate. I think it can only be described as the Labour government. We can't get involved in whether the Labour Party is a Trotskyite front or an heir to Thacherism.--Alchemist Jack (talk) 15:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, lets just mention Labour Government, instead of left, right, up, down. - Yorkshirian (talk) 15:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

You still haven't explained why that point - the label of the party forming the government - is relevant to be mentioned. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The present Labour party is politically to the right of the supposedly centre party, the Liberal Democrats. Guy (Help!) 16:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

More Labels

Pro-palestian? Hezbollah? Yellow flags or Palestinian flags(or SWP placards), don't make it a Hezbollah or pro-palestian (or SWP) demo unless it was organised by said group. or in some other verifiable way, can be said to be a whatever demonstration. Otherwise, it is unnecessay labelling. --Alchemist Jack (talk) 23:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Like this sentence "by Islamic group Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah which is thought to have been formed by former members of Omar Bakri Mohammed's Islamic extremist organisation al-Muhajiroun." Not about EDL.--Alchemist Jack (talk) 23:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

And that one does not even match the actual reference. I've removed it. --Snowded ^TALK 03:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Some of the Islamist settlers were parading through the streets with Hezbollah flags, which is listed as a terrorist organisation. This is featured in the media[10][11]. Since the EDL's asserted aim is to oppose Islamism and that is why they were there, the connection with the waving of these alien terrorist flags in London, where Islamists blew up a bus with civilians in it only two years ago is directly relevent. Starting to get tired of Snowded hawkishly enforcing his own self-confessed Marxist POV and negating (ie - vandalising the Hezbollah flags reference, when the footage shown on The Guardian site video, clearly shows them) Islamist mentions. This isn't RevLeft.com its Wikipedia. - Yorkshirian (talk) 04:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Those are POV points established by original research, and not supported by the refs. Please AGF, even (or even especially) with those with political views with which you disagree. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure how there can be a "POV" over these people clearly waving Hezbollah flags in large number. The point is established crystal clear that they were and featured in the Guardian media source. While commenting on the content primarily is a good concept, we're at the point now where the resident Marxist lobby is purging referenced mainstream media content at every turn, based purely on self-loathing, prejudiced dhimmi political views (articulated best by Pat Condell[12]) That the motive needs considering.

I mean what is the suitable intellectual response? A piece of information is added into the articled, referenced by the Associated Press and The Guardian, two mainstream media sources, which shows that at this demonstration, these people were flying the flags of an Islamist organisation (Hezbollah). Then the two of you, both well known for left wing stances in articles, attack the article, purge the information and claim its "not in the reference" or try to negate it some other sly way. It most certainly is in the references. Here they are again for the whole world to see.[13][14] The content doesn't seem to be the issue, the Great Purge is. - Yorkshirian (talk) 07:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Using phrases such as "mainstream marxist lobby" and the comments which follow are not going to endear you to any visiting admin and your behaviour is getting close to the point where an ANI report will be called for. The articles concern say Palistinian, that there are yellow flags in the pictures is irrelevant, and OR anyway. --Snowded ^TALK 09:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I removed the flag from this discussion as pointless. As I initial said, lots of flags or banners from a group on a demo do not make that a Whatever demonstration. The SWP go to every demo they can to hand out placards. Lots of people carrying SWP placards doesn't mean it is an SWP march, and the same goes for Hezbollah flags or alien terrorist flags^{(good name for a band)}. I know for some people Hezbollah are 'poster boys' because of the whoile Israel situation. I have seen crowds of people chanting "We are Hezbollah" who were quite obviously not. Who are the organisers? Or is it a coalition, or no one in charge and anybody can claim it as theirs if they hand out enough flags? --Alchemist Jack (talk) 10:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Pat Condell is a friend of Richard Dawkins and has made it clear on his website that "I don't support any political party, especially not one of the far right." [15] --90.240.117.210 (talk) 23:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Scotland

I have moved the comment from the lede about Scotland, personally I think it is speculative reporting and the online paper seems about on the level of the Sun, very poor , have a look at the headlines [[16]] Off2riorob (talk) 10:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I have modified it to conform to the citation, but its a very dubious source. Unless a better case is made, or another (more reliable source) is found it should be deleted. --Snowded ^TALK 11:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and they mention a mr robinson said this, who is this according to mr robinson? Is he an official spokesperson? If this can not be found anywhere else we should remove it as we don't want to help anyone spread rumours, do we? Off2riorob (talk) 15:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I have found a reference to the story on the groups site so it does look correct. Off2riorob (talk) 16:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Its still a claim so I think its very weak. It could be reinstated though I wouldn't object --Snowded ^TALK 16:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I will show you the link I saw...hold on.. Off2riorob (talk) 17:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

This comment..Scottish Defence League march Glasgow Nov 14th...is on this page..casuals united . Off2riorob (talk) 17:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• "... has set up a wing north of the Border called the Scottish Defence League"

--Mais oui! (talk) 04:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

All looks very speculative and tentative to me --Snowded ^TALK 05:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• "Meanwhile, it emerged that a Scottish Defence League and a Welsh Defence League have also been formed."

--Mais oui! (talk) 07:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I've now added a sentence on Scottish activities, with refs. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Ta. I didn't think that the criticism of the Sunday Post was at all merited. Yes, it is a bit popular, but my goodness, it holds far higher standards of journalistic integrity than The Sun. --Mais oui! (talk) 10:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Extreme right wing

Personally I dislike labeling everything if they are this label they will expose themselves and there will be no need for the label, it has just been added by an ip with just that single edit. Off2riorob (talk) 17:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it is also increasingly meaningless. In this case, is it supposed to be shorthand for racist thugs? I would like to avoid labels as they show the bias of the editor more than illuminate the subject. On a separate note- Personally I don't see why they are described in this article as a political group, it all seems a bit single issue to be described as a political group. Maybe protest group would be more accurate? (edit: but that is another can of worms.--Alchemist Jack (talk) 18:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I could move to that easy, they are not a bit political, protest group is a lot more reflective of the reality, are there any citations refering to them as a protest group? Off2riorob (talk) 18:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The sources in the article support these characterisations. If you want to weaken them you'll have to present a good argument. Thanks, Verbal chat 18:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

How are this group political? Off2riorob (talk) 18:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

How can they be a protest group if they are not political? Look at their site, look at the WP:RS already on the page. Verbal chat 18:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

the groups site make no political claims, they are not in any way political, the have no political conections in any way, they are a protest group. Off2riorob (talk) 18:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Please link me to the citation that says they are political. Off2riorob (talk) 18:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

As you can see that non political protest group comment is also supported by Alchamist Jack. Off2riorob (talk) 19:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

You have an odd definition of politics. They are linked to the BNP, and are decribed often as a right wing group (a political designation). Links in the article. Verbal chat 19:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

⬅Lets think about this a bit. (i) They protest (ii) they don't like a set of people (iii) they are right wing/extreme right wing. They are not political in the sense of the BNP as they appear to be organised for street protest alone. So how about "Right Wing political protest group"?--Snowded ^TALK 19:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

edit c.If they are connected to the BNP is it very loose and informal, this specific group has no polital ambitions or candidates at all, they are a simple protest group, atributing them political connections is offering them too much respect. Also being described in the press as a right wing group does not make them political either, being right wing does not nessecesarily atribute politic-ness. Off2riorob (talk) 19:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

In real terms, the biggest opponents of this organisation are native left-wing, college students; anarchists, communists, some corrupt trade unionists (see RevLeft.com link). The problem with using the whole French Revolution, "left-right" scale, is that the Islamists (who are being manipulated by the left, because they see them as "Anti-American") are perhaps the most far-right people in the country at the moment, considering their social stances. It was a similar deal in the 1980-90s, with the whole sucking up to Republicanism in Ireland. The real battle is between Christians and primarily Trotskyites. After the disaster that was the Soviet Union, all the far-left do nowadays is attack Christian interests under the guise of "anti-fascism". - Yorkshirian (talk) 19:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like the cats and dogs movie, the world as a battle ground between Christians and Trotskyites with the same connection to reality. Do they both have secret headquarters? --Snowded ^TALK 19:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Also' actually they say that they are ok with muslims, they say that if muslims take on a british way of life they are welcome to join. Off2riorob (talk) 19:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

They are a simple protest group, more attached to football than politics. Off2riorob (talk) 19:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Is everyone agreed that they are not political? Or please show me a link where they either claim to be political or can be seen doing anything political? Off2riorob (talk) 19:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The politics of football. This semantic whitewashing isn't fooling me, or the RS. Snowded is correct, they are a political protest group. Since several commentators have said they are political, then clearly no, not everyone agrees with you. Verbal chat 19:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The football point is valid, its coming from the violent end of the various football gangs, but its being used for political purposes (probably a christian conspiracy lol) so politics should be there somewhere, buts not a political movement in the sense of the BNP. --Snowded ^TALK 19:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, it isn't a political party, but it is clearly a political group, and has been so called by the BBC, city councils, politicians, and police organisations, to name a few. That they claim not to be political is irrelevant, when they so clearly are. This wouldn't even be breaking WP:OR without the abundant sources. Verbal chat 19:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

All the comments that the bbc said this and john said that are still in the body of the article. They have attracted a lot of comments as you can imagine, but that changes nothing, they have done nothing political and they make no claims to be political, they actually say they are protesting at the removal of the british way of life, more of a lifestyle chice than a political party. Off2riorob (talk) 19:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

That's not what the sources and obvious dictionary understanding of "political", "right wing" etc imply. What the group themselves claim is not from an WP:RS (except that the BBC repeat it), whereas the characterisations come directly from WP:RS and are presented in WP:RS. We have RS for political and right wing, therefore it goes in. Verbal chat 19:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Verbal, what do you mean by this statement... "This semantic whitewashing"? Off2riorob (talk) 19:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

See Humpty Dumpty in Alice in wonderland - yet this kind of question should be asked on my talk page. Verbal chat 19:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

How about Reactionary protest group?--Alchemist Jack (talk) 19:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Simple proof: They claim to be against Islamic law - that is political. Verbal chat 19:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I think its clear that politics has got to be in there somewhere --Snowded ^TALK 19:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Not for me, they are not a registered political group, are they? They have not claimed to be political and they have quite well explained their point of view on their website. Off2riorob (talk) 20:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The political claims and comments from people and the press apertaining to their commented political-ness is already in the body of the article. Off2riorob (talk) 20:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, and it is already in the info box, etc. Where it should be. These "claims" are clearly true, and from RS. Verbal chat 20:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I totally disagree with you, I would appreciate it if you would provide me with a few citations of these claims as you call them that they are a political organisation. Off2riorob (talk) 20:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

You have yourself referred to the sources, I've given you a non-WP:OR breaking argument based on dictionary definitions, and most editors here disagree with you. Take to to WP:NPOVN and see if you get a different answer if you like; I don't think they will support the whitewashing and abuse of language you have proposed. The sources are all in the article. WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a valid argument. Do you have a WP:COI? Verbal chat 20:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

My point when I opened this can of worms was to point out that they don't have a defined political agenda, structure or aims except the single issue that they are focussed on, albeit one with political ramifications.--Alchemist Jack (talk) 20:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree with Jack, and he has said it well. Off2riorob (talk) 20:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

So you agree they are political? Good. Single-issue (unless you mean racist, which I don't think will fly) doesn't apply as they have several aims - which is also a clear political agenda. They also have a political structure, and we have (as I've said) RS saying they are political. Take it to NPOVN if you wish. Verbal chat 20:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

No, Jack said they have no defined political agenda and I agree with that and him. Where is this citation that you say proves your claims that they are political? Off2riorob (talk) 20:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Also your claim that they have a clear political structure where is that from, as far as I can see they have a couple of spokespersons and a website Off2riorob (talk) 20:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You've replaced "I don't like it" with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Please go to WP:NPOVN if you think your position is supportable. We have RS though, so I don't think you'll get far. I see no point in continuing this unless something new is brought. Verbal chat 20:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

⬅(ec)You don't have to be a registered political group to be political, neither does a political agenda have to be explicitly defined for a group to be political. They are very clearly a political group, they are clearly involved in protest, they are clearly right wing and they are exploiting/building on a UK political tradition within football gangs. I suggest we say they are a right wing political pressure group. Its clear, objective, verifiable against the sources. --Snowded ^TALK 20:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

A right wing political pressure group? And you have citations to support that? Could I see one. please. Off2riorob (talk) 20:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Ooops, I just removed "extreme right wing" and wikilinked to political movement! Sorry--Alchemist Jack (talk) 20:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I read this and can accept that this group does reflect this article. Political_movement Off2riorob (talk) 20:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

So you agree they are political? This is also a political statement, and the right wing & protest are on the BBC citations. Does this mean e have an agreement? --Snowded ^TALK 20:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

No I don't agree with you, I agree with Jack, that although they have no specific political ambitions or structure they will have political connotations, have a read of that page, political movement, for now I have had enough, tomorrow I will have a look at all the citations. Off2riorob (talk) 20:59, 20 Septembr 2009 (UTC)

agreed as long as we can link to Political_movement to frame the meaning. I don't right-left labels as I have expressed elsewhere on this page, but if you want to stick them in a box, then it will have to be the one on the right. --Alchemist Jack (talk) 21:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Extreme right wing there is no reference to support this labelling. Infact ref 3 quotes searchlight anti fascist magazine as saying A spokesman for the anti-fascist organisation Searchlight said: "There are a number of fascist elements that have attached themselves to EDL and Casuals United, but these groups are not extreme rightwing organisations."

Johnsy88 (talk) 13:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Both the refs from the Harrow Times [17] and The Times [18] use the specific words "far-right". This page should accurately report what they said. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

protest group

User verbal has reverted 4 of my edits moving the group from a right wing political group to a protest group .. with the edit summary ..Rvt unsourced changes (NPOV is that these groups are extreme.. I have asked him to come and discuss it with me here. Off2riorob (talk) 18:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

See above. Verbal chat 18:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Press Claim of Far Right

Can we please leave the group as right wing until a reputable source stating official label of group is far right as group is self professed right wing and the media claim of far right is not supported or confirmed by official source as it stand so far.

Johnsy88 (talk) 13:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

We report what is said by reliable sources. They describe the group as "far-right". That's the end of it - there are no "official" sources, and your personal opinions are not relevant in deciding the content of articles. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for coming to the discussion page as this page seems to be very controversial and i think alot of edits will be contested in some way or another before being finally published in the article. yes but a description of far right doesn't make it a far right group.This is simply the media's perception of the group and not an official political leaning confirmed by the group. The label should in this case state that the group have been claimed by members of the British media as far right which is exactly what it says and covers in the history page which is sufficient enough as im sure that readers of wiki can come to their own conclusions of the groups political leanings by reading the information provided. Johnsy88 (talk) 14:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

and with regards to Verbals recent revert surely this issue should be reverted back from far right to right wing which is the original statement on the page until resolved? Johnsy88 (talk) 14:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

What you or I consider to be "far right" doesn't matter - what matters is how the group is described by reliable sources - and they describe it as "far right". Quite possibly the group might describe itself as "moderate", "right thinking", "commonsense", or whatever - that doesn't matter, it is how it is described by others that needs to be reported here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) See the discussion above. We have multiple WP:RS that this is a far right political grouping. Stop editwarring, and stop attempting to remove well sourced information. If you think there is an NPOV issue raise it at the NPOV noticeboard, but considering the preponderance of sources for the far right claim I don't think you'll get a different response. Removing or whitewashing this information is against policy. Policy is resolved, WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a valid argument. Verbal chat 14:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Verbal, I am in no way edit warring any more than Ghmyrtle is and yet you seem to use very blunt methods of contact to make out that i am doing this and yet seem to make no such remarks of edit warring to ghmyrtle. I simply want this article to be fair and to come from a NPOV and this is clearly not the case by adding the group as far right when this claim is only opinion from reporters from news organisations and not the official claim or official confirmed in any way. i propose that the title be changed to read as follows

" The English Defence League (also known as the EDL and occasionally referred to as English and Welsh Defence League[1]) is a self proclaimed British Right wing-Anti-Islamism political group who have been labelled by the British Press as "Far Right"(ref inserted here to support statement). The groups professed aim is to oppose the spread of Islamism, Sharia law and Islamic terrorism in the United Kingdom.[2][3][4] "

please tell me what you think or how you would have it.Johnsy88 (talk) 14:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The other editor has improved the article, adding references as I explained elsewhere. They are also supported by policy. You have removed well referenced information. We should follow the sources, and they say far right - and that is what should be in the info box, categories, etc. Their denial can come after the factual description. If you feel there is an NPOV problem, take it to the NPOV noticeboard; but being accurate isn't an NPOV problem. Verbal chat 14:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

He has improved the article in your opinion but clearly both of you are not editing from a neutral position and therefore for now i will waste no more of my time arguing with people who clearly have a political agenda with regards to this article. I would like to thank you for replying to my discussions however :D

Johnsy88 (talk) 14:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

How about "the far-left have levelled the term far-right at the EDL. This is used mostly as a form of newspeak to try and blacklist, as the EDL has yet to produce any political goal other than peaceful protest against the far-right Islamist movement". This seems to weight out the concerns and attribute the opinions to their correct owners. Use of the term "far right" is mostly an attempt to blacklist or manipulate popular perception, the Freudo-Marxian arsenal of "power words" seem to have been worn out by 2009 though. Its important that controversial and potentially libelous claims are attributed to maintain a NPOV in the article. - Yorkshirian (talk) 21:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

LOL. And your sources for describing The Times, Sky News, etc etc. as "far left" are... ?? Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree but i feel we are wasting our time. What i also find strange is that on the UAF WP page the main source for information is the UAF website and yet if we attempt to update this site quoting the EDL website as a source it WILL be removed(for example if the EDL officially quote on there website saying they are a right wing pressure group). It seems their is One rule for them, another for us when attempting to use sources to improve and balance out this article

Johnsy88 (talk) 21:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

You are wasting your time - the sources are clear and so are wikipedia rules. Speculative opinion and apologia amusing as they may be are not legitimate edits --Snowded ^TALK 21:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

so therefore by your logic snowded considering the UAF WP page is sourced from the UAF website under WP rules the UAF webiste is not a reliable source and the whole page needs re writing if what you say is correct?

And with regards to the above i quotes the WP page on Sources

"Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves. The following specific examples cover only some of the possible types of reliable sources and source reliability issues, and are not intended to be exhaustive. Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process."

Johnsy88 (talk) 21:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I formatted your comment - use of colons makes any thread easier to read. If you think another article breaks the rules give me a link and I will go and look at it. --Snowded ^TALK 22:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Legal status of Al-Muhajiroun

I've removed a ref to "Al-Muhajiroun, a group now banned in the UK for glorifying terrorism". As this ref and this one make clear, Al-Muhajiroun was never formally banned - it was dissolved, and its splinter groups were then banned for "glorifying terrorism". Al-Muhajiroun is now to be relaunched - [19] - but the refs do not suggest that it is banned currently. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Al-Muhajiroun clearly has links to Muslim extremism and this is clear to see just by reading the WP page and ref. This group should clearly be labelled on this page as Extremist because they have had clear and proven connections to known terrorist's and extremist Muslims. It does however make me laugh some what that some WP editors have defended the label of Far right for the EDL and yet disagree with the labelling of this organisation as extremist when it is clearly an extremist organisation. It has clear links to Omar Bakri Muhammad and Anjem Choudary are known to have led Al-Muhajiroun,The group became notorious for its conference "The Magnificent 19", praising the September 11, 2001 attacks,

BBC quoted one Al-Muhajiroun leader, Abu Ibrahim, as saying,

"When they speak about September 11th, when the two planes magnificently run through those buildings, OK and people turn around and say, 'hang on a second, that is barbaric. Why did you have to do that?' You know why? Because of ignorance. ... For us it's retaliation. Islam is not the starter of wars. If you start the war we won't turn the other cheek. ... According to you it can't be right. According to Islam it's right. When you talk about innocent civilians, do you not kill innocent civilians in Iraq?"

Asif Hanif who attended some of Al-Muhajiroun's circles carried out a bombing of a café in Tel Aviv, Israel, that killed three people and injuring 60 others.[13] [14] In 2006 another individual connected with Al-Muhajiroun allegedly detonated a bomb in India, killing himself and destroying an army barracks.[5]

In 2007, five young Muslim Britons with Al-Muhajiroun connections - Omar Khyam, Waheed Mahmood, Anthony Garcia, Jawad Akbar and Saladhuddin Amin, — were convicted of a multiple bombing plot to use fertiliser bombs "which police say could have killed hundreds of British people. The men were caught after police and MI5 launched a massive surveillance operation." [15] The targets included "the Bluewater shopping centre in Kent, the Ministry of Sound nightclub in London and Britain's domestic gas network." According to Professor Anthony Glees, director of the Brunel Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies.

and finally according to Professor Anthony Glees, director of the Brunel Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies.

The fertiliser bomb trial has given us the smoking-gun evidence that groups like al-Muhajiroun have had an important part in radicalising young British Muslims, and that this can create terrorists.[13]

AND YET THIS GROUP IS NOT ALOUD TO BE LABELLED AS EXTREMIST?

Please sort this out

Johnsy88 (talk) 21:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem was the wording; you were attributing this classification to the BBC journalist when that isn't what the source said. Verbal chat 22:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you will find if you check edit history of this page that sources were added for extremist label of Al-Muhajiroun and i made no such attempt to attribute the classification to a BBC journalist. The sentence about the BBC journalist was attributed to another author Johnsy88 (talk) 14:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

If you check the edit history you will find that is not the case as I tried to tell you in the edit summary. The phrase in the original text referenced the BBC claim. That claim does not included any statement about extremism. There was no need to litter my talk page in an attempt to prove that Al-Muhajiroun were extremists; they clearly are. I suggest you put a little more time into reading both edit summaries and the text in question wp:AGF in respect of other editors. It would also help considerably if you would following the WIkipedia convention of using colons to indent your comments and add your signature at the end of the paragraph rather than adding two lines for it. I have reformated your last comment so you have an example to work from. --Snowded ^TALK 15:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

No snowded you are incorrect and i think you will find i made no attempt to attribute the BBC source to the Label on the group as Extremist and this is clearly a muddle in which we have got a wires crossed. I would also like to say that my messages on your talk page were simply an attempt to bring you to a discussion on the matter instead of consistently reverting and edit warring which could have been the case. Many thanks for your information on edit summaries and also the insertion of colons for indenting my comments. Johnsy88 (talk) 11:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Well two of us disagree with you - its a matter of grammar not content and it was very clear from the edit summaries. I think you just over reacted and didn't read it carefully. Also remember WP:BRD, you inserted, it was reverted, edit warring is putting it back in again without consensus. --Snowded ^TALK 11:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Well its obvious that we will not agree on this matter so lets just say its water under the bridge. Again many thanks for your reply's and for the AGF and BRD links. Johnsy88 (talk) 11:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Johnny, I'm afraid you're wrong. The original text said: "The BBC journalist Allan Urry has stated that the EDL originated from a group named "United Peoples of Luton", formed in response to the protests by Al-Muhajiroun against the Royal Anglian Regiment in March 2009" - where the beginning attributes the entire sentence as the opinion of the BBC journalist, which is fine as that's what the source says. You changed this to: "The BBC journalist Allan Urry has stated that the EDL originated from a group named "United Peoples of Luton", formed in response to the protests by extremist (ref) Al-Muhajiroun against the Royal Anglian Regiment in March 2009", but the text you added wasn't supported by a source that said Allan Urry said this. He probably does think this, but we need a source for that - and it also weakens your point, that this group is extremist is not contested! So you were (by accident) attributing the statement to the BBC journalist. I then attempted to fix this by removing the unnecessary attribution. It still needs some fixing, so I'll do that now. The fact is the article now includes this uncontested descriptor. Verbal chat 11:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Again verby i think you will find that i did not edit the article to say "The BBC journalist Allan Urry has stated that the EDL originated from a group named "United Peoples of Luton" If you check the history of the page you will see that this original sentence was attributed to another editor. The original edit i made was to simply add "the extremist" and then a source 20:42, 24 September 2009 Johnsy88 (talk | contribs) (15,910 bytes) (→History: extremist added and ref included)(the source from the Irish times...which turned out to be incorrect but after much digging around on the web found a proper source which is not in place on the article) <<<< this is the original edit i made from the history of the article. Johnsy88 (talk) 12:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Three editors are now telling you the same thing, might be an idea to listen and reflect. (formated for you again) --Snowded ^TALK 12:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Listen and reflect on an incorrect accusation? I think not and i am quite willing to continue this civil discussion until i am proven to be incorrect by conclusive evidence which clearly shows that i changed the article in the way i have been accused. Johnsy88 (talk) 12:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

(sigh) suggest you hunt down your former English Teacher, show him or her the material and ask for their opinion. --Snowded ^TALK 12:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

You added the text in the middle of a summary of what a BBC journalist said, as I showed above! Therefore you incorrectly attributed the extremist label to the BBC journalist - and that is where you are wrong. This is fairly simple to understand, so I suggest you have another look and stop complaining. This is a huge waste of time as no one is disputing what you added - you just added it without realising that the structure of the sentence didn't support your edit. This is basic reading comprehension. Here is the exact diff where you do it: [20]. I don't expect an apology, just stop complaining. (And please, sign your posts after one or two spaces, please don't put the sig on a newline, but directly after your comment) Verbal chat 12:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Verbal,It seems clear to me that the original line of the sentence with regards to the BBC journalist(and not including my inserted label of extremist) was not sourced by the original editor who added this sentance(which was not myself) and by adding my source for the extremist label it has attributed both the claim of extremist and also the original line regarding the BBC journalist to my edit. This is no reason to make out that i have tried to purposely edit the sentence to attribute the BBC journalist to the extremist label, This is however a clear editing mistake by a previous WP editor and this is why i have said in my previous discussion that somewhere we have got our wires crossed.

And with regards to your remarks to my educational standard snowded i feel that i should remind you that these discussion pages are for civil conversation discussing article matters and not for sly remarks to take digs at other users because of their lack of English grammar skills, there will be many other new editors of WP who will be very intimidated by more experienced users making remarks over there lack of editing skills. Could you please extend the same amount of respect when contacting myself as i extend to you when i reply to you discussions as i feel we should keep this affair a civil as possible. Many thanks Johnsy88 (talk) 12:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Cool it, you are well past the stage where WP:Bite applies. You've ignored several patient efforts to explain the obvious, I thought you might like to hunt down someone whose views you might respect. Oh and please, please, please learn to follow standards on comments, I've had to adjust for you again. --Snowded ^TALK 12:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok snowded it clearly seems impossible to reason with you in regards to the way in which you speak to others so i will let you know now that i will be putting a complaint in against your user name within the next few hours. I have not ignored any attempts, I have simply represented my self against accusations which you cannot conclusively prove. Johnsy88 (talk) 12:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify my position - per WP:SUBSTANTIATE, I felt that it was appropriate to attribute two claims explicitly to Urry: (1) The EDL originated from "United Peoples of Luton", (2) Al-Muhajiroun organized the March protest. Both these claims may be true, but we only have one source for both of them. However, if the attribution isn't considered necessary, I have no objection to leaving it out. I agree that Urry doesn't describe Al-Muhajiroun as "extremist", if it's necessary for me to spell that out. Tevildo (talk) 11:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

⬅If you are starting to confuse explanations with accusations then you will have problems --Snowded ^TALK 12:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Good grief. Johnny, what you did wrong has been explained to you. There really is nothing more to discuss, especially as the information you wanted to add has now been added (appropriately, by removing the attribution you changed). I suggest that this section is now closed as it is no longer about improving the article. Verbal chat 12:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Verby i agree that this discussion is now closed. Many thanks for the time you have taken to discuss this issue with me and thank you for not conducting your discussions with incivility, I must apologise if this discussion seemed to have come across as heated at times. I will now be submitting my complaint against snowded. Again verbal many thanks. Johnsy88 (talk) 13:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

in case anyone is interested --Snowded ^TALK 13:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Radio 4

Interesting programme about EDL on BBC Radio 4 [21] File on Four --Alchemist Jack (talk) 16:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

"far right" descriptor

Removed the "far right" description as it was blatant POV. 75.168.211.136 (talk) 01:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

This disgusting little group is "far right" so there is no POV issues with describing them as that, however it probably does need a stronger source to back it up. The current ones are not good enough. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

See discussion above where consensus was established. Verbal chat 08:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I have read it, i agree with the consensus for keeping far right there because that is exactly what they are. However it does need reliable sources like the ones used over at the BNP page for the BNP. At the moment the 3 sources in the intro here following the far right claim just say (from what ive seen)..

• "suspected far-right activists"
• "with far right links"
• "The English Defence League has been accused by critics of being a far-right organisation, a racist organisation or of having links to the BNP, but it vehemently denies the claims."

These do not seem strong enough for me, we need a BBC source describing them as far right like they have with the BNP or something along those lines. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

This ref [22] already in the article is a far better reference for describing this group as far right. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The label has already been discussed and is correctly far right but i think statements from BritishWatcher like "This disgusting little group is "far right" so the re is no POV issues" Clearly show he should be watched with updates on this article as he clearly has a politically motivated POV.

PS: I have found a new source from the BBC website which attributes the EDL to being Right wing and not far right http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/8259256.stm Johnsy88 (talk) 15:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I also think the EDL, BNP and their ilk are disgusting groups that show bigotry and lack of education are huge problems in parts of England (parts I'm from, sad to say). However, I'm able to keep that view in check while editing the article. I also think the Internet Watch Foundation are a disgraceful group, and scientology too, yet I'm able to edit those and my personal POV dosn't present a problem. If anything BW was acting against his personal POV in demanding (and finding) better sources! I don't think, therefore, that we have any right to question his motivations. I guess my COI is that I'm not a bigot, I'll try to keep it in check ;). Verbal chat 15:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Its ignorant to say some reacting to a decade of loony left, cultural Marxist mismanagement are "uneducated", read The Undercover Economist to see why groups such as this arise. They are misguided in the target of their protest, but still legally within rights to raise their voice like anyone else. Good news is that Labour should be routed out of England after the next election anyway, neer to return againe. We're going to have the Tories for 20 years. In any case specifically with the case of the EDL and BNP, Nick Griffin MEP has claimed this week, based on the Daily Star's advocation/promotion of them;[23]

Spelling it out in simple terms, you look at the owners of the Daily Express, the Daily Star and their interests. This is a neo-con operation. This is a Zionist false flag operation, designed to create a real clash of civilisations right here on our streets between Islam and the rest of us.

Nick Griffin MEP, September 2009. On BNP rationale for rejecting EDL.[24]

For context, we should keep in mind that the ahem "Hope not Hate" article itself is authored by Searchlight communist Nick Lowles, an associate of Gerry Gable. So the wording surrounding Griffin's comments on EDL, obviously are not neutral. Though the quote itself should probably be used in the article to clarify the BNP's rationale behind distancing themselves from this group. - Yorkshirian (talk) 03:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

20 years of Tory rule.. Damn June 2010 cant come soon enough! ;) I agree including the actual quote regaring the BNPs/Griffins view on them is useful as some will think these two groups are connected. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I added it, but I think maybe there should be a section discussing EDL supposed connections and stated non-connections in general. - Yorkshirian (talk) 05:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes i have a very strong POV on this disgusting little group and i have no problem using such terms on this talk page, but i will avoid making any alterations to the article itself. I do the same over at the BNP page. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Britishwatcher, your abuse of wikipedia to push your own POV is bringing the whole concept into disrepute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LiberalJames (talk • contribs) 13:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Its been clearly evident that a lot of the above editors(including myself) may have had political agendas when editing this page and this is no surprise as to the hostile manor in which some reply on this discussions board. Lets just hope that these politically "superior" intellectuals (who probably work for or have links to the civil service/UAF/Labour government/BBC and every other left wing society) can restrain from allowing their pre-determined opinions to get in the way of freedom of speech and allow this page to be updated from a completely NPOV! which shows all sides of the story and not just the government and quangos POV . We will see.

Johnsy88 (talk) 15:16, 28 September 2009

You are verging on a breech of WP:CIVIL there Johnsy, comment on the text not the editors is a basic rule of wikipedia --Snowded ^TALK 00:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to set your mind at rest i have no links to the civil service/UAF/Labour government or the BBC. I am not left wing, i am more right wing, i just despise English nationalism or radical British nationalism, and separatism but i think of myself as reasonable and fair when it comes to alterations to the articles in question, which is why i stated before the far right claim needed a better source (which has now been placed next to the far right claim). BritishWatcher (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

i was making the observation universally so no need to explain yourself comrade ;)

82.46.108.20 (talk) 19:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Who are these people "who probably work for or have links to the civil service/UAF/Labour government/BBC and every other left wing society"? Not me, wish I did I might have a few more quid in my pocket :). Is this some assumption of bad faith on the part of other editors? Out of interest I would love to see the link between civil service and UAF. Thanks for warning us to be be aware of editor bias concerning this page. I will bear that in mind Johnsy88. --Alchemist Jack (talk) 23:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I worked for the French government until recently - now I'm warping the minds of their elite students... and they nearly chose le Penn not that long ago. Seriously, it's getting a bit off topic, so I suggest we close this part of the thread at least. Verbal chat 20:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

• I just checked a newspaper archive and find the EDL referred to as "far right" in papers from across the world, including New Zealand, India, Israel, etc. I can add links to those sources if necessary.   Will Beback  talk  23:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Course your not, your just all lovely NPOV editors :DJohnsy88 (talk) 19:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)82.46.108.20

Vandalism

A user called Verbal repeatedly vandalizes pages that don't accord with his extreme views. There is no consensus that a campaign against militant Islam is "far-right". For a start, there is no definiiton of that term. I am suspending all my hard work in transcribing things for Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djwebb1969 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I admit I have extremely neutral, mainstream, well supported views about what should and shouldn't be in wikipedia article. Please see WP:NOTVAND and WP:NPA. Further edits of this nature could lead to sanctions. Please address your comments to edits and not editors. I have removed my name from the section header per talkpage guidelines (it isn't WP:CIVIL). Verbal chat 18:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Verbal has reverted to a consensus version supported by citation. I have removed your latest abusive comments. --Snowded ^TALK 19:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus if people agree. I don't think you know what the word consensus means. What "citation" can prove some group is "far right"? A quote from The Times? The EDL actually bends over backwards to accommodate members from all communities. Too far actually.

I have been doing searched on how to delete my account? apparently there is "right to vanish", but the page does not say how. Can you tell me how? I am not going to contribute any more to an encyclopaedia run by a group of extremists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djwebb1969 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Responded to user with necessary information - on their talk page. --Snowded ^TALK 19:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Use of far right is sourced so its not a problem for it to be mentioned in the article, that was the previous consensus on this talk page and every week these thugs make a mess in British cities there will be more justification and sources to describe them as far right. The sooner this extremist group is banned or all of its members arrested and banned from taking part in protests the better. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Suggest you delete that (and this response), its not appropriate for the talk page. --Snowded ^TALK 12:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Im allowed to state my opinion on them, most of my comment was in response to the claim there was no consensus for this group being labelled far right. Considering the mess left behind in Manchester yesterday i thought my comments were moderate and reasonable. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

THe purpose of the talk page is to discuss the article, not to comment on who should or should not be arrested --Snowded ^TALK 13:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

My comment was mostly about use of the term far right on the article. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The article does need updating by someone now though to mention what happened yesterday in Manchester [25] BritishWatcher (talk) 13:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Done (subject to someone coming along and correcting my malformed citations!) Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for updating. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Neo-Nazism

Is it safe to suggest that the EDl has connections to groups, or has members, sympathetic to Nazism? An article by the Associated Press states "several of its supporters made Nazi salutes during Saturday's protest". [26] 217.205.110.52 (talk) 20:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

If its reported in a reliable source then saying that some members gave Nazi salutes is OK, unless its a fringe group. Saying that they are sympathetic to Nasism on the other hand would be OR on the basis of the salutes.--Snowded ^TALK 21:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

BBC Newsnight

BBC Newsnight did an indepth look at the EDL tonight which might help source some information for the article. [27], full video of it available here [28] on BBC IPlayer later on if people missed it, they started about 20 minutes into it. Theres an interesting bit where they burn the nazi flag, which might be noteworthy. They look like they are a paramilitary group from Northern Ireland, disgraceful to see such a thing in Great Britain. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

26 minutes in from start of programme, for those interested. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

You might think it's disgraceful but I think it's refreshing to see ordinary people standing up to Islamic extremism. Unfortunately this article has been locked by a group of Welsh socialists so nobody can edit it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.138.124.202 (talk) 11:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the lock and im certainly not a Welsh socialist. "ordinary people standing up to islamic extremism", my goodness do you think thats what you people are doing? These protests are coming close to sparking full scale riots in British cities. A bunch of men dressed like Northern Ireland paramilitary groups, burning flags (what ever flag, even the nazi one) comes across as pretty disturbing to me. If this is a peaceful little group simply wanting to protest against radical extremism, why hide faces? Why am i seeing videos of signs saying "No more mosques in England"?, thats clearly an attack on islam not radical islam... theres a difference although im not sure this "English Defence League" knows that. This kind of English nationalism is so very dangerous, it needs crushing. Something else for us all to worry about thanks to 12 years of New Labour, what a nightmare.

Anyway returning to your point about the lock, its required to prevent edit warring or vandalism although its not going to be on there for ever and if you want to contribute to the article please register an account and after several days you will be able to edit it. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

IIRC they suggested that this was no more than certain ethnic minority women wearing Burkas. There's at least 2 sides to most arguments. Leaky Caldron 11:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I am no fan of the full burka, i want it banned in public places. But to compare religious clothing to dressing up like a paramilitary group is rather different as far as im concerned. If these people want to dress up like a paramilitary group then they need to be treated like one by the security forces. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

We should return to this topic after the broadcast, and stay on the topic of the article. Thanks for the heads up. I'll be watching due to the Carter Ruck attack on democracy and parliament today, which might change the running order. Verbal chat 12:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Ooops it was ast night. I'll watch later, and lets keep this to possible additions based on this source. Thanks. Verbal chat 12:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Burning a nazi flag doesn't seem disturbing to me. It's understandable considering the slurs made against this group. It's bad enough that a cabal of Wiki administrators have insisted on the "far-right" label. If you think the EDL is a terrorist skin head group please provide better evidence than just head coverings.

Here's a reason why it is important to oppose mosques in order to fight extremism:

""The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets and the faithful our soldiers..."

Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, prime minister of Turkey, a country considered to me "moderate" and secular. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.29.3.98 (talk) 13:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not a discussion forum. Please only discuss the article at hand, not alleged conspiracy theories about wikipedia being biased against far right groups. Skinny87 (talk) 13:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you User:82.29.3.98 , so i take it the "no more mosques in England" sign was not just one person with a sign but a clear aim of this "group". Its not the type of flag they are burning that concerned me. Its the fact they dress like a paramilitary group and have petrol on hand to set fire to things. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

That point was relevant to the article. Smear is a tactic of certain wikipedia users and it destroys Wiki's credibility. For the sake of the whole community, please spare us your flippant comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LiberalJames (talk • contribs) 14:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Well please make suggestions on how we can improve this article. Some inside detail on the setup of this group would be useful to the article or do we have to wait for the police and security forces to release reports on it? BritishWatcher (talk) 15:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Political Group?

This article describes the EDL as a political group which is not strictly true. They are currently more accurately described just as a group or a loose association without use of the word political. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.219.17 (talk) 15:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Moved to bottom of page and given title "political group?" BritishWatcher (talk) 16:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

None of the 3 sources for the sentence following "political" mentions its a political group, so unless there is another source somewhere that "political" may need to be removed. No feelings on this but it needs a source BritishWatcher (talk) 16:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone think of a better descriptor?  Francium12  17:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I can think of alot of words which would better describe them. As i mentioned above perhaps they should be classed as a paramilitary group, the dress like them sometimes it appears. I think the best bet if there isnt a source for political is just to remove the word, wont "far right group" be enough? looking at the sources currently there they do just say group. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

They have political aims, a political agenda, and take part in political action. To call them political is neither a slur nor original research. It should stay. Political is one of the nicest things we can say about them. Thanks, Verbal chat 18:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree it is the nicest thing possible to say about them, but id still just like a source saying it to be sure. They do have political aims, but then so do a group like Green Peace (cant stand them either lol), but would we call them a political group? BritishWatcher (talk) 18:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

{edit conflict)

I watched the Newsnight article. I didn't see any political side to their structure. Not even sure about extreme right wing either. They are a group opposed to radical Islam (shouldn't we all be?) but organised in such a way to make them look like a bunch of 1970's soccer thugs who meet in pubs to plan their next protest. Leaky Caldron 18:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

In what way is a group "united" by its political ideology, with political aims, not political? Also, the far right descriptor is more than adequately justified, and supports political too (it being a political descriptor). Verbal chat 18:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

In what way are they right wing? Being against radical Islam and protesting against some of the stuff that occurred in Luton during the troop march happend to unite people from all sides. What distiguishes these is that they look like National Front, but as the program stated, they are a single issue grouping (anti radical Islam). Leaky Caldron 19:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The sources clearly say that they are right wing, end of argument. --Snowded ^TALK 19:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a very strange group, they are so disorganised and springing up in different cities that people within it clearly have different agendas. Atleast with the BNP there is a central command which issues orders to the minions. But i dont think EDL is really a "Political" one, its just a bunch of thugs in some cases. Far right is perfectly reasonable to include, but "political" needs to be sourced aswell. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

If there is a question mark over their political intentions then there has to be an equal question about being right wing (or left wing, or no wing at all). The Newsnight program source identified them as a single issue "group". Leaky Caldron 19:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Single issue can still bw right wing. All the newspaper reports and the BBC describe them as right wing. --Snowded ^TALK 19:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Evidently. but if they are not political (i.e. just a bunch of misguided patriotic thugs) how can they be on any wing? Leaky Caldron 19:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thugs I would agree with, Patriotic I would challenge, misguided is too gentle a phrase. All of that (plus your comments) are opinion only. Any pressure group of this type is political (as is Green Peace) in any normal use of the word. --Snowded ^TALK 19:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed most are not misguided patriots, they are just thugs. It appears there are some misguided patriots though who do really hate the BNP and racism, but somehow think the EDL is just a good group (with some trouble makers) that is only opposed to radical islam.. they cant see the huge damage the group is doing and how counter productive it is.

Anyway how about we describe them as a pressure group?, thats what Unite Against Fascism are listed as in their info box. Speaking of UAF, it would probably be a good idea if people from here took a look at that article and tried to update it a bit. At the moment there is just a single sentence about their actions against EDL and yet UAFs actions in the past month have been very high profile and so more detail is needed. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

"Pressure group" makes it sound more focused and organised than it evidently is. I would call it a "protest group". -- Alarics (talk) 17:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

General cleanup

I edited the intro and History section to match WP:NPOV, most changes to assist clarity and to be more concise.  BRIANTIST  (talk) 20:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Disagree, you have lost valuable content, failed to fully match the citations and you are also failing to observer WP:BRD --Snowded ^TALK 20:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

"Far right" has been discussed a lot above, scare quotes are against MOS and NPOV, and you'll have to get consensus for your other edits as they have been disputed by at least three editors. I don't think your edits are supported by policy or the consensus demonstrated here. I've left a 3RR notice (which is a standard template, not written by me so it's unbiased) on your talk page in an effort to stop you from being blocked. Verbal chat 20:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, only trying to improve the page, it reads awfully and is clearly not WP:NPOV. I guess you want your edit to stay. I will look back in a few days. The style is awful, it needs considerable improvement. Also, how about CHECKING the links say what the article says they do?  BRIANTIST  (talk) 21:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Which do you think are in error? Verbal chat 21:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec) The current version is not a single person's edit but the result of several editors and much discussion. It can doubtless be improved, but that involves discussion first. I don;t see any evidence of it breaking WP:NPOV and some of your edits asserted a POV which has previously been rejected by citation and discussion. --Snowded ^TALK 21:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The English Defence League (also known as the EDL and occasionally referred to as English and Welsh Defence League[1]) is a British far-right[2] political group whose professed aim is to oppose the spread of Islamism, Sharia law and Islamic terrorism in the United Kingdom.[3][4][5] It was formed in 2009. The group has organised various protests in the United Kingdom, and claims around 300 active supporters.[4] The English Defence League's spokesman Trevor Kelway said in August 2009 that British Muslims and Jews who are against militant Islam can join the League "as long as they accept an English way of life".[4]

• "also known as the.." too wordy
• "occasionally referred to as " -> "sometimes"
• "whose professed aim" is a POV
• "It was formed in 2009." -> short sentence
• "and claims around 300" -> "claims" is POV
• "who are against militant Islam " -> reiteration

 BRIANTIST  (talk) 21:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Ahead of a demonstration in Manchester on 10 October, a local media outlet highlighted how the EDL is unrepresentative of Mancunian, or English values.[22]

This is not in anyway NPOV  BRIANTIST  (talk) 21:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The only one of thse which I see as a possible problem is "claims", yet it is factual as that is indeed what they claimed in the source. Feel free to suggest an alternate wording. "It was formed in 2009" could probably be attached somewhere better. I don't see a problem with the others. "whose professed aim" is their POV, and that's the point here - it's therefore NPOV. As to the description of the newspapers, we're again describing their POV - and attributing it. Hence WP:NPOV. Verbal chat 21:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

{edit conflict} I'm with Briantist in terms of the readibility of the current version. I didn't think anything was detracted using his version and in terms of clarity it was an improvement. There needs to be a middle ground. I am detecting "ownership" concerns (as indicated by the wholesale revert). Leaky Caldron 21:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

OK let look at this

• "also known as the.." too wordy Actually the whole phrase could go as later it says a Welsh group is being set up.
• "occasionally referred to as " -> "sometimes" See above
• "whose professed aim" is a POV Its not, needs a third party source, using their own statements or web sites justifies this
• "It was formed in 2009." -> short sentence OK
• "and claims around 300" -> "claims" is POV Its their claim, no reliable third party source so current phrase is correct.
• "who are against militant Islam " -> reiteration I think that one is OK

Otherwise improving readability is fine, but lots of edits which modify the meaning will get reverted on mass. Given the amount of changes (and discussion) on the article the accusation of ownership has no validity. --Snowded ^TALK 21:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing POV about stating a groups professed aims and beliefs in its own words and referencing this to the groups website  Francium12  21:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with deleting the English and Welsh defence league bit from the intro, clearly not needed and rarely used especially if Wales is "lucky" enough to get its own group! lol BritishWatcher (talk) 22:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Lol @ "unrepresentative of Mancunian, or English values". Hmmm thats probably a bit inaccurate. Im pretty sure Manchester on a saturday night gets as messy and violent with drunken yobbish behaviour like EDLs little group marches do so thats some things they have in common, Welcome to New Labours England.

On a serious note though, i dont think that sentence is needed.. we dont need a local news medias point of view on the group. Plenty of more informative stuff from the national media which would be more useful and reliable. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I almost deleted that phrase when it was put in so happy to see it go --Snowded ^TALK 21:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

31 October 2009, "Judgement day"

When some reliable sources about the planned protest become available in the next few days we will need to add this date and a few sentences on it, including what the protest is against for balance.

On the 31st of October "Islam4theUK" will be holding a procession march calling for Sharia law in Britain. [29] , their statement could not be more provocative and inciting. Needless to say certain EDL have responded, planning a counter protest. [30], heres a video promoting it. [31]

This is going to be very very big and very very messy. Previous protests have been clashes between EDL and UAF. This is going to be hell on earth, radical islamists VS EDL, and ofcourse the UAF will show up as well, it has the potential to be like World War 3 in the capital city outside the houses of parliament, 10 downing street and Trafalgar square.

I hope the Met ban all protests / marches in London on the 31st of October 2009. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)