Talk:English Defence League/Archive 2

Gerry Gable, Searchlight Magazine Limited and Ray Hill lost a libel action against Morris Riley (1945-2001) in 2000. The jury awarded Mr Riley £5,000.

On Archive.Org you will find a letter from a senior police officer re Gerry Gable's claims about the 1960s Synagogue Arsons. I have also recently put a video on there called THE BIGGEST LIAR WHO EVER WALKED THE EARTH which further exposes Gable. Documentation re these lies can be found on SearchlightArchive. Check out for example his interview with the Camden New Journal.

A Baron

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

The need for the tags and more work by other editors

This article is unbalanced and is being driven by editors who possess specific viewpoints (on either side). There is little tolerance of a neutral perspective (on either side) with quoted material from generally reliable sources being quoted as a fact instead of the opinion that they actually contain.

The point that is being ignored is that everything that has been published about this group is based on POV. The Times, The BBC, The Guardian have each attempted to unscramble this group. Now because someone shouts Right Wing it is being characterised as such, even when it is clear that they are nothing more than a poorly organised bunch of thugs with a single issue, born out of an appalling incident in Luton and which is now acting as a touchstone for all sorts of other agendas. The article needs to confine itself to what is KNOWN and in this case, just because The Times describes it as such, doesn’t make it true.

If you want a glaring, although admittedly trivial example of normally reputable sources containing utter garbage, take a look at this. [1]. Almost any “reputable” can be duped.

In this article the epithets “political” and “right wing” are not currently justified by the available evidence about this crowd of thugs. At best they deserve a “reported as being” rather than being documented as fact. The obvious manner in which such as rag tag bunch may be infiltrated and high jacked needs to be reported but don’t confuse that with the original ethos of this mob.

Prof. Matthew Goodwin, a Government advisor on the far right on BBC Newsnight on 12 October, described EDL as a street based, single issue, grass roots social protest movement opposed to violent, militant Islam. It is not currently political but tensions exist within the organisation and a debate is underway about whether it should stay as a street based protest movement or something more organised and political. [2]

This is the only reliable description and needs to be incorporated as a WP:RS.

For these reasons I have restored the tags and would really welcome some impartial editors of experience to look at this entire article. Leaky Caldron 14:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

You have not raised any new issue which has not already been discussed. You should not use tags when you have lost an argument. --Snowded ^TALK 16:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you point out where in the article the opinion of the government adviser detailed above, and sourced in the BBC article, has been incorporated? Can you highlight where it has been discussed on the talk page? Can you amplify your concern about not including it and why new material is excluded and discussion prevented because you arrived at a consensus before the new material was presented? What is the issue with leaving the boxes until other editors can join the discussion as I suggested? Leaky Caldron 16:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Calm down. Firstly we have a set of major UK newspapers who describe it as right wing, and that has been the basis of the discussion and resolution. You have countered tht with the BBC iPlayer reference which I cannot access to validate as I am out of the UK at the moment - and the same will be true of many other editors. New evidence must be capable of validation A groups political nature or status is not related to the ease with which they can be infiltrated, the degree to which they are thugs or their level of rag-tagliness. If your report of Goodwin's view is correct (and I will listen to it at the weekend) and if it is picked up and reported then the content of this article may need to change. However at the moment the weight of evidence is that is it is right-wing. --Snowded ^TALK 16:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I don’t need to calm down as I am neither anxious nor intimidated by you, so please don’t be condescending. I asked you 4 straightforward questions in order to contest your statement that I had not raised any new issues which has not already been discussed and that I should not use tags when I have lost an argument

I have provided valid material that challenges the earlier weak consensus. The tags are legitimate (but I’m not going to belabour the point in a pointless tit-for-tat edit war).

What I really want is for some non-biased, uninvolved editors to provide input. There is always an element of staleness about the same few editors chewing over the same content. I don’t have a strong view on these people (EDL), but if the article has to exist it needs to be factually accurate and not crafted into bias. Leaky Caldron 17:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Right wing has been discussed above, and is reliably sourced. The Newsnight program doesn't invalidate the previous RS, and we can't even raise their failure to use certain words unless an WP:RS does. Claiming this group isn't political goes directly against nearly every source. I see no need for the tags, as discussion hasn't yet been attempted on any new points. They are right wing, hence political. Let's not whitewash this article - it would be untrue and, the important one for wikipedia, it wouldn't be WP:NPOV. The WP:RS contradict your sentiments. Verbal chat 17:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

(to Leaky C) You are making a series of accusations of bias including the latest suggestion that other editors have taken the material "crafted into bias". Hence the suggestion to calm down a it. I really hope you are not anxious or intimidated by the way. However please assume good faith, most of us a trying to take a neutral point of view here, you are not the sole possessor of that quality. --Snowded ^TALK 17:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

But surely if the opinions of a recognised & respected subject matter expert were not considered the article would be liable to be biased by omission? Leaky Caldron 17:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

See above points on validation. At the moment only UK editors (and knowing the BBC only for a short period of time) will be able to access that material. I will listen to it at the weekend, but it would still need to be validated. I note that none of the press have taken it up..--Snowded ^TALK 17:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Well at least you can see the interview here [3]. It starts at 2:00 minutes. It's from the Anti-Racist Pro-Unity UKfightback's Channel. Almost certainly not a reliable source but at least you can see what the guy said and it provides a balance, and is more thorough, than some of the current sources. Leaky Caldron 19:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. (i) the person concerned has "advised" the government, that is not the same thing as a government advisor. I've done the former on several issues, but I am not the latter. There is a difference. (ii) he says at one point that the EDL is "quite different from traditional far right organisations". The insertion of "traditional" means on most normal interpretations that he sees the EDL as a far right organisation. So the reference supports the current position, it does not contradict it. --Snowded ^TALK 19:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The article clearly does need to be kept up to date, and if and when there are new developments or interpretations to report, based on authoritative sources, they should be reported here. Goodwin's description of the EDL as "quite different from traditional far right organisations" doesn't mean it's not far right, just that it's different from other far right groups. Unless or until we have authoritative verifiable refs that explain those nuances in some more detail, the existing article seems to me to summarise the position in a reasonable unbiased way. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Far-right??

How is an organization with the aim of opposing the spread of "Islamism, Sharia law and Islamic terrorism in the United Kingdom" automatically "far-right"? Why is it not described as a "Pressure group" which the (in equal reality, far-left) Unite Against Fascism is? Absolutely nothing in the article support viably the claim that the EDL is any more "far-right" than the UAF is "far-left". This whole article seems to be extremly political biased. -GabaG (talk) 15:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed several times. Wikipedia works from sources, and the reliable ones say that it is far-right. Please read the earlier discussions. --Snowded ^TALK 15:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Correct but we should be able to remove "political" since it is a taut given that "far right" by definition is political. Agreed? Leaky Caldron 16:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Its not really a tautology , why is this important to you? --Snowded ^TALK 16:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Either it is or it isn't. This was pointed out over at the UAF article. I don't think that the same quoted sources being used to describe them as right wing use the description "political" so I don't think it needs to be in for that reason, as well as the tautology. Just looking for accuracy and consistency. Leaky Caldron 16:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It is far right, and it is political. I see no improvement in removing political, and removing "far right" would be WP:DISRUPTIVE due to the preponderance of WP:RS. It is political, and it is far right; both are accurate, neither is a tautology. Verbal chat 16:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

UAF has political support across the political spectrum, from all major political parties so its not an issue of consistency, neither is it tautology. Their objectives are clearly political in any normal sense of the word. Agree with Verbal. --Snowded ^TALK 16:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you explain why it is not tautology? "right wing" and "political" express the same idea in adjacent phrases of the sentence, which I think fairly describes English grammar tautology. Leaky Caldron 16:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The group is "far right" in ideology and has political objectives, and in this case as the EDL is trying to paint itself as neither, despite the evidence, we should not censor these facts (supported by RS, etc). Verbal chat 16:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I remain curious as to motive here as you seem to be shifting positions and opening up a new line against what is a fairly common phrase and with references. Its normal to say a right-wing something, pressure group, political group etc. etc. --Snowded ^TALK 17:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm sorry but that does not answer the question why the expression "right-wing, political" is not tautology in normal, English usage. What EDL is, maybe or may not be trying to paint itself as, is not relevent to whether correct English is being used in the article. Removing it censors nothing, no more than adding it to UAF puts them in a negative light (yet you semi-opposed it there). I'm puzzled. Let's just clarify the taut issue and if necessary remove it from the intro. based on what correct English requires. (Let's leave the politics out of it!  ;) ) Leaky Caldron 17:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no tautology. Leaving the politics out of it would be incorrect. I see no further point in (repeating) this discussion. Verbal chat 17:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec)You might want to check elsewhere, for example "The Labour Party is a centre-left political party in the United Kingdom". Its not a tautology for the reasons stated. The fact that the EDL wish to argue that they are not political and not right wing should not influence the decision here. --Snowded ^TALK 17:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Is there a RS for the use of political? By the way, you are curious about my motives? I'll assume good faith on your part by not believing than you could be impuning mine. Sources and accuracy - that's all I want. Leaky Caldron 17:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm simply curious, I don't understand the energy you are putting into this. For the moment common English usage and precedent elsewhere on WIkipedia support the current version. So if there is no new evidence I think this is over. --Snowded ^TALK 18:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

It's simple. Here or any other article. If it's not sourced it either comes out or has a tag added. It's still a taut, but if there is no source for political then there is no argument because it has to be removed until it's sourced. Then there may be a taut debate. Leaky Caldron 18:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Not every word in Wikipedia has to be cited as you should know. The EDL in their own press statements say things like "It may have been started on the initiative of fearless football fans who are concerned about the political direction that their country is ....". Lets see what other editors say, you don't have the right to make absolute statements about what is or is not permitted. Oh, and I am now getting more curious. On the one hand you argue that political should be removed because it is a tautology (implying that if it is right wing it is political) but at the same time you want it removed if it is not cited. Seems to me that you just want "political" removed. Why? --Snowded ^TALK 18:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I do still agree "political" should be removed. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You are absolutely correct, I don't and would not seek to do so. Neither do you, but you insisted on putting it in based on, so it seems, no source, a rather weak consensus as well as it being grammatically incorrect. I would challenge that sort of approach anywhere. Leaky Caldron 19:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye out for your correcting the grammar on the ledes for both the Labour and Conservative Party articles then.  :-) --Snowded ^TALK 19:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes i do not quite understand why people are insisting it remains. If theres a source that can be found calling it a political group then ive no problem with it staying but so far ive not seen anything calling them a political group, even if they have certain political motives like all groups do.. Like i mentioned before i doubt we would see something like Greenpeace called a political group, yet they do the same sort of thing. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm more worried about people wanting to remove it BW. As far as I can see the EDL wants to avoid the political and right wing labels. --Snowded ^TALK 19:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

All we have to do is call them a right wing group, which is what one of the sources does. I dont get the need for "political", it doesnt stop us saying they are right wing. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Lets see what other editors say. I'm also curious as to our Geordie editors response to my question given that his/her starting position was to have "right wing" removed. --Snowded ^TALK 19:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

What I edit and when is up to me to decide. I’ll wait until the issue is resolved here first, thanks. Leaky Caldron 20:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah a new interpretation of "consistency" I see --Snowded ^TALK 20:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, "Right-wing" and "far-right" are rather different terms, the latter for instance used to describe Nazis, while the first is used more for capitalist organizations. I don't really see the reason to use a term based on the "right/left-axis" for an idealistic group which is not political. And as said earlier, while UAF is even said in the Wikipedia article to have been set up by the Socialist Workers Party, there are no mentions whatsoever of that group having any political allegiance by the left/right-axis. -GabaG (talk) 20:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

See multiple discussions above. --Snowded ^TALK 20:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

It's sad how this, and certain oter articles, have been hijacked by the far-left for cheap political gains. This is an encyclopedia, not a far-left/leftist-liberal propaganda/fear factory. The claim of an "agreement" (last reverted edit, on the false claim that the EDL is an far-right political group) is so misleading I don't underatand how its possible to say something like that. -GabaG (talk) 10:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed." Verifiable references from reliable sources exist for the statement that the EDL is a far right organisation. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct about WP:V. The use of "political" in the lead is simply not supported.

I think if the article is tagged with

, other editors could be attracted here as suggested by Snowded above. I am also waiting for an expert in NPOV to return from vacation who may be able to help. The next stage could be a call to the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. There are clear issues concerning WP:NOR, WP:Weight, WP:Synth & WP:Verifiability relating the insistence that this group is political.

I am trying not to precipitate edit warring – although it would move the discussion forward more quickly. My approach is attempting to be collegiate and will rely on policy.

“Neutral point of view (NPOV) is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors.”

I accept that as the UK’s usual reliable sources describe this group as far-right, that needs to be the accepted description. However, there is no WP:RS evidence that they are as yet “political” and the same standard of evidence needs to be provided for that appearing in the lead as “far right”. Inferring that they are political because they are right wing is unacceptable for at least 4 reasons. (a) it is in the prominent lead and requires specific sourcing so as not to mislead (b) not everyone reading this article instinctively associates "right wing" with political (c) it is verifiably denied (d) it is an English grammar tautology (rhetoric) and is therefore a technically redundant adjective.

There are clearly editors who have taken a “view” in this article which is not fully supported by sources, not agreed by a majority here and not mirrored in their comments on the UAF article discussion where similar discussions have taken place about that organisation’s “politics”.

I will place the tag and see what happens. It may be reverted, in which case the next stage of WP:Dispute resolution will be unavoidable. Leaky Caldron 11:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Personally I'd be content with "far right organisation". It is verifiably far right, and verifiably an organisation (it has a website, it organises). It's obvious from the text that it's a "political group" according to most dictionary definitions, in that it is a group that engages in politics, but frankly I'm not going to waste a lot of effort in arguing over whether those particular words appear in the introduction or not. No-one is suggesting that it is currently a "political party". Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Your suggestion resolves the WP:Undue concerns of prominence in the article's lead as well as the grammar issue. Leaky Caldron 12:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I would support far right group or far right organisation. That resolves the problem around calling them a political group, which whilst we all accept they have political motives, there doesnt appear to be sources describing them as a political group. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

If we have an agreement from Leaky C that s/he will stop attempting to remove "right wing" then organisation is OK. It is clearly political and that form of words will not detract from the obvious implication that it is. However as the price of peace OK —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowded (talk • contribs) 14:04, 20 October 2009

As you can see above, I accepted the verified "right wing" epithet some time ago. Leaky Caldron 14:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It is right wing and political. Attempts to remove these accurate descriptors are themselves political or to do with a misunderstanding of what the term political means. The tautology argument is rubbish. Verbal chat 07:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The group's only reported and claimed purpose is to stop what it sees as Islamic extremism through street demonstrations. This is seen by some as not being far-right. Some of the group's members are more than likely bigots but the subject of this article is not certain individuals. The term has roots in the political spectrum and per Far right: it "is often used to imply that someone is an extremist". The group claims to not be political and there does not appear to be any sources that confirm politics or extremism. The group officially denies being racist or affiliated with politics. With it being denied by the group, a certain amount of caution is appropriate. In this case, the principles of WP:EXTREMIST seems to apply since the term could easily be viewed as a pejorative label. The line should be "The group has been labeled far right by the press" or "They have been called far-right", or something similar. It could also be followed with a line of claimed denial (without giving undue weight to their side, of course). This will present the information in a manner that is unquestionably neutral and factual which is our goal. It can even stay in the lead.Cptnono (talk) 08:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

This has all been discussed. Political is not a pejorative, it fits the dictionary definition, they are politically motivate and have political aims, references support that they have a political agenda and political ideologies, politicians have commented extensively, they're covered in politics sections, they engage in political protests, chant political slogans, make political statements (eg,burn flags).... The fact one of their policies is denying their nature should be included, and it is, but the term political is so core to this group that it should not be removed. I also object to the "labelling" argument - we have more than plenty RS to justify the direct application of "far right". Verbal chat 10:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

"Far right" is not disputed. The consensus to remove political is clear. I have returned to that consensus and have raised the issue of your disruptive editing at ANI here [4] Leaky Caldron 12:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think extremist is pejorative but some people do. Since far right is often used to imply people are extremists that needs to be handled with care. They can do as much stuff that are political in nature but if their only right wing inclination is not liking some Muslims it can be argued just as adamantly that they are not a political group. Journalists have called them far right so we use those sources and not opinion. We also have a wikilink, prose, and sources so the reader can understand that far right is a political label applied to them. Alternatively, my proposal could be expanded by to include "political group" if it is that important to you and the sources say it. Since it needs to be included that they say they are not it would only make sense to give greater detail on who considers them far right. This is an obvious improvement. Furthermore, providing this explanation will prevent future disruptive editing since it will be an indisputable fact.Cptnono (talk) 11:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Well I am disputing its use now, Leaky. If it wasn't disputed then it wouldn't keep coming up. Avoiding words that label is a guideline which means it is important. I am not advocating the removal of the term. I am advocating providing the reader the information of who said it. Adding something like "They have been called far right by the media" is a few extra words that will make a huge difference. It could even be expanded to "The group has come under criticism for its ideologies which have been called far right..." there are 100 ways to word it in a fashion that comes across in a more neutral fashion.Cptnono (talk) 12:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up: I didn't realize but someone already thought of this and made sure to fix the mention in the prose. The lead is certainly important enough to receive the same treatment.Cptnono (talk) 12:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The dispute relates only to the use of the additional adjective "political" which is not sourced and in any event is grammatically incorrect. Anything else you want to include such as "extremist" needs to be verifiable, obviously but I have no issue with that so long as the lead is per WP:Lead. As changes were reverted last week because they were against the consensus prevailing at the time, then equally changes against the new consensus need to be discussed otherwise they are disruptive - hence the complaint to AN/I. Leaky Caldron 12:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Far right

Far right is a term that labels and is disputed by the organization along with several editors coming in and out over the last couple of weeks. Per Wikipedia:Words to avoid: "Some words may be used to label a group from an outside perspective, even though these words are used in accordance with a dictionary definition...Such terms, even when accurate, often convey to readers an implied viewpoint: that of an outsider looking in and labeling as they see it. The fact that a term is accepted "outside" but not "inside" is a good indicator that it may not be neutral...There are at least three ways to deal with this: attribute the term to reliable sources..." I propose using the wording that is already in the prose in the lead: "The British press has described the group as far-right.[1][17][18][19][20]"Cptnono (talk) 12:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

"far right" has been accepted as consensus due to the available sources* and is not in dispute by me with either User: Snowded or Verbal. I originally disagreed based on what I had seen of EDL on Newsnight etc. Basically they just look like a football holigan-based mob. However, the source is quoted and reliable.

Do you disagree with it in the lead? If not what point is it you are making about far right? Is it the lead or the article body? Leaky Caldron 12:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

As I said in the above discussion (which I have been accused of not taking part in) I would object to this formulation as giving undue weight to the minority view of an inherently unreliable political group. The group should remain properly described as far right. Verbal chat 13:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Concur entirely with Verbal. Simonm223 (talk) 17:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe your consensus was wrong and disregards neutrality guidelines. I don't understand how I can make it clearer. It is fine in the lead but needs to be worded as it is in the prose. How would it give it undue weight?Cptnono (talk) 19:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The only group not claiming these guys to be far right are these guys themselves. Not calling them far right would be violating WP:DUE with regard to that primary source. Simonm223 (talk) 21:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

We can still say far right. We just need to say who says it. This isn't that hard. It is already done in the prose in the correct way. I'm not even attempting to have the navigation box removed or anything of that nature. I am simply attempting to present it per the guidelines defining how we stay neutral. Cptnono (talk) 22:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I read the disussion with some amusement. Politicol as a description of the edl is correct. 77.102.240.29 (talk) 08:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Groups that are far right don't campaign for civil liberties --LiberalJames (talk) 16:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

An interesting statement, now do you have any answer to the citation evidence for this group being far-right? Opinions do not count, and the argument you advance above, even if it was true of the EDL, but not count as it is either OR, synthesis or both. --Snowded ^TALK 16:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

*The availability of sources argument is ridiculous. If 1000 references mention EDL with no policial position attached, and 50 mention EDL and brand them right-wing, that doesn't mean that the majority of reliable sources have a consenus on a political position. Even if they did, that would be an opinion and opinions don't have a place in encyclopaedias.

Regardless, right-wing is a political position, and there's already a consensus that the EDL are not political. There's no such thing as right-wing outside of politics.

Given that both of the above are true, I fail to see why "right-wing" should remain on the front page, in the first paragraph when it is fundamentally wrong. While in dispute, the words should be removed. I could say that the leader wears a pink wig, and insist that the words remain until it is proved otherwise, but no credible forum would operate in that way.

On a side note, consensus isn't alays right. Years ago there was consensus that the article on Big Ben be renamed to Big Ben, but it didn't happen because this is an encyclopaedia.

Anyway I've diverging away from my main points which are presented in my first two paragraphs. Right-wing is not a suitable term, and it should only be added if proved otherwise, which can't happen as they don't have a political position. TokenPassport (talk) 12:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus that this group is not political, and there is consensus and 100s of RS that far right is correct. They have a political position, and universal reaction has been that it is right wing. Verbal chat 12:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)They espouse a particular belief which the reliable media have reported and interpreted as “far right”. There has been widespread debate on this. There is currently an NPOV request here [5] at which your contribution might be better placed. The verifiable facts are that they are reported as far right. Remember verifiability not truth is what determines a NPOV. They pass the WP:Duck test. The rest of the article provides examples of their denial about far right motives to provide balance. Leaky Caldron 12:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

(also edit conflicted) Actually, the availablity of sources argument is the key one. And descriptions, as agreed in sources, are fine for inclusion here. WP is about verifiability from reliable sources, not "truth" as directly interpreted by individual editors from their own arguments, or from what they see on video clips. Your assertion that the group are "not political" - quite apart from any confusion about what that means exactly anyway - and that therefore it is "fundamentally wrong" to say they are right-wing, is precisely that: your assertion. As I and others have noted, pretty much every single reporter who has interviewed the group or witnessed their protests, and pretty much every mainstream politician, has come to the conclusion that they are a far right group, even if they don't say "the far right group" every single time they mention them. Maybe the EDL are the victims of liberal media conspiracy, who knows, but that's where we are at the moment. --Nickhh (talk) 12:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

POV intro

I don't see any justification here that the introduction is POV. Please either justify this or the tag will be removed. To me it appears to be a WP:POINT violation. Verbal chat 13:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The tag is justified because you do not agree with the consensus and keep changing the lead back to your point of view. The lead is therefore disputed. The tag is intended to alert other editors - which we have agreed is a good thing. Leaky Caldron 13:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I've answered your criticisms with sources, and I disagree with your interpretation of consensus here. Do you actually have a valid argument (ie, not your claimed tautology) or any RS that this group is not political? I have provided RS that the group is political and engages in political activities, and nearly every reference in the article shows this without violating OR (the 1+1=2 clause). Please justify the tagging here, discuss political below. Verbal chat 15:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

An IP editor recently removed the tag, and this was reverted by Leaky cauldron as vandalism. I don't believe it was vandalism, and nor do I think it should have been reverted - especially as that makes 4 reverts by Leaky cauldron today, I think. Before anyone asks, the IP editor wasn't me. Verbal chat 20:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

All of that IPs edits within the same few minutes were reverted as vandalism by subject matter expert patrollers. It never occurred to me that it was you - stop being paranoid and please assume good faith in my anti-vandalism activties. It was clearly a mishief edit. Leaky Caldron 20:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I never said you did, so that's fine. However, this edit doesn't appear to have been vandalism per WP:VAND, and it doesn't except you from WP:3RR. A self-revert would show good faith, as you're at 4 revert, taking you back to three. You could then try to justify the tag here and maybe someone else would restore it. I dispute it being a mischief edit, and see no reason to think that.Verbal chat 20:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Report me then Leaky Caldron 20:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I will only report you if you continue, that is why I've issued the warning. Self revert would show good faith and a realisation that you broke 3RR, but it's up to you. Verbal chat 20:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I reverted under the terms of How_to_respond_to_vandalism. I used undo rather rather than rollback in order to ensure that you would see I hadn't just pressed the rollback and in doing so hoped you would show good faith in my removal of a clearly mischief attack. I will not self revert it. Leaky Caldron 20:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Yet that doesn't apply as you were at 3 reverts already, and I don't see why it is vandalism. Verbal chat 20:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It was an IP vandalism only account with warnings. Tag vandalism is covered by WP:VAND. I was not aware this added to my revert count but, perhaps naively, thought that no one would object to maintaining the article in it's current form. To Verbal - I apologise that my revert provoked you. That was genuinely an unintended consequence. Leaky Caldron 21:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm comfortable with exempting the revert from 3RR, and would contest any block for 3RR on that basis. See here for that IP's previous contribution. Given the lack of other participation in this dispute, I am hard pressed to conclude that the IP's edit was intended constructively. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The tag has yet to be justified or supported by anyone else. Which part of WP:VAND does it fall under? Verbal chat 20:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Page blanking - apparently random removal of content without any obvious or expressed basis, in this case consistent with other unconstructive edits by the IP. Of course a good faith explanation is possible (as in virtually all cases of blanking/removal) but assuming the edit was intended to improve the encyclopedia seems unreasonable. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't meet the definition of vandalism, definitely not clearly enough to warrant breaking 3RR. Verbal chat 20:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

"Political" and the use of "far right" are disputed. Far right has deep neutrality concerns as I have expressed in another section. Furthermore, the article is written in a point counter point format which could be viewed by the reader as being anti-one side or the other. Force balance is not neutrality it is just presenting bias from both sides.

Many of these things are small and more than likely unintentional. For example, "This claim was contested by Bill Baker". Claim can be misused to cast doubt on an assertion. This would be that the British Press's stance on them being right wing is in doubt. It deserves at least equal validity. Please read WP:CLAIM.

Another is the counters to them being BNP. Is Searchlight deserving of that much weight? I'm not saying it is or isn't but it jumps out as being included for the purpose of diminishing the other sides assertion.

I also notice that there is much more information that is being left out because it isn't headline grabbing. Editors need to look at themselves and consider if their bias is effecting the way they edit this article. I agree with the POV tag and if anything it needs to be extended to incorporate the entire article.Cptnono (talk) 20:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The use of far right has been settled, please stop trying to reopen that discussion. Verbal chat 20:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't work that way. Cptnono (talk) 20:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Start a new section on it if you want to reassess consensus. Verbal chat 20:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Far Right has been used by all the press including the BBC and the only ones contesting it are the EDL themselves. In terms of third party citation they are right wing. Reputable sources and all that. Searchlight is a leading journal in this area and while its political position is clear it is generally treated with respect. --Snowded ^TALK 21:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I never said to not use the term far right. I have already started a section for it. It is one of several reasons why there is a concern. If you understood my concern you wouldn't have argued that Searchlight is OK but addressed the over problem of forced counter points. No rebuttal to the "claim" concern?Cptnono (talk) 21:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I removed two things. Searchlight is out per the lack of a source, undue weight, use of "however" in an inappropriate way (words to avoid), forced balance, nor verified by less bias sources (or others). Also removed "claim". Far right doesn't deserve the wording per words to avoid. If people would focus on fixing neutrality issues on both sides they would appear less entrencehed. Also, "not a bigot" is a spotentially POV pushing as someone who is a racist.Cptnono (talk) 11:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

That was a knee jerk revert. If you cannot cite sources (Searchlight requires an inline citation for verification) or follow Wikipedia guidelines (WP:CLAIM) you need to reasses you participation. Please read the standards required for material on Wikipedia. Calling it a POV edit was also not inline with assuming bad faith. I don't know if you noticed but the edits purposely removed content negative to both sides. Cptnono (talk) 11:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up: I did just notice the small mention of searchlight. It still poses counter and weight concerns. I have also made a mention on Snowded's page that I will be seeking adminsitrative actions if improper editing continues. It appears that content is being railroaded in and guidelines are being disregarded. It also appears that there are POV concerns. I know I sound like a jerk but the talk page shows that this has been continuing for too long.Cptnono (talk) 12:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Intro looks fine to me. I dont grasp the substance of the objection. 77.102.240.29 (talk) 08:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, 77.102.240.29. The version you looked at has changed countless times over the past few weeks, but if you're looking at this morning's version, that is mine (hopefully taking discussions here into account, but also improved for style). Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Political

Additional source:

The Birmingham incident was followed by more violence in Harrow, north London, when a group of EDL and other anti-Islamic activists attempted to demonstrate outside a mosque, provoking a mass counter-demonstration by Muslims. Ten people were arrested. As a result, a planned EDL rally in Luton on September 19 was banned under an order which prohibits any political marches in the town for three months.

Telegraph Their "political" march was banned. Many more such references describing the activities of this group as political can be provided. Verbal chat 13:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

To be fair on this, I think there needs to be a source which calls them political to make a water tight case. I agree with you that (i) they are obviously political in any common sense meaning of the word and (ii) the tautology argument is either a nonsense or a contradiction. However calling them a far right organisation is "as good as" in the absence of direct citations. I spent a bit of time looking through the references and couldn't find them described DIRECTLY as political, there is therefore a danger of an OR tag if political is used and the important point (that they are extreme right) being lost. I suggest (as above) that organisation is OK until a direct citation is found at which time political can be reinstated, --Snowded ^TALK 16:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

We don't need a source that says "the political group EDL", if that was the case then almost all content of this and other articles would have to be removed. There is more than enough evidence from RS etc to describe the group as political. The tautology argument is a nonsense. The fact they are a political group is relevant as they deny it, and plenty of sources describe their activities and ideology as political, and they themselves have political goals. To remove the word and demand a literal quote is wikilawyering of the worst kind. Verbal chat 16:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Some fights are worth fighting, some are not I tried to find a few direct sources and failed. I agree its clear they are political, I agree that we have some wikilawyering here, but with the level of contention, people running to ANI without good cause etc. It becomes more important that normal to be fairly strict and create defensible positions. Hence Ghmyrtle's suggestion and my provisional agreement. I do suggest that LeakyC removes the ANI request as its based on factual errors and is unduly provocative. --Snowded ^TALK 16:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

That the group seems to be of a political nature seems self-evident. I question why calling this group "political" requires a ref at all. That being said there are references. How is that not enough? Simonm223 (talk) 16:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Can you provide a reference, it might help? Leaky Caldron 16:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't think we should pander to an incorrect interpretation of policy to appease a vocal minority - look at the trouble that's getting the BBC into. Compromise is possible, but not at a cost to the accuracy of the project. Verbal chat 16:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Snowded - the thing about AnI attention is that it is a two-edged sword. I tend to agree with you and Verbal on this and would have never even thought to look twice at this article if it hadn't been brought to AnI. If you are correct (and you appear to be) preserving the NPoV of an article is important enough to put up with a bit of nuisance at AnI. The admins are, for the most part, very reasonable and are unlikely to be impressed by frivolous complaints regardless.Simonm223 (talk) 16:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree on ANI response, If I was coming at it as an uninvolved editor I would be tempted to admonish LeakyC for even bringing it. I do think the ANI case is an example of a strong POV approach seeking to use any means to gain a position. It happens on a lot of controversial pages. Best think is to stand back, keep strictly to the rules and stay calm! More editors getting involved here will help a lot, its taken a lot of defending to keep an NPOV position in place.--Snowded ^TALK 16:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

{undent} The Reuters ref from within the article seems compelling: [6]. As does the Telegraph ref at the top of this section that Verbal provided.Simonm223 (talk) 16:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not arguing for removal of political per se, but I am arguing that we need clean hands in respect of citation support if phrases like right wing are to be sustained. Get an overwealming consensus of editors or ideally a couple of direct citations and the case for political is clear. I must admit the ANI report is making me regret trying to find a compromise. --Snowded ^TALK 16:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me make my position clear. IF a responsible, acceptable source shows this lot to be "political" I will make the edit personally, just as you removed it yesterday because of lack of verifiability. I have no personal agenda. I dispise these thugs and if you want to know my politics look at my user page. Verifiability is my only concern. The taut issue is another debate, but if the source is provided I'll not be too bothered. I could say more about POV by looking at the UAF article but let's just resolve this by policy and not add fuel to the fire.

The reference to ANI was entirely due to Verbals attitude throughout these debates and making changes this morning against yesterday's consensus. It is fully supported by Dealing with disruptive editors.

Leaky Caldron 17:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Taking people to ANI always makes things worse not better unless they are clearly in the wrong with Verbal wasn't. I suggest you withdraw it --Snowded ^TALK 18:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

There many be an issue of syntax. Are we saying they are a political group on the far right or a group with right-wing politics? The concept of political groups is unclear, while the concept of far right politics is not. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Like that, good point - any suggested wording? (unsigned was added at the same time as the above edit by) --Snowded ^TALK 18:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Latest sources for political

My take on the 2 articles provided as "political" evidence:

Reuters: “The far right has made political progress this year, with the British National Party winning two seats in the European parliament.” Doesn’t mention EDL in a political context.

Telegraph: “...march banned under an order which prohibits any political marches in the town for three months.” That law does indeed allow for political gatherings to be banned. It also bans all sorts of other gatherings of any description in order to maintain public order. The Public Order Act 1986 and the public order provisions of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. This article is not adequate verifiability that EDL was banned for political reasons - much more it proves that they are simply a bunch of thugs and public order justification was used. Leaky Caldron 18:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Reuters: yes it does. Telegraph: No, they clearly state the reason as being "political". I've highlighted it. Verbal chat 19:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

You mean the bold bits above? EDL Rally. A rally isn't political per se. It can be. We also have car rallies, steam rallies and all sorts of other rallies that are not political. The march being banned was under a generic law that covers any sort of gathering with a risk to law and order. Obviously covers political rallies - but all sorts of other meetings are banned at the same time. Even Boy Scout gatherings in that area. The law is about law and order, not exclusively political meetings. I think Snowded might be able to confirm this. Do you mind if I ask if you are from the UK? It will help me to appreciate better your mind set. Feel free to tell me to **** off! Leaky Caldron 19:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The article specifically mentions the political nature, and the march being banned for being political. I'm honestly at a loss as to why anyone without a CoI would object to what is a clear, accurate, supported and non derogatory label being applied to this group. If you can tell me what you mean by asking, then I'll probably answer. Verbal chat 20:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The current two sources for political are totally unacceptable. One only says about the far right making political progress, that wasnt the EDL that was the BNP. The other one is the Islamic Republic of Irans state brainwashing service, is that really the best source available? BritishWatcher (talk) 19:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Oh and the Telegraph source about "political" marches being banned for 3 months is hardly calling the EDL a political group, we all accept that they have political motives like most other groups out there. We want a source saying EDL are a "political group". I have still yet to see one. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

We don't need a source that explicitly and literally says "EDL are a political group". We have more than enough to support this designation. The only reson for leaving it out is that it is obvious, but as EDL deny it then that no longer is a good enough reason. Verbal chat 20:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Just because they engage in demonstrations which are political in nature does not mean they are a political group. No source says flat out that they are a political group and the ones used use the term in the article were cherry picked to prove a point. Being a bigot who joins a demonstration does not make a person a right wing politico. You also are continuing to show that you are having concerns with personal bias in your comments. please take a second to make sure you can edit neutrally.Cptnono (talk) 20:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not even understand the benefit to having the word "political" there even if it was for bias reasons. Infact i would say that to describe them as a political group is making them sound more organised and acceptable than the bunch of thugs many of us view them to be. It does need a source to say they area a political group, if one can not be found soon then it should be removed. The two sources dug up to justify it and put in the article do not give me much confidence in the term staying BritishWatcher (talk) 20:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The use of the term political is still a concern regardless of the two new sources. Far right implies political so it is redundant. Mentions of political activities still do not make a political group. There is no reason to fight this hard for it. Enough people have expressed concerns and a quick search through this talk page shows your significant contributions being assuring that "far right political" is used as a label. Please make sure you are not just trying to WP:WIN and if you truly do think this info is needed try to do it in a way that meets Wikipeida guidelines and will not cause further disruption to the article. Cptnono (talk) 12:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I was working towards the removal of this prior to the above, which simply reinforces everything said to date about the sources provided. It is the wrong word, in the wrong place at the wrong time until a verifiable, reliable source is provided. Those provided so far are not adequate. The inference via right wing is sufficient at this stage. Leave the NPOV tag because there are still disputed features. Leaky Caldron 12:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion re internal links

Perhaps we could change the internal links:

From: The English Defence League (also known as the EDL) is a British far-right political group....

To: The English Defence League (also known as the EDL) is a far right political group....

I wonder if it is correct to call them "British". The Four Deuces (talk) 20:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think they would be considered far right by other standards. The only right wing aspect of the group is that they might be considered racist which isn't enough in some countries. It also looks like the sources asserting that they are right wing are British so I would assume they are looking at it from that perspective.Cptnono (talk) 21:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

They are extremely nativist, xenophobic and anti-liberal, which is basically what defines the far right. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen anything that says they are anti-liberal. If anything the liberals are mad at them so they are whinging back. Getting attacked by the left does not make them right. It could also be argued that they are not nativist but simply consider one aspect (radical Islam) of immigration a concern. That is why we go off sources, though. Also, I am not proposing removal of far right whether it is wikilinked to the British article or not. I really don't care what they are just that the complete context is available. This article isn't here to present whatever information editors feel needs to be presented. There are sources and Wikipedia's guidelines need to be adhered to so that this information can be provided to the reader in fact based neutral text. Cptnono (talk) 21:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not talking about American liberalism, but using the term in its broad meaning. EDL state on their website: "Englishness is marginalised in England.... it’s about time that people stood up for English culture". That sounds alarming to people from the other nations of the UK. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it sounds alarming. Them being a right wing political group is disputed. Furthermore, there is a wikilink to British far right which is a good sub categorization to explain English sources discussing an English organization. Narrowing the definition provides the reader with more detialed informaiton and navigation throughout the topic.Cptnono (talk) 22:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Where is it being disputed? The Four Deuces (talk) 22:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The group claims to not be political at all, fascist, racist, and so on. This was discussed in sources with their flag burning included yesterday. It is also on their website. Per primary and self-published guidelines and policies (RS, V, ect) we could use their site as a primary source to some extent but I would prefer not to since it opens up other concerns.Cptnono (talk) 23:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)with regards the tag, this will likely be removed tomorrow. How important is it, surely this discussion with new editors justifies it remaining? Leaky Caldron 21:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Third party referneces from reliable sources has more credibility that the web sites of the group itself - that is standard policy--Snowded ^TALK 11:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Did you actually read my comments or did you just assume? We can but I prefer not to. That is why we have BBC and the Telegraph who report the assertion. Swamping it with rebuttals is inappropriate. This is magnified when the those disputing them (UAF, Searchlight, ect) are just as biased.Cptnono (talk) 12:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You really need to stop assuming that because people disagree with you, they have not read your comments. Groups such as EDL frequently make claims (which are reported by the press as claims) about what they are and are not - its the nature of such pressure groups. For that reason WIkipedia relies on third party reports. Their site cannot be a primary sources (and I'm pleased you want to avoid that). As it is they cited in reliable sources as right wing. The political debate continues elsewhere. Your removal of the Searchlight comment which is expert witness on past practice of groups such as the BNP introduced a bias, taking a claim at face value without understanding the context. --Snowded ^TALK 12:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

External links

Per WP:ELNO the following have been removed. Please sue inline citations for such information. For easy access, they are below:

• "Police warning over city protests". BBC News Online. 10 October 2009. Retrieved 10 October 2009.
• "Council appeals to Alan Johnson to ban right-wing protest". The Daily Telegraph. London. 16 September 2009. Retrieved 10 October 2009.
• David Ottewell (16 September 2009). "Plea to stop right wing march". Manchester Evening News. Retrieved 10 October 2009.
• "City seeks ban on right-wing rally". Local Government Chronicle. London. 16 September 2009. Retrieved 10 October 2009.
• "Councillors split over calls to ban right wing rally in Birmingham". Birmingham Post. 28 August 2009. Retrieved 10 October 2009.
• "Protests at pro-Palestinian rally". London: Google news. Press Association. 13 September 2009. Retrieved 10 October 2009.

Cptnono (talk) 22:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

"Group" or "organisation"?

Without wishing to open up a new front of debate here, I thought a few days ago most editors were content with "far right organisation". It still says "far right ... group". To my mind, it is an "organisation" in the sense that is organised - it has a website - and it organises - demonstrations, regional groups, and so on. The word "group" implies something broader, not necessarily managed or coordinated. I know it's not a very organised group - I doubt if it has committees or conferences - but its activities still suggest to me that the word "organisation" is a more precise neutral description. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You are quite right. In my previous edits removing political I have inserted organisation. On this occasion I just clipped the text out. I have no issues with org. being used. It is sourced I'm sure. Leaky Caldron 12:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Org is OK with me pending anyone finding a direct reference to political --Snowded ^TALK 12:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

reference to Welsh DL in EDL history

"About a week later on the 18th, it was reported that Nazi salutes were shown during the first demonstration by the Welsh Defence league.[26]"

What has this got to do with the EDL History section?

Leaky Caldron 13:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Not much, but there are redirects to this page for both Welsh and Scottish Defence Leagues. If either of them ever get more established they may need separate articles. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi GH. just doing a bit of restructuring. feel free to comment / modify. Leaky Caldron 14:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

EDL claims to be connected with the WDL. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

That's fine 4D. It's better now that it isn't under "History" I think. Leaky Caldron 14:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

"Portrayal by media" section

I changed the title of this section to actually reflect the content. "Portrayal by media" was not neutral and did not reflect the content - it was in fact highly misleading. Other possible names could be "Politics" or "Political ideology". Verbal chat 15:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you explain how the heading “Far right” helps to clarify this section which only contains references to how the EDL have been portrayed in the media and by politicians? Isn’t "portrayal in the media (plus your edit summary suggestions)" more accurate, per Article titles, headings, and sections? Leaky Caldron 15:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, see what I wrote above. If you read the section it doesn't just involve the opinions of the media, but of politicians and political parties and groups also. Verbal chat 15:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't. It is not hard to see that it is merely the strong POV from one certain editor who constantly change this article in an extremly biased way that would not be tolerated on any other article. But since it's the evil and horrible EDL it is seen as "ok". -GabaG (talk) 15:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that calling it "portrayal by media" showed a strong WP:POV that was heavily biased. Verbal chat 15:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

reflecting the wider context, I have changed it to Media and political reaction. Leaky Caldron 20:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Re-adding political and removing the Pov-intro Tag

There is broad agreement on this page with the Tag. You have still not provided a verifiable ref. for political, although you may be getting closer (see below). Why are you so reluctant to discuss these changes and tollerate the views of other editor before reverting changes which have been calmly discussed and agreed? Leaky Caldron 15:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I misread the Reuters "source". It says nothing we have not already discussed above, last night. Being banned from assembly is a law and order statute and bans any gathering the police believe could lead to public order offenses. It covers thugs, boy scouts and political gatherings equally. Leaky Caldron 17:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

No, there isn't broad agreement for the tag, and political is sourced and does not have consensus to remove. Verbal chat 15:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Unless you disagree and can provide valid reasons, I intend to put this over to the NPOV Noticeboard for guidance later this evening. Leaky Caldron 16:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Please feel free, it is well sourced and there is no consensus to remove it. If you have any specific policy reasons why it should be removed though, please present them here first. Verbal chat 16:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You'll be the first to know  ;). It may be tomorrow though. Leaky Caldron 17:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Far right aside

I have laid out my reasoning for the tag above. The words to avoid guideline is broken with the war far right is presented. Political is also disputed. Less contentious (and what makes me increasingly concerned about the neutrality of this page and conduct by editors) is that words to avoid is broken in another two instances on things that should not be contentious. "claim" is inappropriate next tot he British press line and "However" is inappropriate in the Searchlight magazine line. There is also problem with the general tone of the article and weight given to counters to the group with their side completely disregarded under the guise that it is a minority view. We can show that it is a minority view but we cannot cherry pick sources and attempt to ignore others. As I said, asserting "not being a bigot" is as big of a concern as someone who says they are. The POV template is appropriate. Edit warring over a clean up tag is ridiculous. Per the disclaimer I made on talk pages (it was brought to my attention that it was patronizing so my apologies) I will be seeking administrative action if we can figure out this simple stuff.Cptnono (talk) 19:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

No one else is debating far right. Please stop your disruptive editing. See WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT Verbal chat 20:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not debating it either. I am saying we need to replicate the guideline following wording that is already in the prose in the lead. Pay attention.Cptnono (talk) 20:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Here the EDL is described simply as "rightwing". Here a "mixed-race teenager" is said to be "head of the "youth wing"" and "BBC filmed black and white men alongside each other on EDL's lines". Yet here it is said "at EDL events, skinheads have raised Nazi salutes and other EDL supporters have chanted racist slogans". I think these an other things show clearly that very much is unkown and diffuse about the organisation EDL which I think should be reflected more correctly in the article, instead of simple firm labeling of the group. Also I think these things clearly show that such an, in many ways, "unorganised organisation" which the EDL apparently is, can truly not be considered "political" in any reliable way. -GabaG (talk) 17:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Front organisation?

It has been suggested that EDL is a front organisation to slander the British National Party by comparing all far-right people to Neo-Nazis. Any reliable sources?--Nonnychic (talk) 18:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

No, there are no reliable sources claiming this. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

changes October 22 evening

For the avoidance, of doubt all of my changes between these 2 difs [7] are cosmetic. I have removed incorrect links, added wikilinks, moved some material into more appropriate sections and reduced some of the unnecessary phrases.

No sentences, paragraphs or sections have been removed. All original material remains. Leaky Caldron 22:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Consensus regarding "political" in the lead sentence

The policy interpretation of what is happening in this dispute is clearly set out here: Consensus_can_change.

To quote: "Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding, and one must realize that such changes are often reasonable. Thus, "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for making or reverting an edit, or for accepting or rejecting other forms of proposal or action".

Editor Verbal has removed changes made by several editors over the last few days using "consensus" as the edit summary reason. Some of them are listed here. There has been a refusal to accept several other editor's rational concerns regarding, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV.

[8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15].

The consensus has clearly changed. It was always tenuous and from what I can see at least 6 editors have agreed that the lead sentence is currently unacceptable until a direct citation relating to political is provided. The best that can be said of the continually restored material is that it is a mistaken WP:SYNTH.

I am returning the edit to the last version by Spylab. The removal of this without accepted community discussion can only be regarded as disruptive and administrator assistance will be required to resolve it. The policy that ""according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for making or reverting an edit...." must be upheld in the interest of the project. Leaky Caldron 09:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

For the record, in the last 10 days, the following editors have recorded specific talk page concerns about the inclusion of “political” in the lead or have agreed to it being excluded until better sourced. Leaky Caldron, Cptnono, Snowded, BritishWatcher, Ghmyrtle, Gabagool. Spylab has made it clear through his latest edit summary.

Verbal, Simonm223 disagree.

There may be others on either side. What is clear that a majority of editors now agree that political cannot be included until properly sourced. I appreciate consensus is not a vote but 7/2 with reasoned arguments on policy and content grounds is highly persuasive. The previous consensus is ill-defined in the talk page but appears to have been a few weeks ago and was blurred by the debates about the group being described as "extremist", "far right" or "right wing". Those debates should not (IMO) be connected with User:Verbal's diagreement about dropping "political" from the lead sentence. Leaky Caldron 10:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a correct summary, not all of those listed as support have actually supported the position that political should be removed, and neither have arguments been presented against this well sourced and clearly correct inclusion. We don't censor information to suit a minority of POV editors. Verbal chat 10:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ::I have been quite fastidious in identifying the editors I have listed. If you can show me where I have made an error I will obviously strike it but I'm confident that I have interpreted matters correctly. Feel free to contact them if you feel I have misinterpreted their views, but it is all here in black and white. Leaky Caldron 10:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

My view on this "dispute" is expressed here. Regards, Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

From this it is clear that Ghmyrtle neither supports or opposes the use of political (please correct me if I'm wrong), and also Snowed leans towards support - but is broadly neutral. You have listed both as support your position, when they do not. BW has stated he would rather a direct source, but I don't recall seeing him directly calling for it being removed - though I may be wrong there. Cptnono wants much removed from this article directly in contravention of policy (his repeatedly bringing up "right wing" for example). Gabagool has a clear POV agenda. That is an overview of your "support". I've also yet to see a clear reason, with any specificity, as to why this obvious fact which is supported by references breaks any policy. Verbal chat 14:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I really can't fathom why your primary effort on this talk page is to apply two labels (even though political is redundant) to the group. You Consistently wikilink to guidelines and policies while disregarding others. Can you explain the reasoning? There also is not consensus which you continuously assert. If anything you are forcing a false consensus by being overbearing and ignoring arguments. Why would you not seek a solution that could be accepted by the greater community? As it is, you are begging to have edit wars over this one sentence. This isn't that hard to fix but you seem to be going out of your way to make a point and not improve the article.Cptnono (talk) 14:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

So you agree both labels are appropriate and verifiable? Great. Censoring facts from the article for spurious claims of consensus and policy seems to be the opposite of improvement to me. Verbal chat 15:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

sigh. There were clearly a couple of contributions I disregarded because they were from users who had not contributed or because of abuse, for example:

“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)”

However, Snowded’s last comment was quite clearly based on WP:V policy where he said this: “To be fair on this, I think there needs to be a source which calls them political to make a water tight case. I agree with you that (i) they are obviously political in any common sense meaning of the word and (ii) the tautology argument is either a nonsense or a contradiction. However calling them a far right organisation is "as good as" in the absence of direct citations. I spent a bit of time looking through the references and couldn't find them described DIRECTLY as political, there is therefore a danger of an OR tag if political is used and the important point (that they are extreme right) being lost. I suggest (as above) that organisation is OK until a direct citation is found at which time political can be reinstated, --Snowded TALK 16:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)”

Ghmyrtle said this: “Personally I'd be content with "far right organisation". It is verifiably far right, and verifiably an organisation (it has a website, it organises). It's obvious from the text that it's a "political group" according to most dictionary definitions, in that it is a group that engages in politics, but frankly I'm not going to waste a lot of effort in arguing over whether those particular words appear in the introduction or not. No-one is suggesting that it is currently a "political party". Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)“ I’ve “counted” them because Ghmyrtle suggested a compromise and Snowded accepted it. I know they have stated what they “really think” but the fact is they now see the need to wait for a proper source. I do not think I took liberties and would not discount Gaba's reasoning for the reason you suggest. Leaky Caldron 15:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

So, you continue to support your mischaracterisation of others opinions, despite them actually disagreeing with you (as Snowed and Ghmyrtle have done), and also choose to repeat an abusive straw men argument instead of presenting any actual policy arguments. Neither quote from Snowed or Ghmyrtle supports your position. This is disappointing, and I request you strike the abuse and apologise. Verbal chat 15:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

They suggested and supported a policy-based compromise solution acceptable to 5 others. The policy is WP:V etc. and their own personal opinion on EDL being political is of no importance compared to the WP truth/verifiability policy as you will know. I too have made my personal views known on this talk page (that is to use a verifiable source). In the meantime I am sticking to policy. Leaky Caldron 15:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, the majority therefore also support it remaining in. We therefore have a contradiction. Your consensus doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Please be specific on which criteria of which policies you feel are specifically being broken. It can't be WP:V, as you feel that it is "a tautology" and we have RS that support it.Verbal chat 15:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I also note that the abusive comment has nothing to do with "political". Why, then, did you repeat it? Please strike and apologise. Verbal chat 15:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. Apologies. Leaky Caldron 15:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• What an odd dispute. They are pretty much universally described as far-right, a position on the political spectrum. A group which is not political would not be so prominently identified with a place on the political spectrum, surely? Guy (Help!) 15:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree, and LC has said this himself. They also have political objectives and engage in political activity. Verbal chat 15:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

They have also been likened to a drinking club with a website. That doesn't make them alcholics. Leaky Caldron 15:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with the arguments presented. A closer analogy would be to say that alcoholics anonymous is made up of alcoholics, clearly correct. I'm still waiting for the actual policy reason for removal. Verbal chat 16:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

That may not make them alcoholics but it does make them drinkers. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Briefly again in answer to a couple of questions above:

None of the sources clearly verify that EDL is political. EDL currently deny political aspirations. The relevant policy is WP:V among others. Read the threads, it is all covered, many times. Why confer trappings? The word political makes them look plausible & almost acceptable. That makes them look far more significant than they deserve.

Editors have pointed out that political is inferred by the use of “right wing”. This is correct and brings me to the next objection; grammar.

In these phrases, the second word is redundant. "`a true fact', `a free gift', “a tuna fish.” So it is with "right wing political". The use of more words than are necessary to express an idea is redundancy. These are tautological expressions (see also pleonasm).

It is common in conversational use but it is incorrect in formal English grammar in a reference work to use words that mean the same thing adjacent in a sentence. It is semantically vacuous to add political after right wing.

I hope this clarifies your concerns. Leaky Caldron 17:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Poor, non policy, reasons for censorship - and against consensus. You are saying it is true, then let's include it. I see no reason not to. Verbal chat 17:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Lead

I am concerned with the shape the lead is taken. It now has several quotes which would be great throughout the article but it is jumbled and I feel not a neutral or complete summary. The reader doesn't even get to the prose before he or they is bombarded with arguments and counter claims. In fact, I feel I have used "but" improperly but it is so contentious that it was the only way I could think of to get the information in. It could actually be dumbed down to just short lines but I do not think that would be beneficial. Below is a quick draft which I would like people to consider. It is not copy edited and I expect there to be concerns. I would love to hear any thoughts in introducing a better presentation of the organization. Words like "political" (although I think it is not needed) can be used in this context so please consider it.

The English Defence League (EDL) is an organisation formed in 2009 whose stated aim is to oppose the spread of Islamism, Sharia law and Islamic terrorism in the United Kingdom. The group organizes public demonstrations against what it calls "anti-Muslim extremism". The League has used the internet to quickly expand and claims to have thousands of members. It began with the football casual movement and loosely affiliated with hooligan firms.

The British press have labeled the group far-right and critics consider it a racist organization. It is alleged that they are associated with the British National Party but the group insists that it is not political. The League states that its aim is to peacefully demonstrate in English cities but clashes with both the United Against Fascism organization and Muslim residents have led to arrests.

The Scottish Defence League is a sister organisation formed to hold demonstrations in Glasgow, while the Welsh Defence League was formed to demonstrate in Swansea and Newport.

Also, the source says "loosely affiliated with football hooligan firms." Cptnono (talk) 18:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Well I would buy it, but I get the feeling that if it doesn't have right wing and political in the opening stanza then it'll be a case of "oh no you don't, Sonny Jim!". *Support Leaky Caldron 18:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, it isn't a summary of the article so is worse than the current lead. By removing WP:RS and consensus supported terms such as political and far right, and ghettoising them in a misleading paragraph, you are proposing a clearly biased rewrite. The lead could be improved, but this is a step backwards - and the continued pushing for these changes, against clear policy and common sense, leads to further questions. Changing the article to support the minority view of the EDL themselves breaks WP:UNDUE (part of WP:NPOV), WP:FRINGE and also WP:RS. Verbal chat 19:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:POOR & WP:WIN eh!? Leaky Caldron 19:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, I agree. Stop trying to win and treating this as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Verbal chat 19:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

So why not put your own suggestion up for discussion? Leaky Caldron 19:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec)The only changes you proposed to the first paragraph are to remove right wing (which is supported by all the citations) and introduce an unsupported statement about the use of the internet. The second paragraph of the current lead is messy and quotation ridden and needs improvement, possibly integration with the main body (along with paras three and four. There is an argument to include something in the lede about how these types of groups have been used as fronts (or as means of factional disputes) within the English far right, but that is in the body at the moment but its worth thinking about. Your proposal above on the other hand is unacceptable, in effect it introduces the article from a EDL position rather than an NPOV position.--Snowded ^TALK 19:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm fine with the current version, plus "political" which is supported per the previous discussion. The tag will probably be removed, and "political" restored, shortly. I also agree with Snowed.Verbal chat 19:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

100% Agree with Verbal... also this refusal to admit a clearly political group is political is both mind-boggling and honestly a little silly. Simonm223 (talk) 19:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I still oppose describing this as a "Political group" unless there is a reliable source clearly calling them it. I find it mind boggling and silly that this debate is still ongoing. If theres a source its fine, but why is it so important to say they are a "political group". They have political motives just as most groups do like Greenpeace, but they are not described as a "political group" nor are Unite Against Fascism BritishWatcher (talk) 19:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Those are clearly political groups, and as they don't deny it it isn't so relevant, when it is clear throughout those articles that they are political. No one thinks they aren't political, but I wouldn't be against it being added if appropriate. Verbal chat 19:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it is completely void of any bias. Maybe that's the problem? Stuffing the lead with quotes and criticism doesn't = NPOV. I moved "far right" to the second paragraph for flow. First paragraph = general info Second = Criticism Third = Didn't know where else to put it. Besides "far right" being in the second paragraph, what is POV about it? It is a clean concise summary and it again comes across like some point is trying to be made about how terrible the group is.Cptnono (talk) 23:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

cross reference to POV tag removal

discussed here [16] just in case anyone wonders. Leaky Caldron 19:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

This is really about style not POV. The term political is not pejorative, and they have political goals. It's not as if they were merely Morris dancers. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it is not pejorative. Quite the opposite. Political carries a certain cache and branding that makes this mob sound more organised and structured than they actually are, which is why I am opposed to expressly stating it until it is verified. They deny being political in the sense of the word as they comprehend it. We cannot just stick branding on them because they carry banners and shout a lot. Given time they will disappear. In the meantime verifiability not truth has to be our sole intention. Leaky Caldron 20:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It has been verified. Verbal chat 21:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Gr8. Let's see it. Leaky Caldron 21:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I am going to flag this article to be check for neutrality. I don't see how it is not POV and there is a list of my reasoning up above already. I also think it is a shame that editors are disputing that neutrality is disputed. I might be wrong hence the POV check. Please do not remove the template since that is not for us to do.Cptnono (talk) 23:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not see what your argument for POV is. Is your claim not really that it is not properly sourced? The Four Deuces (talk) 00:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Up above I mentioned a few things. The rest are easily fixable. This article has a problem with Words to avoid guideline. One example of an easy one is the "Claim" which can cast doubt on an assertion. It is used after the line regarding the press which could lead the reader to think that the assertion that they are far right is weak. I actually have it in my proposal above for numbers and wasn't sure what to use instead. "However" was another concern since it implies that the alternative is less favored than another. I know one instance of it was just recently removed but have not checked the rest of the article. I have been very adamant that "far right" needs to be attributed in the lead as it is in the prose per the same Words to avoid guideline. It is a term that labels and the guideline is clear. In regards to sources, the football firm is flat out wrong as written if we are going by the sources (OR might have played a part?). The general practice of claim and then counter claim throughout the article has also been a concern. Some of this was just recently addressed but it raises POV issues on both sides since it tends to read like editors are letting their opinions about controversy spill on to the page. The recent juggling helped fix my concern with Searchlight but that cherry picking of criticism has made its way into the lead while simple less sensational information along with in depth analysis is ignored. Why is the instance of a bunch of dudes screaming about Palestinians in the lead while analysis from professionals regarding the dynamics of the group nowhere to be seen? That presents a weight issue that should be easily enough addressed by including more information but it looks like this has been a challenge so far. I'm also disappointed in the lead since it reads like ti is trying to persuade the reader without simply saying what the sources say. The use of the quotes would be better with a concise summary instead of cherry picked soundbites. Cptnono (talk) 00:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Just what professional analysis is being excluded? --Snowded ^TALK 10:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

You have not responded to earlier points, that your suggested wording conforms to the position the EDL is seeking to adopt for itself. --Snowded ^TALK 10:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the analysis is being discussed below. There John Denham, national police units, and others could also be expanded.

I thought I had made it clear. Yes, their position is allowed to be mentioned. It can even be two lines higher since they are the subject. Take a chance to look at it closely and you'll see that their claims are even qualified so as to not make it statements of fact. It also doesn't need to be swamped with rebuttals. The reader can decide for themselves and we can assist by go going into detail in the prose. It reads like editors are presenting as damning quotes in an effort to prove a point as is.Cptnono (talk) 13:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Revised lead including a suitable political reference

I have added an authentic source, from an acknowledged expert and delivered via an approved reliable source. It replaces the weak, ineffective and derivative sources provided so far.

I have reworded the start of the intro. to comply with the sourced material. I have also restored the NPOV tag since Verbal had no right to remove it and doing so was tendentious. I have also noted Verbal’s continuing edit warring this morning [17].

Hopefully the changes I have made will resolve the “political” issue. Should these changes be reverted wholesale, without modification or prior discussion it will be necessary to consider a further call for administrator intervention to prevent the deliberate attempt to prevent the proper development of this article.

Verbal has reverted either tags or single word modifications to the lead at least 8 times in the last 10 days, frequently without discussion. That is unacceptable. Hopefully he can now put his undeniable article skills to use by helping to develop the current version in a collegiate manner. Leaky Caldron 12:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

You have got a YouTube video of an interview with someone who says 'he has advised the government". He is not a government advisor and other than appearing on the BBC he has no special status against the other BBC reports and the press. I listened to it before and it doesn't say that they are not political per se, it says they are facing some choices there. I am not sure that YouTube really gives us authoritative or verifiable either. It is over done for the lede and I am going to amendment it. Why you reintroduced the POV tag when you removed political (which is still the only stated reason for its use) I don't know.

It's not Youtube, it's AOL. Another editor put the tag there in respect of the entire article. It is not the "lead only" tag I put there the other day, so I assume his concerns relate to the whole article.

The Prof. is a reputable source. The link is a reliable source. The Newsnight article is perfectly citable. I would welcome improvement using it rather than returning to the non-sources provided to date. This directly mentions EDL and politics in the same sentence. We have nothing else approaching that quality. Leaky Caldron 12:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi S. just seen you change. Are you advocating leaving "political" out? Leaky Caldron 12:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I've modified it to get something proportionate to the lede, I did not replace it. He is a source, but he doesn't not have special authority and I think (as I said when I brought this up before) it does not state that they are not political. Oh and it may be on AOL, but look at the bottom right branding when you open it up. I am not getting involved with an edit war over political. I suggest a straw poll --Snowded ^TALK 12:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The reason I added it was precisly because it's the first authoritative mention of possible EDL political aspairations. It has to be better than what has been presented before. I thought you would be in favour (even if only a holding position until something better is found) given your earlier stance. What am I missing?

We can take it to RS noticeboard for advice if you are concerned. Leaky Caldron 12:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It was excessive to quote him in full and disproportionate. Its is a commentary by one person (with some but not absolute authority) on a possible future political decision to be made by an organisation. You would be amazed how many people can claim to had advised the government on issues, it doesn't make them special. I have advised the UK, US, Australian and Singaporean Governments on a range of issues, but that does not give me any special authority in respect of the subject of that advise as against other experts and sources. I included single issue as that seems legitimate and supported. --Snowded ^TALK 13:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Leaving aside the government advisor bit, is he not acceptable as a subject matter expert who can be quoted? He's a research associate at the Institute for Political and Economic Governance, University of Manchester. If a journalist had said what he said in the daily garbage we would cite it would we not?

Yes he is a valid source and several of his papers are more than worth reading. He is not a "prof" by the way. The US tends to use that for any university teacher, in the UK its a more restrictive title. The papers are more authoritative than a casual comment in an interview on Newsnight however, but it does support the single issue point and the issue about the degree to which EDL has to consider its wider political future is worthy of being used in the body if there are other sources. --Snowded ^TALK 13:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. What concerns me is the probability of edit warring resuming. If the word needs to be in the lead then surely this would be a source more useful than the ones put up hitherto? In that way we there is a chance that the arguments of the last week can be put behind us. I for one will still not accept it unsourced or with wrong sources. Polls make for a poor consensus. (I saw that written somewhere but can't find it). The consensus documented is at least based on editors expressing various views about the use of the "political" word and agreeing to the current wording until something better turns up. Now something better has turned up why not use it?

Regards the internet bit. I'm not desparate about it but the cited Telegraph article does mention the Internet 4 times and refers to EDL being a "child of the internet". Is this not relevant in this day of the public taking direct action via social networking, Twitter etc? Leaky Caldron 13:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It was these: WP:POLLS & WP:POLLZILLA. I would not do this here. Leaky Caldron 13:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec)A poll generally can't determine anything in WIkipedia (although they can in some circumstances) but it is a way of quickly checking editors opinion. On the internet, well they have a facebook account but then that applies to anyone these days. Its not special in the sense that it was for the early examples of swiftboating etc. The idea of the lede is to keep it simple! --Snowded ^TALK 13:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Well I would like to convince you to put something in the lead based on the good Dr. just to try to satify Verbal's concerns. It would be odd indeed if he supported it's inclusion and you did not! If we are happy using the source (subject to any RS issues) would you really object strongly to something relating to their political direction "tensions"? (I'm tempted to say please!!)  ;) Leaky Caldron 13:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Verbal wants to call them political, I don;t think your words (or the current version) will satisfy that. --Snowded ^TALK 13:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe. Its a forward step using better sources than he can find so he can't reasonably argue POV. Leaky Caldron 13:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with the addition of single-issue, but let us still be clear what kind of issue we mean. Verbal chat 14:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Possible compromise

{lifted from Verbal's talk page.

Are you saying you would support it using the reference I have provided? If so, put something on the talk page and I will restore it. Hopefully Snowded will then buy into it. There is still a question about whether it is acceptable as a source (Youtube issues). I have raised it at the RS NB. If you can accept the form of words along these lines I would hope the AN/I to be resolved by Cptnono.

"The English Defence League (EDL) is an English far-right, single issue movement whose political direction is being debated within the organisation.[1]"

Leaky Caldron 15:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I've posted a better source over on RSN, it's here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8303786.stm. The write up also includes brief mention if the "debate". It would be interesting to see if we can get some sources together about the external organisations also discussing the future direction of the EDL, but that is for a different section. We should maybe keep the refs on "far right" too. Verbal chat 16:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

We already use that source but unfortunately it does not contain the full studio interview where the "far right expert" describes the EDL. Is there anywhere else you can get it? It's no longer on Iplayer. The Programme date was Monday 12 October, 22:30. Leaky Caldron 16:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll get a copy and check it later - but I see no reason we can't reference newsnight, and add that url as a convenience link. I'll find a time stamp to the discussion - was it after the recorded piece? Verbal chat 16:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow. While I was composing my diatribe below, a Spirit of Discussion has broken out. Again, good luck. Do please consider what I say below about WP:LEAD's requirements regarding the first sentence of the article. Cheers! Unschool 16:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

In two hours I should have a copy of the episode and can verify the content and add the time stamp. Verbal chat 17:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I am Ok with that compromise --Snowded ^TALK 04:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

In what possible way is it a "movement"? Its membership is in the hundreds, and the BBC ref uses the word "organisation". I've changed the wording and removed "movement". Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

off topic

Cite episode should be sufficient for the source. We can summarize it without pulling quotes which would negate the need for the full video.

Far right is still a label and needs to be treated as such. I also haven't seen anything that says their political direction is being debated internally. Their politicalness (that isn't a word) is to be determined since it is unknown at this time. "They have been called racists and far right. They deny it. (See the prose for in depth details and analysis)" I don't see why this is complicated.Cptnono (talk) 17:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you please stop reopening this same debate about far right in every thread. It is very disruptive - please keep it to one thread. We need to follow the RS, and these show that it is a political movement on the far right of the spectrum. Verbal chat 17:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

No. You are breaking a style guidleine and it is one of the reasons I am against this proposal. You also haven't provided reasoning for ignoring the guideline besides the fact that you disagree.Cptnono (talk) 17:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Some thoughts from an outsider, regarding "political", the opening sentence, and working on Wikipedia

I visit here a totally disinterested party, who was asked to provide an opinion. Well, I'll leave a few. As a reasonably intelligent person, I too have in the past gotten overly worked up over what was actually a fairly minor issue. And I know that when someone from the outside says that this is not a big deal, the persons involved in the heat of the argument are likely to think, "He doesn't get it! This is important, and I've got to make sure everyone sees it!" Well, yes, this is important (as is everything when considered on a scale from the infinitesimal to the infinite), and we do want to get it right, but it's plain as day that simply a disproportionate amount of emotion is being expended here. While it's probably the hardest advice to take on Wikipedia, Ghmyrtle was wise to offer it. And I have found that if you can take this advice, when you come back six months or a year later, it's much easier to deal with the issue more dispassionately (and effectively).

But since I know that just saying so won't make it happen, I'll mention some more tangible things. First of all, this issue about whether or not "political" should be included. I may have missed it (I've read the entire discussion page, but confess to nodding off twice), but was there anywhere a definition of what is meant by the term "political"? I ask because it's not at all clear to me that you people even mean the same thing by the word. This is not a silly distinction. As an analogy, consider the word "history". Does it refer to the events that happened in the past, or to the study of these same events? How you define it affects how you use it. Does "political" refer to a level of organization or officiality or does it refer to a position on the political spectrum or does it just refer to a predisposition regarding certain issues? Or something else entirely? If you cannot agree on what the term means, I guarantee you will never achieve a happy consensus.

Another thing that concerns me is that, while no one may have actually violated WP:3RR, the spirit of it has clearly been absent here. There are probably admins who, upon viewing the activity on this page, might lock it down for a while, and then you're stuck with what you've got. Is that what you want? 50-50 chance of getting the page the way you want it for a month? This truly has been edit warring, and that is simply not what we are about.

And what are we fighting over? Verbal appears hell-bent to include this term, but for the life of me, I can't see why. What does it add? He says that it is accurate, and meets WP:V. Even if those points are conceded, what does it matter? There might be a definition of "political" that I haven't considered that would make it important, but if so, present it. As a number of editors have pointed out, they see "political" as being inferred by "far right". (Of course, this may be uncertain until "political" is defined.) Verbal, please explain what will be lost if political is excluded, because what I'm seeing is that what would be gained if it is excluded would be a lot of extra time for everyone to go and edit other articles (or other issues on this one, I suppose), as well as a lot of good will. Leaky caldron's insistence on the exclusion of the term had me equally baffled until this edit. Leaky, I have to tell you, this presents a slight concern to me. While you may be correct about the term providing the EDL with "cachet", your determination to deny this, in the possible face of reliable and verifiable sources, could be interpreted as tainting your arguments with a bit of POV. It should not be your concern with whether or not Wikipedia provides a group with legitimacy; as you well know, Wikipedia has no political agenda.

Well, I'm not even going to go into other issues, such as the make up of the lead; I've already overstayed my welcome, if I ever had one. But I will say this, in terms of the overall writing of the lead. User:Cptnono had a really excellent proposal for the first sentence of the lead.[18] It is better than the current version in that it far better meets the expectations of WP:LEAD in regards to the opening sentence. I would then probably follow the opening sentence with some version of what Cptnono used to open the second paragraph. The aims of the organization are more clear(and, in my personal opinion, more significant) than the organization's location on the political spectrum; accordingly, said aims need to be in the lead sentence, but the political position is nearly as prominent (from the articles I have seen) and should not wait until the second paragraph. I thought about writing my own version of the lead, but I like Cptnono's version and encourage you to consider using that as a starting point. Good luck to you all. Unschool 16:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Hell bent? Hmm, I don't think so. I'm not particularly worked up over this either. Cptnono's version is the least acceptable so far as I can see. I prefer LCs version to the huge POV mess of cptnono's proposal - which reads like an EDL press release. You ask, what does political add? Useful and accurate information to an encyclopaedia, which is relevant as EDL are so strenuous in their denial of being political and twisting of the English language. I don't see what point this section serves. Neither LC or myself are advocating a whitewash of the lead. Verbal chat 16:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

To be fair V., Unschool is the person from whom I requested editor assistance last week. He is willing to help in NPOV Lead issues. He has offered us all guidance. Fortunately the latest source might move us forward, but I'm not sure what could happen if we cannot use it. I think you are being unduly harsh on Cptnono. Some of his suggestion for the lead could be worked in with sources. Leaky Caldron 16:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

LC, Verbal owes me no deference because I came here at your request. We're all sitting at the big kids' table now, and Verbal's honest opinions should not be constrained for anyone's benefit. But thanks, anyway. Unschool 17:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

(out) Cptnono's proposed lead is unacceptable because it gives greater weight to the EDL's statements about itself than it does to reliable sources. EDL's view of itself as "an organisation... to oppose the spread of Islamism, Sharia law and Islamic terrorism in the United Kingdom" makes it sound mainstream. In fact the organization is run and funded by members of the far-right BNP and is part of the far right. The reference to the "United Kingdom" is misleading. They are extreme English nationalists: "We are ordinary, non-racist citizens of England and supporters who have had enough of being treated as second-class citizens to the Jihadis in our own country". (However in order to widen their appeal they then mention Britain.)

Cptnono's position seems to reflect the EDL's own statements:

Some organisations and media reports have branded the EDL as ‘racist,’ ‘fascist,’ ‘far-right,’ or even ‘Zionist.’ All of these accusations are flat out untrue. We take an actively anti-racist and anti-fascist stance. In addition, the EDL is non-political, taking no position on right-wing vs left-wing.[19]

Do we write the article from the perspective of the EDL or from the perspective of mainstream informed opinion? (Note: all italics are mine.)

The Four Deuces (talk) 17:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's just use policy and guidelines. Making accusations and bringing the BNP into it is not helpful. Leaky Caldron 17:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I must be a covert EDL supporter from Seattle with predetermined bias. The simple fact is x is claimed and y is claimed. Remove the "buts" from my proposal which is something I initially mentioned. This should go for the next line which could be viewed as anti EDL (at least be consistent in your POV). Forget public opinion and forget what they want. Let the facts speak for themselves without writing from a perspective.Cptnono (talk) 17:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

In this press release, the EDL call itself a "movement". Why can't we just use that?? -GabaG (talk) 17:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Because they are not a reliable source. Verbal chat 17:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I apologize, Verbal, for use of the term "hell-bent", if you found it offensive. I meant it in a jocular vein, but that was unwise. The point stands, however, that you were highly determined to include the term. To say that it "Useful and accurate information" is to repeat what you've said earlier. I am asking what is "useful" about it? If, as many editors above have indicated, to be "far right" is to automatically be 'political', then its inclusion is not helpful, it's redundant. I asked you to explain what would be lost by its exclusion. I'm not denying that there might be something lost, I'm only saying that its unclear to me what this loss would be. Do you fear that someone might think that this was a non-political yet far right organization? Maybe you do, but then again, that is only possible if you define "political" differently than some (but not all) of your fellow editors. Again, defining "political" would be helpful.

I had never heard of the EDL before being asked to visit this article, so I don't have your sensitivities regarding the propaganda of the EDL, but from a Wikipedian perspective, Cptnono's version is far superior. WP:LEAD requires us to define and provide the significance of the article's subject in the first sentence, if possible. To state The English Defence League (EDL) is an English far right, single-issue political organisation probably does nothing to distinguish the EDL from other "far right, single-issue political organizations" (or are there no others?), thus it fails WP:LEAD. But Cptnono's version, The English Defence League (EDL) is an organisation formed in 2009 whose stated aim is to oppose the spread of Islamism, Sharia law and Islamic terrorism in the United Kingdom. does not provide any endorsement, it merely states what (I presume) is verifiably true. Now you will note that I wanted to move up the media's assessment of the EDL as "far right" to the second sentence. In truth, I have a tendency sometimes to create lead sentences longer than others might like, but my first impulse (which I wish now I had not resisted) in this case was to add the media assessment into the opening sentence, either via a semi-colon or perhaps something more complex. Regardless of how it ends up, however, simply leaving the lead sentence as saying that it is a "far right" organization is inadequate. Unschool 17:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I find your comment offensive, and it also seems you didn't read my reply in full. They deny they are political, which makes the fact the are political - following basic definition of political (so not OR) and reliable sourcing, so important. It wouldn't be so relevant if they hadn't themselves made it relevant. Cptnono's version is a piece of EDL propaganda, and has no place on wikipedia. My sensitivities? What are you talking about? Why are you making a clear policy debate personal? You presume far too much. Do you have an RS that says it isn't far right? Note that the lead isn't only the first sentence, so it doesn't fail policy. Also note that the most notable thing (going on RS coverage) about this group is thier violent far right protests, not their claimed aims. The only thing that has got me worked up in this whole debate is your ill informed and provocative rant.Verbal chat 17:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Stop throwing stones in a glass house. How is it propaganda? We can still discuss their violent protest (my proposal actually put in the lead) but it doesn't mean the whole article is a biased rap sheet. I think the difference is that I don't care about the group and you do.Cptnono (talk) 18:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I care about accuracy while you care about the group, I think. Verbal chat 18:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

A morsal of progress has been made today. Verbal has made a big step in accepting a reliable source and I've refrained commenting at ANI because he has shown a willingness to work here. Nobody is going to be anybody else's best mate after this but we only need to string a few sentences together ffs! Leaky Caldron 18:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, Cptono's version is much better. I'm also puzzled why there's no mention of the EDL being strongly pro-Israel (against the wishes of other supporters?) and Verbal removes such mention. 86.158.184.158 (talk) 18:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Although the self-described goals of the EDL can be sourced to their website and are therefore verifiable it is incorrect to describe this information as "true". Unschool has never heard of the EDL before, and should read this article and the article about the British National Party. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying to present it as if it was true. What is so complicated about this? I don't think the recent proposal is good enough. Sorry to rock the boat. It is close, though! I feel that it should be easy but editors have become too entrenched. I'm not touched by this group at all so I could care less if they are jerkoffs or not. It is a simple case of presenting the information in a neutral encyclopedic text with an eye on caution since it is such a contentious issue. Editors have not done that completely and we should fix it.Cptnono (talk) 18:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Since the only objection to their being called "far right" and political comes from the EDL itself, their view of themselves must be assumed to be false. In articles about neofascist and criminal groups we generally write about how they described in reliable sources and do not begin articles by quoting their mission statements. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I have made some minor(ish) changes. Can you review, change, comment please? Cpt., are you concerned with the cite episode thing? we discussed this on your page and you seemed supportive. V. is happy to use it to solve the "political" sourcing issue. Leaky Caldron 18:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I readily admit to being ill-informed on this issue, although I did read Football hooliganism and British National Party before my first post here. My ignorance is why I'm not bothered by your tone; I know that I do not know much about the subject, and remain open to learning more. By the way, by "sensitivities" I am not referring to an emotional response, but just to the fact that you "sense" more about this subject more quickly than I do; in other words, you pick up on the nuances of their verbiage (and that of the UK press as well, I would presume) more readily than I. It was not a personal comment by any means.

As to what you say about the lead, you are correct that the opening sentence is not the entire lead. Nonetheless, the opening sentence has a unique significance within the lead, and it is to that which I am alluding. Sometimes it is not possible to meet the expectation of WP:LEAD regarding the opening sentence, but I see no reason why it cannot be done here.

By the way, I never questioned that the EDL is far-right. Remember, I am a blank slate on this issue. As far as I could tell, there was consensus that it was far-right, and I have never doubted it. My point was that others have indicated that because it is far right, that it is also, by definition, political. I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with this, only that it is a reasonable argument for them to advance, and to be responded to.

I don't mind my comments being criticized specifically because I have no dog in this hunt. If you think my points inane, fine, but I think some objectivity will reveal that I am nothing but an agent of good faith.

Okay, so as long as we're all in a spirited mood, here's a version that in my ignorance I've put together. I offer no assurances that it's factually correct, (and I have to tell you, this whole thing about the football hooliganism stuff confuses this American, even after reading the articles) but it appears to me to reflect other information that the rest of you have been using:

The English Defence League (EDL) is an organisation formed in 2009 whose stated aim is to oppose the spread of "Islamic extremism" in England; however, the British press has linked the group to the extremism of the far right. The EDL began with the football casual movement and is loosely affiliated with hooligan firms. The group's public activities include the organization of public demonstrations. The EDL states that its aim is for these demonstrations to be peaceful, but there have been clashes, sometimes violent, with opposing organisations.

The EDL has used the internet to attempt to gain membership. They claim to have thousands of members. It is alleged that they are associated with the British National Party but the group insists that it is not political. The League also denies charges that they are racist or fascist.

The Scottish Defence League is a sister organisation formed to hold demonstrations in Glasgow, while the Welsh Defence League was formed to demonstrate in Swansea and Newport.

Now there is a lot in here from their perspective. That's not the problem, the problem is balancing it. Are they racist? From what you guys are saying, sounds like that's likely. But there's nothing in the article stating that. Are they fascist? Apparently some anti-fascist organizations think so, but do we have some more neutral statements from other WP:RS that make this point? Unschool 18:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Strong oppose this uninformed and poorly written POV that incorrectly interprets WP:LEAD. This rewrite ignores all the debate and consensus that had gone before, and intentionally or not is how I described it. This and Cptnono's versions are now two examples of the kind of wording we should avoid. Verbal chat 18:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

To get a good sense of the accuracy of this proposed lead, try substituting Ku Klux Klan or Aryan Nation or American Nazi Party for EDL. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict):Could you be more clear? You earlier provided some specific things you wanted (such as the word "political"), and now you just say it's POV and misinterprets LEAD. Imagine you're talking to an American teenager and explain why this is biased. I know it's obvious to you, it's not to me. Please just explain. Unschool 18:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Here are difs between V. last edit a couple of hours ago and mine [20]. I have only shuffled stuff around and used the new "political" link as V. is content with. It doesn't look a great deal diferent to CtP. and unSchools versions. The citations highlight the mainly right wing, violent aspects - which balances the neutral prose. Leaky Caldron 18:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I love it. Some adjustment could be made but for the most part it is a simple base. Verbal: we also do not need to add the debate in the lead. Deuces: We shouldn't be emulating start class articles. If your intent was to compare the groups you are comparing a bunch of thugs screaming ato murders. Both: For the size of this article it is an appropriate length.Cptnono (talk) 18:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

(out)Read WP:NPOV:

Neutral point of view (NPOV) is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors.

If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

The Wikipedia neutrality policy does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views such as pseudoscience, the claim that the Earth is flat, or the claim that the Apollo moon landings never occurred.

The article should be based on reliable sources not their website. In fact I suggest deleting any text directly sourced to their website and only refer to their website where it has been covered in reliable sources. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying we should use their website. You could argue that it is unduly self serving. I don' think it is but it doesn't matter because even independent secondary sources report that they claim to not be fascist, political, racist, etc. Along with that coverage, there is recent coverage affirming that it is unknown what shape this group will take. Just because they are tough guys who don't like Muslims it doesn't mean they are Nazi's. Equating them their goals to that of fascists is simply not covered. It is speculated but that is why we word it in a neutral fashion. Do you even know why you are arguing? All I want (along with this recent proposal from another editor who appears to be far removed from any bias) is to lay it out plainly and simply. Why does the lead have to go into an abundance of detail that is cherry picked references to them being evil? Why can't it be concise while the evidence is presented appropriately in the detailed prose? The fact that you attempted to equate them to a group that lynched other races shows that your opinions are getting the better of your editing. Cptnono (talk) 19:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The basic problem here, which it seems to me that Unschool has failed to grasp in his generally helpful comments, is that there is no such position as neutrality on this group. They are a new organisation, who have not yet been appraised "independently" or "objectively" to any extent. The only positions that exist, essentially, are to be "for" them (that is, to accept as valid what they say about themselves), or "against" them (that is, to accept what almost all press sources say about them - that they are a group of far-right provocateurs, backed by, and consisting of, racists and fascists). I accept that WP needs to aim for neutrality and set out both perceptions, but it would essentially be OR to, in some way, split the difference between those two positions, or aim for the high ground of an objective position which does not exist. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Since you last looked at this article (Thursday?) would you say that it has shifted in any direction, more or less NPOV, just the same? Leaky Caldron 19:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Foolishly perhaps, I've mainly been looking at this page rather than the article itself. But I am horrified by one edit in particular - here. Where did that come from, and how can it be justified? A "movement"?! - no it isn't, it's a (loose) organisation that, perhaps, claims to be a movement. Its "political direction is being debated within the organisation."....?!! Well, maybe that's just about worthy of a mention somewhere in the article, but certainly not in the first sentence. And the general grammar and punctuation of the whole thing is appalling. It's a dreadful mess. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Cptnono wrote: "The fact that you attempted to equate them to a group that lynched other races shows that your opinions are getting the better of your editing." The fact is that the far right in the UK does ally itself with far right groups in the US including a group that lynched other races. Read the article American Friends of the British National Party. One member of the group, David Duke had been the Grand Wizard of the Klan. The group also contained neonazis. While the EDL and BNP may claim to be separate organizations, the EDL is led by leaders of the BNP. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

KKK and BNP have their own article space. Get the evidence for BNP involvement sourced and it goes in. I cannot find any. Leaky Caldron 20:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Searchlight has written a number of articles linking EDL and BNP.[21] The exact connection between the two will likely become better known over time. Are they rival groups or secretly cooperating? However let's get back to the issue. Since EDL is clearly far right it means that extra care should be taken in reporting their description of themselves. But even if they were just Morris Dancers it would still be wrong to give prominence to their statements about themselves if they were in conflict with all reliable sources. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It isn't prominence to say who calls them far right. If anything it gives more credibility to the statement.Cptnono (talk) 21:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I do not understand your sentence. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Slight lead edit: Specify the issue

Proposal: Rather than "single issue", say what the issue is. Perhaps "anti-islamification", per the infor box. I'm loath to make it stronger (as the above is supported by sources), but I'm willing to consider other replacements. This would be expanded on later in the lead as it is now. This would address the concers of unschool I feel. Verbal chat 18:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. I would like you three guys (and others) to modify as you think or bring ideas here. Leaky Caldron 18:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Problem

"The British National Party (BNP) have sought to distance themselves from "the sort of confrontation in which the EDL seems to seek"[36] although the EDL's website was built by BNP activist Chris Renton.[37] " This is just the kind of thing that WP:SYNTH prohibits. This should be fixed by those who edit the page soon.--Die4Dixie (talk) 21:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, these two comments need splitting to remove the connection, I don't support removal, just separation. Off2riorob (talk) 21:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Just doing it now. Thanks for pointing out. You could have done it yourself! Leaky Caldron 21:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I was when you did a better job and moved it to a different section. Off2riorob (talk) 21:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

;) Let's see how long it stays there! Leaky Caldron 21:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Searchlight said they didn't like them...

The anti-fascist magazine Searchlight has said that proscription is BNP standard practice when attempting to establish 'deniability’[citation needed] this is hardly notable critisism is it? Has anyone got a citation to this? Is it really valuable comment? The anti fascist people said they do not like these fascist people? Off2riorob (talk) 21:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Your paraphrase isn't what the sentence says, though a reference should be added. If a reference is added then yes, it is valuable. Verbal chat 21:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Paraphrasing? It starts with a capital letter and ends with a full stop? It is a , well not really a sentence but it is the only uncited part of the comment? and I brought it here complete? Has anyone got a cite? Off2riorob (talk) 21:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The paraphrasing is: "The anti fascist people said they do not like these fascist people". That is not what this sentence is about, it is about proscription being a tactic by the BNP to "officially" distance themselves from activities they are heavily involved in. I'm sure it can be referenced, and shouldn't be too hard to find. Why do you put question marks everywhere? It is a very notable criticism and valuable to the article, but does deserve a reference. Verbal chat 21:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

You're criticising the grammar? What don't you understand about the sentence? It's written quite clearly. Verbal chat 21:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a perfect example of POV. The source is here. Just like the Alan Lake line, it was cherry picked so the reader would assume they are BNP. BNP affiliation deserves a better paragraph and it needs to be made clear that there is 0 evidence, it is denied, the BNP claims they are part of a leftist conspiracy, there is an IT consultant who built their site that has ties to the right, and what appears to be a left magazine asserts that maybe they are.Cptnono (talk) 21:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

More POV and misrepresenting sources and policy from cptnono. The same people in both organisations, working on the websites of both. Same racist far right ideology. Reliable sources linking them explicitly. Apparently we should censor this for some reason.Verbal chat 21:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

(out) Applicable quotes are:

BNP leader Nick Griffin went on air last month to distance the BNP from the hooligan protests. As usual what he did not admit was that many of the leading figures in the Luton protest are BNP supporters. Just like Oldham in 2001, Griffin denied responsibility while his own followers were inciting hatred and violence.

The positioning of a BNP member at the helm of the EDL’s core division runs contrary to the League’s strenuous attempts to distance itself from far-right political parties. As far as Luton is concerned this was compromised very early on when a man arrested twice for using foul and abusive language during EDL demonstrations was revealed to be David Tull, a well known former National Front member.[22]

The fact that Searchlight may not like BNP and EDL is irrelevant. They are a reliable source. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

How did I censor it? I said we could use it and provided the source you failed to find. I failed to say we should ask the reader to connect the dots when there are several variables. You owe Rob an apology since it obviously was that hard if you couldn't find it yourself (recent edit summary).Cptnono (talk) 21:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2 WP:BEANS, and I didn't fail to find it, I added it to the article yesterday! There's no need to connect the dots with your editing. What are you talking about? Verbal chat 22:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

For whatever reason you decided to argue instead of moving the source that Rob didn't know about. You are also assuming that EDL is affiliated with BNP and it looks like you really really want it in the article. You need to remove your opinions from your editing and not accuse other editors of censorship and propaganda. I personally believe you should be blocked form editing for your outbursts and refusal to work collaboratively and will see administrative actions if you continue on this witch hunt which is againgst civility guidelines.Cptnono (talk) 22:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I support Cptnono's comments here..if the comment is citable as they are clearly opinionated against EDL then other comments are required, differing more neutral comments. Off2riorob (talk) 22:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

So looking at it the citation for this comment from searchlight is this piece in the telegraph..or is a comment from the writer of that article that according to him the EDL said this? Off2riorob (talk) 22:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It is fairly clear. It could hardly be clearer. What bit of it don't you understand? Verbal chat 22:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I have added detail to clarify where these comment are actually from, user verbal please stop with your aggressive style of discussion , it is detrimental to consensus editing. Off2riorob (talk) 22:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Searchlight is not opinionated and there are no reliable sources that contradict their reporting. Normally when dealing with this type of subject, it it permissible to cite their website where they deny what is reported in reliable sources. Verbal may remember this issue in the Arthur Kemp article. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Searchlight are clearly the opposition in regards to this org EDL. Off2riorob (talk) 22:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

No doubt they are opinionated but their site does'nt contain an article featuring this. It must be in print only. Leaky Caldron 22:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Searchlight is a reliable source, being anti-fascist is not opinionated, and the website articles are also published in their magazine. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, as far as RS goes I don't know, but they are the opposition as far as EDL goes and very opinionated, their comments can be taken with a pinch of salt, and not to be excessivly quoted here, as in at the labour article should not excessivly rely on criticism from the conservative party. Off2riorob (talk) 22:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say they were not reliable. But everyone has opinions, Left, Right, Centre, Labour, Tory, LibDem, BNP, Socialist Worker, Greens, Monster RLP, etc. I don't believe any of them!! Leaky Caldron 22:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Per this source, Alexander Baron Alexander Baron v.Gerry Gable and Others: Summary of One of the Libel Actions of the Decade (and Related Legal Actions) ITMA, ISBN-10: 1871473195 (1997), and the number of times claimants have been able to collect damages for Libel, I do not think the Searchlight can be a WP:RS--Die4Dixie (talk) 23:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree with you there and I imagine that is why the website is not actually quoted here.Off2riorob (talk) 23:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Libel actions are fairly common in the UK and the press does not have the same protection, especially when writing about well-known persons. This actually makes publications more reliable because of the threat of lawsuits. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry , but I disagree, and policy would support my position. They have not met the criteria of having established a history of reliability. WP:RS is explicit. They have no track record of reliability nor fact checking, nor oversite. They are not only self published, they are also unreliable. Not a winning combination when held up to the light of WP:RS. The problem is not the suits. The problem is that they have consistantly been fould liable for they libels. Of course the press should be accountable, as they are in Britian, when they publish materially false statements about folks, as this "publication" has.--Die4Dixie (talk) 01:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

(out) The Press Complaints Commission has only one complaint against Searchlight which was from 1999. They found against Searchlight for identifying a 13 year old who had far right parents.[23] The Times has 255 complaints. Even the tiny provincial paper Worcester News has six complaints. BTW it is interesting that your proof comes from a book written by a litigant against Searchlight in 1994. He settled for 5 grand. If you dispute the reliablity of Searchlight you should post an inquiry at RSN. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

You are the one who wants it certified. It is no good unless you can provide proof that it is reliable. The burden is yours. WHat is interesting,BTW? How is it interesting? Is there some insinuation you are making? Please, speak clearly. The libel complaints were persued through the courts of competent jurisdiction, not the Commission. THis is a red herring--Die4Dixie (talk) 02:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Searchlight has a long standing reputation for research in this field and is used by the main broadsheet newspapers as an authoritative source. Their comment is valid, we can't just take a denial at face value in this field. Editors without knowledge of the far right in the UK need to be aware of the possibility which is correctly reported in this article. --Snowded ^TALK 04:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

It also appears to have a long standinghistory of Libel. As a dual national, and having spent several years in the UK, I am not unfamiliar. Possibilities (your word), reported as fact by a "publication" as questionable as this, do not reach the WP:RS standard. --Die4Dixie (talk) 07:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

(out) Where are you getting this information? I can find no case of their being successfully sued for libel. The case you provided (A. Baron) was settled in 1994 when Baron agreed to accept 5K towards his legal fees. Nothing was proved in court. The Four Deuces (talk) 07:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

It the standard BNP attack on Searchlight, with no evidence to support it. It is however regularly used by BNP apologists, even after the high profile House of Lords rejection of one of their claims. Accordingly its no surprise to see it being touted here (one hopes innocently) --Snowded ^TALK 08:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The information came from our very own article on the Searchlight. Perhaps I should clarify: I am extremely dubious about claims of modern fascism, and am well aware of English usage to to describe anyone with whom one disagrees politically, and even extending to primary school bullies and louts, as fascists. I also distrust Marxists for their propensity for hyporbole and willingness to deseminate propaganda for revolutionary purposes. Granma (cmd-click)">Granma (cmd-click)">''Granma'' comes to mind. The pedigree of the Searchlight is suspect. I like to see balance and neutrality in arcticles, and I don´t think that communist rags can provide it.--Die4Dixie (talk) 15:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Searchlight is not a communist rag --Snowded ^TALK 15:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You are mistaken D4D, only the BNP calls everyone who disagrees with them "fascist" - while all parties and many academics agree that the BNP deserves that description. It is not a common term in British politics or the playground, except when talking about groups such as these. Private Eye is also frequently in court, yet are a RS, and the nwspaper that printed this claim would be liable, and as they are an RS we can rely on that. Political terms in Europe have different meanings to in the US. Searchlight is also not a propaganda sheet. Verbal chat 15:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

A rag founded by Maurice Ludmer not a communist mouthpiece? That strains credibility.--Die4Dixie (talk) 15:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Your POV is showing --Snowded ^TALK 15:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Was the man a communist? Will communists do anything to usher in the Revolution by promoting class strife and warfare? Would a card carrying member not use his assests to further the goals of the Revolution? You ,must not know nor understand Marxist political nor historical theory.--Die4Dixie (talk) 15:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

So anything founded by a communist is a communist rag? Interesting use of logic that. As to the rest of your minor rant, my knowledge of marxism and political theory is not based on crude stereotypes. --Snowded ^TALK 15:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Mine is based on reading what Marxists have written about what good revolutionaries do. I went to the sources to find these "crude stereotypes." From where did your "refined" knowledge of Marxist come, pray tell?--Die4Dixie (talk) 15:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

A university degree in Philosophy (including political Philosophy) together with a reading of most of Marx, Lenin and modern works relating to Euro-communism and Liberation Theology. --Snowded ^TALK 15:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Ahh,yes. Lenin coined a phrae to describe such folks. Perhaps we both have points of view.--Die4Dixie (talk) 15:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

(out) The way to evaluate the reliability of publications is by their general acceptance rather than the politics of their founders. Note that Roger Griffin (no relation), one of the foremost scholars on fascism, has contributed to the magazine. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Chris Renton

Regarding recent edit summary: Why has a wikilink been added to this name? He's hardly likely to have an article. If you look at the reference provide that calls him a BNP activist and says he designed the website. What's the problem? There has been some very poor editing here recently. Verbal chat 21:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

If naming him specifically is important then revealing that he is in need of an article is what the wiki is all about, if he is notable bnp activist then the redlink draws attention and a good wikipedian will start an article about him. Off2riorob (talk) 22:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Being mentioned in an article does not make someone sufficiently important for their own article. The most obvious example is biographies that mention people's family. Using this logic we should have articles about everyone who ever existed. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Not really, notability is there to protect for that. imo, there must be other people in the bnp who warrant articles, if this so called bnp activist turns out not to be notable then fair enough, perhaps he is not actually an activist, I don't know..but adding the redlink for a couple of days won't make the wiki wheels drop of and may help attract attention to find out more. Off2riorob (talk) 22:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Please see Shane Martinez for discussion about the notability of people tangently mentioned in an article.--Die4Dixie (talk) 23:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Weak opinionated citations

Weak opinionated citations are bad for an article, adding a comment from such sources is a waste of time, we are not looking to add our favoured position to the article but as wikipedian editors should be looking to neutraly represent the citations to allow people to assess the subject of the article themselves. Off2riorob (talk) 22:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Which is why we should give more credence to reliable sources than to what is shown on the EDL website. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Far right politics in the United Kingdom

An editor has removed this article from the subcategory "Far right politics in the United Kingdom" with the notation "removed disputed cat, what are the requirements of inclusion in this newly formed cat? please do not replace without talkpage discussion".

In fact subcategories of Far-right politics already exist for US, Japan, Russia, and France. The UK has a sufficiently rich history of far right groups and individuals that these articles should be grouped in a country-specific subcategory rather than grouped directly in the general category. The EDL should be in this category because it is as everyone agrees "far right" and exists within the United Kingdom.

Grouping these articles in this way will help readers gain greater knowledge about right-wing groups and individuals as well as their history by going to the subcategory page. It will also help editors deal with duplication among articles and ensure that there is consistency in how they are written.

The Four Deuces (talk) 00:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The sources for far-right here are very clear and the category applies. You can't dispute things when there is citation support in every major UK newspaper. --Snowded ^TALK 04:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you provide a diff, aces?--Die4Dixie (talk) 07:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Just read every newspaper article cited in this article. It isn't hard --Snowded ^TALK 08:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

A diff for the removal and where the nomination is, not the far right.--Die4Dixie (talk) 15:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? --Snowded ^TALK 15:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Clearly supported, removal would be disruptive. Verbal chat 08:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed Leaky Caldron 09:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The category has been nominated for WP:SD. It contains no criteria for article membership (no idea if that is a mandatory req'mt). We will need to review this article's place in the new Cat. as things develop over there.

However, until the Cat. issue is resolved I support inclusion in it on the basis of the lead citation indicating that the political direction of EDL is being debated within the movement. If that source is challenged then there would be no suitable source for inclusion in the Cat. or in the Far Right in the UK Template. There is currently a consensus among a few article contributors for it to remain. Leaky Caldron 10:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

They are far right and in the UK, so of course the category is more than justified. Verbal chat 12:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

(out) The listing for speedy deletion was made in error, and the Category is no longer listed for deletion. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

recent reverts

I disagree with the removal of the NPOV template. Editors have come to the article and reverted to their favoured position and then removed the NPOV template, this is the style of editing that the template was inserted against. I also disagree with the newly added far right politics cat, thier has already been plenty of dispute here as to whether the group is political, I for one dispute that. There has been no attempt at discussion here at all, neither a search for consensus. The editing here in the last few hours is exactly the reason the article requires a NPOV template. Off2riorob (talk) 12:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Please give specific justification for the template. You said on ANI this article should probably be tagged for all time - that is not acceptable. The political issue has been resolved, and of course being a far right group they are of course political. Your editing has been a recent problem. Verbal chat 12:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree the template is valid a while longer. Although an agreement on some of the earlier contentious issues has been reached, other editors arriving here may not agree with us. It does no harm to leave it and encourages others to stop by and contribute. Leaky Caldron 12:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

No, the tag requires justification. Unless it is justified with specific reasons it is entirely proper to remove it. Verbal chat 12:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm no expert on tags. I'm sure that there is policy & guidelines. The article can hardly be said to be 100% stable yet, despite the progress made on political etc. I'm sure O'rob will justify why it is needed, but let's not argue about a tag for the sake of it. Leaky Caldron 12:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

⬅Its very simple, if you want to tag something as POV then you have to state why (and make a case) on the talk page. At the moment there are no outstanding disputes here, and simply inserting the tag saying that you don't like something is not on. Its also not advisable to tag the whole article if you disagree with one thing - its more normal to tag the item concerned. --Snowded ^TALK 13:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

EDL - Casuals United

I put the tag on because the affilated organisation comment needs a ref and I could not find it. Leaky Caldron 12:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks - I just didn't understand the summary. I'm sure I read that and it did have a ref at one point. I'll try and look it up. Verbal chat 12:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

POV tag and outstanding article issues

The POV tag was removed following resolution of the political issue. It has not been reinstated twice by a recently created and to date single purpose (this article) editor. POV tags can not just be used because people do not like things. The editor concerned says on their talk page that "far right" is disputed As far as I can see above all the citations justify its use, and we have no argument so far which would undermine those. If there are any can we have them, along with any other reasons people have for the PoV tag, then we can resolve it. --Snowded ^TALK 16:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with its use. Seems to be supported by all the sources. I can´t see any agrument that they be left-wing or Marxist. I am not sure how "far right" can be seen as pejorative or false. There are other problems with the article, but if not asserted, Far Right alone does not justify the tag.--Die4Dixie (talk) 17:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe it was removed again and I think it is incredibly inappropriate and asinine to dispute that there is a dispute. Editors here and at the incident notice board were OK with it and forcing it through along with not allowing the check tag needs to stop. Below is my reasoning for including the tag:

• Far right. For some of us this is still disputed. Less than a sentence will fix this and put it inline with the Words to avoid guidelines. I will be taking this specific issue to the noticeboard.

Endless discussion of this above, citation evidence is clear for far right no new evidence or argument. --Snowded ^TALK 05:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• whose political direction is being debated within the group is not accurate. The source has the analysts saying "I think..." so we can't say it is. I understand it was an attempt to compromise but it needs to be made clear that the stated aims may differ from that of certain individuals and/or the truth.

Done if the new source is acceptable Leaky Caldron 21:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I am a little concerned that that is that we cannot tell if it is an interpretation of the same video (we know it is the same video) or if this was his interpretation from meeting with them. I do lean towards it being OK since he has chatted with them and that is the overall tone of that paragraph in his piece. We also know that they got a new less offensive spokesperson so who knows what direction they are going. I would support moving the wording around. The source says: "Within the organisation a debate is under way about whether it should stay as a street based protest movement or something more organised and political." so maybe we should make it clear that they are a non political (or say they are)/are currently street based/etc before making the statement that we don't know if they are going to be at all/more political or not. tinker more. Swap positioning with proceeding line?Cptnono (talk) 22:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• its tactics include participating leads the reader to believe that there are other tactics besides public demonstrations. Is there anything else reported?

Done Leaky Caldron 21:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Nice workCptnono (talk) 22:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• "The EDL claims to have thousands of members, although active membership is estimated at no more than 500" There are two violations of words to avoid there. I have already explained twice and provided a wikilink so that editors can bone up on words to avoid. Please read it if you haven't. Claim and however cast doubt on the EDL statements. A recent source also makes the distinction between members that are ready to be immediately mobilized and their stated number. This needs to be reworded to say that in a slightly less accusatory tone.

Done Leaky Caldron 21:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

They "claim" (per the source who isn't bound by POV) to have thousands while another source says a number in the thousands (I will have to find it again unless someone knows the source I am talking about) and others say 400 or 300-500. To make it easy we can say "Reports of EDL membership have varied from xxx - x,xxx. An analyst believes (he said probably) the group has three to five hundred active supporters that it can easily mobilize (he says mobilize at any given time). AlmostCptnono (talk) 22:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

further attempt at this. It's now in the body where it can be explained in fuller detail. Leaky Caldron 13:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• "The group is supported and funded by London businessman Alan Lake, who has insisted that the group publicly distance itself from the British National Party (BNP).[5][6]" This is ambiguous. We need to state that it has been accused but it is denied. This line could be read as "they are BNP but dude says they have to PUBLICLY distance themselves."

I have tagged this - I cannot find a souce for his insistenceLeaky Caldron 22:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• The EDL states that it opposes only "jihadists", not all Muslims,[7] although members were reported to have chanted "We hate Muslims" at pro-Palestinian demonstrators in London on 13 September 2009.[8] Again with the casting doubt on their assertion and the tone of ongoing debate bleeding into the article. Something along the lines of "The group opposes racists. Individuals have done this at demonstrations". I don't believe there are any sources that says the entities purpose is to hate all Muslims that is not speculative or biased. That allegation can be made but it should not be done in this manner.
• and is organised around figures in hooligan firms." The source still says "loosely"

Done Leaky Caldron 21:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• "as long as they accept an English way of life" The quotes read the scare quotes. We can summarize the paragraph from he source "Kelway denied the league was racist. "We would march alongside Muslims and Jews who are against militant Islam," he said. "There were none on Saturday and an all-white group doesn't look good. But they can join the EDL as long as they accept an English way of life. It is the people who threaten with bombs and violence and threaten and bomb our troops – they don't belong here."Kelway said he had recently taken over as spokesman because the previous mouthpiece for the organization was "Islamophobic"." Makes it clear that they say to not be Islamaphobic.

Done Leaky Caldron 16:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• According to The anti-fascist magazine Searchlight, the EDL website was developed by BNP activist Chris Renton.[14] Tis comes acros like we are asking the reader to make an assumption. We should just say "Searchlight says they are related to BNP here are their charges and reasoning.

WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Searchlight_Magazine suggests attribution for Searchlight. Leaky Caldron 21:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind inclusion and am happy that it is attributed. Instead of having it float there we should say "Searchlight is critical". It will read less like an editor generated rap sheet and more like analysys from sources. This is almost more of a style concern than a POC concern but the tone does impact how it is read.Cptnono (talk) 22:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The specific fact from Searchlight is the important thing at this point --Snowded ^TALK 05:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the way this fac tis presented to the reader is not done properly. Lare portions of the article look like a rap sheet instead of encyclopedic text. That is a POV problem. Tone and style change how the reader views the article.Cptnono (talk) 05:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Clashes. We should make it clear that UAF and socialist movements are mobilizing against EDL and that these confrontations are not necessarily EDL's objective. We should make it clear that there has been commentary along the lines of them attempting to provoke this response.
• The British press describe the EDL as far right.[26][27][28][29][30] This is perfect
• "John Denham, the UK Communities Secretary condemned group, saying its tactics are similar to those of the British Union of Fascists in the 1930s" Is exactly what I am talking about above. The source is discussing provocation. As it is, this line could be read in all sorts of different ways. I suggest merging the information.

Done. added full context for Denham per source. The existing paraphrase was out of context. Leaky Caldron 16:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• "The BNP have sought to distance themselves from "the sort of confrontation in which the EDL seems to seek".[33] In September 2009 the BNP officially declared the EDL a proscribed organisation and stated that it will be a disciplinary offence for any BNP member to be involved with the EDL.[34]" The BNP thinks they are a leftist conspiracy. Why is this not made clear?

THe BNP conspiracy statement may be worthy of conclusion, but it expands it does not modify, this is not an NPOV issue --Snowded ^TALK 05:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Only telling one small part of the story without clarification in the lead presents balance and neutrality problems.Cptnono (talk) 05:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Other uses of far right. Far right as a category is fine in my opinion since it is a navigational tool (although there is actual reasoning that I disagree with for removal of that category altogether per the guidelines but that is a separate debate and I would disagree with its removal. I will go into this somewhere else if interested) Its use in the infobox is not navigational but labeling. I have less of a concern than with the way it is presented in the lead but know that some editors still disagree with it.
• The editor from the Searchlight told the "BBC" "I'm not saying that every leader of the EDL is a fascist or hardcore racist..." while discussing how they are a threat and are anti-Muslim.[24] Something like this deserves as much weight as the random tid bits being cherry picked from the magazine.

added a bit on this here [25] Leaky Caldron 13:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Conversely, a line such as :The British National Party has distanced itself from the EDL, but anti-racism campaigners have named party activists they have photographed at demonstrations. They add that some demos have included people with a record of football violence."(The same source already in the article) would lay out clearly and simply one of the primary charges.Cptnono (talk) 04:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The real point here is that "distancing" is, per a reliable source, a normal tactic, it can't be taken as fact. Current wording is NPOV --Snowded ^TALK 05:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

There is my laid out list (again but this one is longer) for disputing this article's neutrality. There are other editors that should chime in since they also dispute the neutrality. Please stop removing this without addressing the concerns. Please also seek a broader consensus since enough people have attempted to apply the tag. It could easily be viewed as editors railroading content or pushing a POV but the more I think about it, it is poor form on my part to continue those allegations when it could be simple lack of editors putting effort into understand the reasoning.Cptnono (talk) 20:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Far right is not disputed by any reasonable interpretation of policy or sources. The "Clashes" point is asking us to adopt a POV which isn't justified by the sources. Most of the "disputed" points above are themselves POV or inappropriate use of guidelines (such as removing claims where it is clearly justified, and isn't actually a big deal). The BNP is not an RS, so we need other sources. Cptnono is disrupting this article by adding some minor tweaks to his list of wanted POV edits. Verbal chat 21:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Please do not make any more edits based on this without further discussion. Could you change the asterisks to hashes so they are numbered? Verbal chat 21:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind moving your "done" marks below my reasoning? (I tried to hit them all but hit an editing conflict)Cptnono (talk) 21:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

We need them numbered otherwise it is too difficult to respond. As a general comment, several of them represent sensible suggestions for improvement, but do not involve POV. Others seem to pay too much attention to EDL statements and positions which is not in accordance with WIkipedia policy. However number them and we can respond. --Snowded ^TALK 22:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Message to Verbal. I have changed the ones that are glaringly obvious. Leaky Caldron 22:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Also to verbal: Editors can change as many as they want without your approval. Again: I am not disputing far right I am disputing its inclusion without attribution (the press says works fine). I also am on the fence about the infobox but see that being a continued sticking point for others.Cptnono (talk) 22:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Fiddlesticks. Number sign cannot be used (or I don't know how) since comments are below the bullet marks causing the numbering to start over. I can break this in to straight subsections if preferred.Cptnono (talk) 22:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

There should be a source (probably among the many sources for the article) that clearly states they are far right. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

All the press sources do, and that means there is no need for qualification, adding "the press says" is exactly the sort of thing that Cptnono is otherwise complaining about. --Snowded ^TALK 22:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh my God... I am not disputing that, Four Deuces. And yes, I am complaining since we are breaking a style guideline.Cptnono (talk) 22:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up, I just added another. All of these things that alone look like minor clean up cause an unneuteral article.Cptnono (talk) 04:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Another bit of apologia added I see. This is getting silly. LeakyC has put some good work in to attend to your legitimate points, for the rest you are increasingly pushing a pro-EDL position, seeking to qualify any negative point etc. Its not an uncommon problem on this type of article. I can't see much support for your views `t the moment and the fly by tagging is getting tedious. --Snowded ^TALK 04:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I was asked to provide reasoning and I was under the impression after the last ANI that leaving it up until it got fixed was OK. I have opened another one. I also haven't edit the article much due to the reverts and have tried sticking to the talk page. One of my previous edits was the line discussing the Nazi salutes. I don't have a dog in this fight but do see that this article is skewed worse than the most critical of main stream press. If in my attempts to present neutrality concerns it looks like I am pro EDL that is my only reasoning. Cptnono (talk) 05:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Other editors have addressed your legitimate concerns, and I don't see support above for your wider accusations. WP:DUCK I think.

I don't know what to tell you. If this article wasn't so poor and biased I wouldn't be pushing it. Duck fails here and to be honest being accused of supporting the EDL is pretty offensive. Cptnono (talk) 05:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea if you support the EDL or not, but your position seems to constantly advance the PR position taken by EDL, your use of ANI etc. when you don't get your way here also follows a common pattern of disruptive editing on controversial sites. --Snowded ^TALK 05:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Cptnono said "article is skewed worse than the most critical of main stream press". That seems to be the root of the problem. We must rely on the mainstream press and cannot correct any perceived bias on their part. If Cptnono believes that their reporting has been unfair he should report this to the Press Complaints Commission. If a complaint succeeds in proving biased reporting then we can change the article. The Four Deuces (talk) 13:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Indents are becoming ridiculous. We can only use the reliable sources available. They have created an established public view of EDL (rightly or wrongly). What Cptnono and others have argued is that taken as a whole the available material should be used in an unbiased way, not cherry picking the best quotes to support a view that an editor may personally hold. To give you an example, I saw the EDL on Newsnight and formed the opinion that they are not "right wing". After reading the arguments here, I accept that "right wing" is appropriate. However, where sourcing is able to put this into context, such as the Searchlight piece I have just added, it is wholly appropriate to do so in the interest of article balance. I don't think Cpt. will be complaining to the PCC. EDL might, if they were a properly organised, political operation and if they felt that they were being misrepresented. Now I wonder if a mysterious BNP sponsor might pay for that! Leaky Caldron 14:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

ANI report

FYI of other editors, Cptnono has returned to ANI --Snowded ^TALK 05:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I made that clear up above. Cptnono (talk) 19:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

International links, Scotland Wales and Israel.

I can't read the minds of the founders of the EDL, but it appears they wish to operate seperatly from other nationalities within the UK and they seek to link themselves to Israel. I can't understand why 2 editors seek to confuse the inter-nationalist identity and expunge the important inter-continental linkage. 86.158.184.158 (talk) 08:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Scotland and Wales are not "international" in relation to England (the UK). What is the WP:RS for the links to Israel? Thanks, Verbal chat 08:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The RS was in the edit I made. Almost all Scottish or Welsh persons (and most English persons, probably including all members of the EDL) would confirm the obvious, these are separate nationalities and your attempt to say they're not is racist. 86.158.184.158 (talk) 08:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) you are being inflamatory. Wales & Scotland are in the UK and share the same international boundaries with England to continental Europe and ROI. Calling someone racist or that their actions here are racist is wholly unacceptable. Repeat it and I will seek that you are banned from editing. Leaky Caldron 09:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Please provide RS for that and for the Israel link here for discussion. Also, see WP:NPA (calling editors racist is a personal attack). By the way, we're all European. Verbal chat 09:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed the "international links" title was deeply offensive for reasons stated above. They probably chose "English defence" league for a couple of reasons. First of all as its founders had connections with the BNP, (something they want to try and hide) they probably thought using "English" would help, also its mostly English football fans looking for any excuse for a punch up. Ofcourse the main reason is because its England that has suffered a decade of mass immigration under new labour which has done huge damage to this country and is the reason the disgusting BNP has seen is membership sky rocket. Immigration and radical islam is mostly an English issue. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The EDL probably chose the name because they see England as a separate nation, which is obvious from their website where they say "Englishness is marginalised in England.... it’s about time that people stood up for English culture". The status of England as a nation is however unimportant to the article. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Few would expect the EDL to have important international links - but it appears that it does. It has sister cross-national organisations and at least one very significant inter-continental link. 86.158.184.158 (talk) 16:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Return to consensus version

As a result of the reformatting of the lead by many editors since consensus was reached here Talk:English_Defence_League#Possible_compromise the important agreement on political was shuffled from the opening sentence. It should be in the opening in the format agreed above. This was a pivotal part of the consensus and I have restored it as best I can. Leaky Caldron 11:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Amusing...

What with all the prolonged discussion about "far right", "political" and such, nobody notices that not one of the three sources even contains the word terrorism. Amended to "Islamic extremism", which is sourced. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Quite so. It is mentioned several times in ref. #7. There are too many multiple sources but until the article is reasonably stable the process of boiling them down from 3 or 4 to 1 or 2 is pointless. Feel free to help! Leaky Caldron 15:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

POV

Does anyone else find the intro a little too positive towards what is in effect a racist hooligan organization? :-)  Francium12  17:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

How can it be racist when the group is multi-ethnic, and even the leader of the youth wing is mixed race? -GabaG (talk) 17:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Find a RS saying it's racist otherwise that doesn't go in.Simonm223 (talk) 17:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

"The organisation has risen to prominence in a spate of civil unrest in which far-right activists, football hooligans and known racists have fought running battles with Asian youths." [26]  Francium12  17:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

That does not explicitly call the EDF racist. We can't engage in WP:SYNTH. As a member of the (relatively) far left I am sympathetic but Wikipedia's standards are neutral and must be treated in such a manner.Simonm223 (talk) 18:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

With that said there are other uses for that article. Simonm223 (talk) 18:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok finished reading the article, great source by the way, my understanding is that the article says that the EDF has racists in it but is so fractured and is such a jumble of distantly related advocates of it's single cause that defining the organization itself as racist is problematic at best. I'd say that calling it a far-right single issue group is the best course if this is standard for the refs. Simonm223 (talk) 18:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

This source also discusses it. The group actively denyit but of course they attract racists.Cptnono (talk) 19:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

(out) My understanding is that the term racist is rarely used in WP articles to describe individuals or organizations, and there is no reason to make an exception of this article. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

How did you come to that conclusion?Cptnono (talk) 20:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

This is based on reading various discussions about BNP-related articles, such as this one.[27] Very few groups and no individuals have been added to Template:Racism topics and I cannot remember coming across an article where someone or some organization is labelled racist. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Opening sentence

Can we agree to combine the first two sentences into one? - eg:

The English Defence League (EDL) is an English far right single-issue organisation [formed in 2009], whose stated aim is opposition to the spread of Islamism, Sharia law and Islamic extremism.

That gets rid of the ref to Islamic terrorism, redirected from Militant Islam (is that ref'd?), and also the ref to organising in "the UK", when all other refs point to it organising in England only (with parallel groups in Wales and Scotland). Personally, I think that MOS:BEGIN advises that the ref to 2009 is not needed in the first sentence, hence my parentheses above. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

And WP:AVOID still is being violated. Cptnono (talk) 20:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I've being staying well away from this page in the last few days. Are you saying:

The English Defence League (EDL) is an English far right single-issue organisation which is opposed to the spread of Islamism, Sharia law and Islamic extremism.

 ?? Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm mad at the disputed label that is a perceptive term without clarification through some sort of attribution. It s being discussed up above I just wanted to point it out since it is in the first line. I personally won't be on board with any changes to the first sentence that do not involve that since adding "Th British Press/Critics say/whoever says..." could change the layout of the first two lines.Cptnono (talk) 21:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

You really need to read up on WIkipedia policy, the press reports are in this case the only reputable third party sources. --Snowded ^TALK 22:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the proposed wording above is fine, although id rather "group" instead of "organisation" but either is acceptable. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it's acceptable but there might be issues with the shuffling down of "political". Leaky Caldron 23:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

MOS:BEGIN: "The article should begin with a short declarative sentence, answering two questions for the nonspecialist reader: "What (or who) is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable?"" Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Leaky Caldron 00:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I was toying with this:

The English Defence League is an organization whose stated aim is opposition to the spread of Islamism, Sharia law and Islamic extremism in England. Membership is comprised of various social groups including football hooligans and far right elements. The EDL began organizing public demonstrations in English cities in 2009

This would address the "far right" label concern + get the hooligan element (seems more noteworthy per the sources) in. It keeps all of the Islamism and such. It also mentions their demonstrations (the only thing they do). I went with "organization" since it sounds bigger than "group" and no other reason.Cptnono (talk) 08:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)"Organisation"....WP:ENGVAR Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't address the issue, the 3rd party sources all, almost without exception always describe them as a far right organisation. WIkipedia works from third party sources. The formulation by Ghmyrtle conforms with Wikipedia policy and is well worded. We need to put this one to bed, its being going on for days and the fact that one editor doesn't like it, and is getting no where with two attempts to use ANI is now starting to waste time and prevent progress with the article as a whole. --Snowded ^TALK 08:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, there is a lot more well sourced material in the body of the article now which has been developed in background to the lead issues. That should continue to be enhanced. Spylab has introduced some section arrangement issues, I'm not sure about the History being as large as it is. Maybe there is enough to justify both a "History" and an "Activities" section? Any thoughts? Leaky Caldron 09:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't like Cptnono's proposal at all, and his complaints have no substance. I propose a slight variation of Ghmyrtle

The English Defence League (EDL) is an English far right single-issue political organisation which is opposed to the spread of Islamism, Sharia law and Islamic extremism.

Verbal chat 10:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

"Political" included in the first sentence without the agreed qualification is unacceptable per WP:Undue. We had an agreed version which is recorded above and if the only reason for changing it is grammar, I would prefer the consensus version. That they are political or not has been debated and nothing has changed. I found a source which referred to their political direction being debated. That is the only sourced fact and consensus. Just saying plain "political" without the qualification agreed is going over the old debate. Leaky Caldron 11:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Please be specific, I see no reason why it breaks undue. They are clearly political, as has been discussed and agreed before. The proposed version above is supported by RS and clearly correct. Verbal chat 11:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

You personally supported the consensus above Talk:English_Defence_League#Possible_compromise. It has been generally accepted on the basis of the arguments put forward and the sourcing provided. Reinserting political alone, without the qualification is against the consensus you have supported for 3 days. I have restored the consensus version and there is really no reason to debate the version as it stands since you have supported and indeed defended it against change since it was agreed. Leaky Caldron 11:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I accepted it as a compromise, but that doesn't change the fact that the new proposed version is better and supported by RS, etc etc. The same arguments in defence of the old version still hold for this new, better, wording - and I see no valid policy objections. I defended the version you proposed against changes that made it worse, but that's no reason not to debate improving it. In the meantime, plenty more refs directly supporting political have emerged, including links to the BNP: The Spectator, Sunday mail to give just the first two. Verbal chat 11:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not giving it a rest. We are breaking the guidelines and my proposal gives more information. Why would you want to limit content? I would also move the 2nd paragraph up to make one continous paragraph. This political or far right thing will be argued over and over and for good reason. We might as well lay it out in context that is unquestionable. We don't need to say they are political and we don't need to say they are far right. We need to say what they do to recieve that label or source who is criticising. I don't understand why you would be against providing this informaiton to the reader.Cptnono (talk) 17:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

per WP:LS The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should be established in the first sentence of the lead, if possible.

We should ask whether the current version strikes the necessary balance. Does right wing convey a position which is suficiently balanced by the counter-statements? Have they ever denined being right-wing? The same applies to "political" which is without any source. Inferring it would require something to balance it, such as "minor, unregistered political organisation". The balance in the article body is more neutral than a week ago. The lead as it stands is not too bad, but adding more right wing political, or removing the counterpoint statements would unbalance it. Leaky Caldron 18:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

That is not wikipedia policy or good writing. To be neutral doesn't mean presenting extreme views as if they have equal validity, creating "balance" where there is none. No RS disputes the "right wing" labelling of this group, and we should present it as undisputed, except by the group themselves - who are not an RS so this should be in the body. Please give some policy reason as to why "political", which is indisputable to anyone who isn't intentionally trying to dissemble, should be removed. Verbal chat 22:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Ctpnono has raised here WP:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#English_Defence_League_.28one_line.29 Leaky Caldron 22:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say political should be removed. Apologies if I gave that impression - I'm certainly not looking to break our consensus. To confirm, I am happy with it as it is and where it is. This is per consensus versions we have jointly supported since Saturday. I have shuffled it up to the top twice when other editors have shuffled it down. If it is modified to form part of a sentence without the agreed, sourced bit regarding it being debated within EDL, we must revert it per consensus. Leaky Caldron 23:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The Spectator article as a source

Just above, Verbal has identified an interesting new source dated 26 October.

In using The Spectator feature writer's article to support "political" presumably you are thinking of this: “I think it’s rather sweet that our football hoolies are taking an active interest in politics”?

• On the same basis, would it be acceptable to use the Spectator article to insert the following 4 claims:

1. This is the organisation which turns up to Muslim demonstrations and does a bit of vigorous counter-demonstrating for itself; they then are in turn picketed by the witless, bedraggled red fascists of the UAF (would that be ok in the UAF article?)
2. the aims and aspirations and mission statements of Casuals, EDL.. are absolutely identical: avowedly non-racist, patriotic, anti-Muslim extremist, strongly pro British armed forces etc.
3. Contrary to most current thinking, there doesn’t seem to me to be a link, formal or informal, with the BNP.
4. However, their demonstrations have been remarkably pacifistic, if verbally somewhat antagonistic

The Spectator reads like a columnist’s sketch. An opinion piece rather than a genuine 3rd party article. I’m not sure how acceptable it is as a Reliable Source. If it is then all of the above points should go in, including the UAF piece into that organisation’s article. I would like to see what other editors think and get a consensus on any of The Spectator content. Leaky Caldron 13:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It is in the nature of an op-ed and as such is not a RS for facts. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

They have a poor reputation - uncritical publication of discredited sources on global warning (or rather the absence of) and so on, --Snowded ^TALK 15:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

They also seem keen on AIDS denialism. I never proposed using this in the article, and never suggested it was a WP:RS. Verbal chat 15:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Evidence please

A claim has been made on a notice board that various newspaper reports referenced here do not support the statement that the EDL is right wing. I have been through them and I can't see it on a brief scan. So if this claim is being made would the sole editor making it please summarise that evidence (quote and interpretation please) rather than making statements that I for one cannot verify. --Snowded ^TALK 07:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Click on the links. Cptnono (talk) 07:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

And I am not disputing if they are right wing or not just that it is an allegation or assumed according to some and is against words to avoid as it is currently presented.

This is what i provided on the page. Click the link and use ctrl+f in the webpage to find key words. You can also see the text I already provided.

Sources that say should also be considered. Yes, there are far right elements. The group denies it is fare right. Many sources actually provide quotes from the group saying they deny being far right, fascist, Nazis (they burned a Nazi flag at a "press conference", and/or political. I'm not saying they are not far right. I'm just saying that although it is a "minority view" we need to follow neutrality guidelines and make it clearer.:

• [28] - Prof Matthew Goodwin is an expert on far right groups and advises the Home Office. According to him the group is at a crossroads.

Cross roads in relation to the degree which they become political, no comment on far right and no contradiction --Snowded ^TALK 08:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

You have seen the rest of this source if you have watched the videos. Right wing is mentioned.Cptnono (talk) 08:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• [29] - director of Kick it Out, the campaign against racism in football. "There is a sub-culture in football that respects some forms of hooliganism, but most football supporters will see through this and see that these groups, with far right links, are creating more hatred than they are protesting against."

Article supports current wording, certainly does not contradict it.

• [30] - Mr McCabe, writing on his blog, ...: “This seems to be a pretty unsavoury right-wing alliance + 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.

Marginal, reports the denial of an accusation and makes no comment. Provincial not national newspaper that in another reference (I think will need to check) does call them far right. --Snowded ^TALK 08:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• [31] The answer lies in a combination of anti-Islamic internet bloggers, who constitute the EDL’s intellectual 'elite’, organised football hooligan 'firms’, who provide the street-fighting muscle, and agitators from the Far Right who spy an opportunity to enflame racial tensions which have grown up around the Muslim community following the bombings in London on July 7 2005.

Article says "While many far-Right groups should not be allowed the oxygen of publicity, the potential menace of the EDL appears to make it an exception" so it supports the current wording. --Snowded ^TALK 08:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• [32] - Supporters are understood to have links with far-right groups and football hooligans. Some have been seen making Nazi salutes

It would not be evidence for the wording, but neither is it evidence against. clear implication throughout the piece that they are a far-right variant. --Snowded ^TALK 08:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• [33] - This group became the English Defence League (EDL), whose protests against Islamic extremists around England have led to claims that it attracts far-right extremists hoping to foment racial tensions and encourage further protests, which the group denies.

The article has the heading "some resources should be devoted to the growing threat of far-right terror plots" and then has the EDL in the text. no evidence to disturb current wording--Snowded ^TALK 08:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• [34] - It is accused of links with far right groups and one government minister has compared their tactics to the fascist street marches of the 1930s. + There also appears to be some loose affiliations with far right groups

See comments on the two entries above --Snowded ^TALK 08:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• [35] - EDL supporters, who demonstrated close to a mosque in Harrow on Friday and plan a protest in Trafalgar Square today, are alleged to include far-right activists and football hooligans. Oswald Mosley does refer to them as far right in this piece, though.

As you say, they are called far right --Snowded ^TALK 08:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Sources used in the source currently used to say they are far right. I feel these were cherry picked and for the most part are just a label thrown on by the writer without reasoning provided. There are a few more in the article that do this and were not used.

• [36] - As a label without reasoning provided
• [37] - As a label combined with the Casuals United group. The same source has a claim from a spokesperson that it was not a far-right protest.
• [38] - As a label without reasoning
• [39] - Discusses the Welsh version. They are a sister project. They also did Nazi salutes at a rally which is discouraged by the EDL(officially at least)
• [40] - As a label without analysis. "a spokesman for the Anti-Fascist Action group" tells the paper that some government officials are "fuelling the far-right"
• [41] Again as a label. However, Communities Secretary John Denham does infer that they are far right with " "I think that the EDL and other organisations are not large numbers of people. They clearly, though, have among them people who know what they're doing," he said. "The tactic of trying to provoke a response in the hope of causing wider violence and mayhem is long established on the far-right and among extremist groups." The article stresses twice that the EDL claims to be non-violent.Cptnono (talk) 06:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

That all seems to support that the label right wing is justified. Thanks, Verbal chat 07:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Then you are reading it wwrong. It is "believed" it is "assumed" it is "alleged" that their are "links" and "elements".Cptnono (talk) 07:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

You are "wrong", and advancing a minority view by cherry picking and quote mining. The overwhelming and prominent view is that this group is "right wing". This is supported by innumerable RS. Please stop your disruptive behaviour, including frivolous ANI reports and forum shopping. Verbal chat 07:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

We need to be neutral. They very well may be right wing but since it is disputed as much as it is we need to follow WP:AVOID and clean it up. My proposal is fair, provides the info (if not more), and is inline with the guidelines. I assume the group is full of racist drunkards from what I know but I am pushing for us to provide the complete picture to the reader so they can choose for themselves. We have neutrality guidelines and to not follow them is silliness. I started this over at the notice board to not rehash it though. You and Snowded are pushing for it one way and one way only so you can do that. I believe you are wrong and am trying to get more fresh eyes since all of the other people who agree that it is not correct gave up. This is like the POV CHECK tag. It is searching for more opinions especially when it is so contentious. For whatever reason, Snowded asked me to put it here also. You two have swamped the notice board to the point that I am not sure if anyone will spend the time to look but I certainly hope they will. I had hoped when I fulfilled your request to provide sources disputing your position that you would reconsider. However, it looks like you are still going on with it. I don't need them to be called political or right wing to justify the UAF, my morals, patriotism, or anything and I certianly don't need to water it down to make any politicla feelings from over here better. I am a totally neutral party in this and am trying to keep standards high.Cptnono (talk) 08:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

OK I have been through them and commented. There is no evidence there to support your position. Several us are doing are best to assume Good Faith here, but the paucity of the evidence presented and the forum shopping is testing that patience. --Snowded ^TALK 08:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I've already explained that it was not forum shopping. If you look above I tried twice to justify a POV-CHECK tag including other reasons. It was removed so I went to ANI. It looked like it was good to come back but was removed before everything else was addressed so I brought it back up. Why do you ask me to repeat myself and do understand that your last comment came across the exact opposite of its stated intention.

Also, I don't know what reasoning you have for thinking it doesn't support my intention. It is pretty clear that some people have said it without applying it as a label. You understand that I am not disputing if they are right wing or not, right?Cptnono (talk) 08:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Some advice: when you are in a hole stop digging --Snowded ^TALK 08:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not in a hole. This article does not follow WP:AVOID. We can use the term but need to adjust the wording.Cptnono (talk) 08:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

No we follow reliable third party sources and those clearly say its far-right. Thank you for presenting the material above. I have done you the courtesy of going through it in detail and I'm sorry but I don't think it supports your case and I have made my reasons clear Constant repetition will not make your argument any sounder. --Snowded ^TALK 10:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

(out) There is no need to present multiple sources to back up a position and takes up a lot of time. What Captnono needs is one good source, and there are none. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to add another opinion in support of the simple, unadorned far right description. Usually I'm in favour of attribution, especially when the label being applied is potentially pejorative - however, it seems somewhat pedantic to force the point here, since all reliable sources seem pretty unanimous and definitive on the description in this case; with the only dissenting voice being that of the group itself, whose protestations that "some of our best friends are black/Muslim/Jewish" would appear to ring a little hollow. And of course, even if they genuinely weren't racist, they could still quite happily fit the far right category. Newspapers who have sent journalists to meet the group and cover its demonstrations, campaign groups and both local and national politicians all seem to have applied the duck test here and come to a pretty inescapable conclusion. --Nickhh (talk) 08:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

ps: Having the clauses this way round in the second sentence reads so much better - I note similar changes have been reverted in the past. Please can it stay this time?

Logo

Is there any consensus for reinserting the logo I uploaded. It appears on their website.[42] and Facebook. Check out the wonderful EDL clothing you can buy on ebay! Though of course it is possible to scream RS it is clearly the logo of the group...  Francium12  01:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Gives them a veneer of authenticity they don't warrant IMO. Leaky Caldron 01:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

If they have a logo then it should be loaded, however the banner from their web site would not be one. The cross of St George on the shirts might but even then its far from clear it is an actual logo, so far its only something used to sell T-shirts and hoodies. --Snowded ^TALK 02:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what the policy is. Have they registered the logo? Does English law allow them to use it? The Four Deuces (talk) 02:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm refering to the shield image in these links. It appears to be their logo to me...[43][44][45]  Francium12  02:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I wonder though if it can be called their logo. It appears to be an heraldic symbol that they happen to display without having been awarded or having registered. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Its not registered as a logo and could not be as its a generic heraldic image, dubious I think so lets leave it out. --Snowded ^TALK 03:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if a picture of them burning the Nazi flag would be "inflamatory"!  ;) Leaky Caldron 08:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Validity of citations

There's a bit at the start of this article which said, and I'm sure will say again before I finish writing, that the EDL shouted "We hate Muslims". The citation is to a video which shows a man shouting "I hate Muslims". The paragraph beneath talks quotes him as "We hate Muslims". Why is the text being given more credibility than the actual video evidence? TokenPassport (talk) 13:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

No, the citation is to the report on the Guardian website (yes, a lefty liberal rag, but nonetheless part of the mainstream media, and a reliable source under WP rules), which happens to have a short two minute video attached to it. That report says EDL protestors chanted "We hate Muslims". This page says EDL protestors "were reported to have shouted ..". I'm slightly confused as to what the problem is with this. You seem to be arguing that because you can't see these reported events on the short video yourself, the written report is therefore wrong and cannot be used. There are two rather obvious errors in that assertion of yours -

• The video is two minutes long and doesn't show everything that happened at the demonstration.
• Again, for the fourth time, the principles here are verifiability not truth, based on reliable sources. That does not mean, as a matter of general principle, that everything printed in a reliable source is accurate or true. The point is that what such secondary sources, with a reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight, say is more likely to be authoritative than what individual WP editors come up with off the top of their heads, or after watching video highlights. It's the least worst option.

Hope that helps. --Nickhh (talk) 13:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

All good points. Fine, the citation can stay, but it should be noted that "one website reports that..." else it shouldn't be in the intro. TokenPassport (talk) 13:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you put it back, since you have edit warred it out about three times now. I also suggest you hope that no-one takes all your edits to the 3RR noticeboard, since you would almost certainly be hit with a lengthy block, without much of a hearing. And adding "one website reports" is simply a way to make everyone waste more time looking for more that make similar observations, and overloading the intro with multiple citations and qualifications. --Nickhh (talk) 13:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Credibility of editors

The editors here seem to be using Wikipedia as a means of Anti-EDL publicity. I can see I'm wasting my time on this article as the persistency of a small number of devoted editors is always going to keep the article exactly as they want it. That's the Wiki-spirit. Perhaps we could keep the intro neutral and discus right-wing in the rest of the article? Or, a section discussing the subject like many other articles have. Of course not, because they know that most people just read the first paragraph and they want to influence those people with a subtly bias paragraph straight away. It's shameful, though I'm sure those editors are proud. TokenPassport (talk) 13:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

"Bored" is a better description of my state of mind in regards to this article. The lead summarises the body, and the body makes it clear that far right is justified, per 100s of RS (not all cited, as they needent be). The problem we are having is with editors ignoring policy and consensus in attempts to paint EDL in a light not supported by RS.Verbal chat 13:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

And neutral of course does not - presumably - simply mean "state as fact from the outset what a controversial group say about themselves, and ignore the near-unanimous conclusion of every media and political observer". I have very little devotion to this article as it happens, and have only commented briefly on occasion in the past. However, when someone comes along to disrupt it, showing scant regard for WP policies and editing rules, I am likely to be spurred to do a little more. As for "anti-EDL publicity" and efforts to paint them in a bad light, they don't really seem to need much help with that, to be honest. Now to reclaim my Saturday. --Nickhh (talk) 13:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

According to the concurrent left-wing bias, demonstrating against Islamofascism (like the EDL) equals being "far-right", "violent" and "extremist", while demonstrating against "regular fascism" (like the UAF) equals being "non-political", "peaceful" and "anti-fascist". Understand (and justify) it those who can... -GabaG (talk) 14:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

They are described as "far right" in the article because that is how they are described in reliable sources. If you think that the mainstream media and political parties are left wing then you are entitled to your opinion but policy does not allow that view to be presented. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

This is clearly heavily biased and needs a neutral POV —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guardian reader (talk • contribs) 13:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The article is supposed to represent how the subject is seen in mainstream sources, which it appears to do. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)