Talk:English Defence League/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Please Archive

This talk page is a bit long and has some extensive interpersonal exchanges. Would someone archive it or set it up for automatic archival? Obotlig (talk) 05:29, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

BNP

This article mentions BNP three times. I tink this is excessive and disproportionate per WP:UNDUE, especially since no explicit link has been established. Do you agree? Signing contribution from User talk:PassaMethod 13:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

It actually mentions it four times. However two of them are quotes, so I am not sure it is undue.Slatersteven (talk) 14:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't see how WP:UNDUE has any relevance - it's to do with balancing views and opinions in an article. Emeraude (talk) 14:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I think we should delete at least one BNP related sentence. Pass a Method talk 16:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Interesting use of the word "we". What you mean is that you think you should. There is no earthly reason why the article Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable.

By clicking the "Save Page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.

Edit summary (Briefly describe the changes you have made)

  Cancel | Editing help (opens in new window) 

If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here. All text that you did not write yourself, except brief excerpts, must be available under terms consistent with Wikipedia's Terms of Use before you submit it.

InsertWiki markupSymbolsLatinGreekCyrillicHebrewArabicIPA (English)IPAMath and logic – — ‘’ “” ° ″ ′ ≈ ≠ ≤ ≥ ± − × ÷ √ ← → · § Sign your posts on talk pages: 90.217.166.32 (talk) 10:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC) Cite your sources:

Please note:

When you click Save, your changes will immediately become visible to everyone. If you wish to run a test, please edit the Sandbox instead. Please post only encyclopedic information that can be verified by external sources. Please maintain a neutral, unbiased point of view. Please do not copy and paste from copyrighted websites – only public domain resources can be copied without permission. This page is a member of 1 hidden category:

Category:Automatically assessed Politics of the United Kingdom articles Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:English_Defence_League" should have fewer mentions of the BNP (and all in relation to the topic anyway). Come to that, there is no reason why it should not have more. Emeraude (talk) 17:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

BNP members frequently go on EDL demos. Further more, wasn't one of the EDL leaders himself active in the BNP? If there really is no link between the BNP and the EDL then it's strange that both groups seem to have the same apologists on their respective discussion pages. Multiculturalist (talk) 09:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Founders were both BNO, funder previous BNP involvement all of which can be supported by citations. If anything we need more of the background here not less --Snowded ^TALK 19:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Stephen Lennon and Kevin Carrol were both active in the BNP before they formed the EDL. Carroll is alleged to have even wanted to become an election candidate, but was talked out of it by his wife/girlfriend. Same for various other members. One regional Organisor named Alan Spence was even a BNP election candidate. The leader of the Chelmsey Wood Division is a former soldier that was exposed by the press for having Neo-Nazi sympathises The EDL are known to share a support base with the BNP, and this has been confirmed by both BNP and EDL supporters alike. Support of the BNP and support of the EDL are not mutually exclusive. More still - the EDL is simply former BNP activists taking the BNP's policies towars Muslims, isolating them from the other policies and using them as the backbone for a new Far-Right nationalist movement. Remember, dozens of splinter groups have formed from the BNP in recent months - but all went down the Party Politics line and became insignificant. the EDL took a different approadh - street marches - and for that reason they survived. The EDL is a continuation of BNP policies; and the EDL is the most prominant of many BNP-splinter groups.

Use of Searchlight

The magazine searchlight is not a neutral magazine as it is the magazine of the opposite side and therefore should not be used as much in this article. C. 22468 (talk) 11:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

This has been discused at length at RSN, its been considrd RS. If you feel this is not the case re-raise it.Slatersteven (talk) 12:41, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

By which Slatersteven means raise it in RSN, not here. Emeraude (talk) 17:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Exposing Racism and Intolerance Online

Exposing Racism and Intolerance Online is a facebook-based group of volunteers that for the last two years has actively and consistently monitored and scrutinized the EDL's online activities. Expose is widely known within the EDL, and it is only fair they are given a mention. Expose works simply by monitoring the EDL's online activity and keeping a record of 'problematic postings' which can range from Islamophobia and racism to advocation of murder and arson. While Expose is rarely named in public, some of its work was used by Jeremy Paxman on Newsnight and indirectly by a number of other journalists. Expose is also in regular contact with British police, as much of what Expose finds has aided in preventative security measures (threats of arson attacks on Mosques, for example) Expose contributors have a unique understanding of the EDL's internal structure, and what it finds is objective and credible - much of what Expose finds comes from the online activity of senior EDL members including Kevin Carroll, Jeff Marsh, Roberta Moore, Pat Whitehouse, Guramit Singh, Alan Lake and Hel Gower - and all of these people know of Expose.

Considering that the EDL is a predominantly online-based group (with street protest being only one of its methods) I think its only fair that Expose gets a mention in the EDL article. Numerous journalists have claimed that people need to look beyond the official EDL press releases and statements, and look in towards the EDL as a group to see what happens outside of the public eye - Expose has been doing this since the EDL's formation.

Here's the blog: http://exposingon.tumblr.com/archive Here's a associated twitter account: http://twitpic.com/events/everythingedl Here's an intro on the Urban Dictionary site: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Exposing%20Racism%20and%20Intolerance%20Online Here is an article in which Expose was mentioned: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/oslo-killer-anders-behring-breivik-the-son-of-a-diplomat-inspired-by-the-unabomber/story-e6frg6so-1226101265687 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.217.166.32 (talk) 04:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Matthew Taylor: "I think we have to look beyond what the website says in its formal statements and listen to what its supporters say and do." http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/oslo-killer-anders-behring-breivik-the-son-of-a-diplomat-inspired-by-the-unabomber/story-e6frg6so-1226101265687

Peter Guest: "The failure to address the founding myths of anti-Islam and other far-right groups and confront them on their increasingly overt racism and intolerance has encouraged them to the point where they are both a frightening political force and a credible security threat.....The online presence of supposed Islamic extremists is closely monitored, and more attention may now be placed on far-right groups' activities on the internet." http://www.cnbc.com/id/43881297/page/2/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.217.166.32 (talk) 04:59, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

What sort of mention would you like to see? I am not entirely familiar with the "reliable source" standards of wikipeda or how including your blog as a note or reference might come into play. If there is significant enough documentation of the interactions between the groups why not include it here... Obotlig (talk) 05:29, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Not sure this is really notable enough for inclusion, when we have moe then oone source maybe.Slatersteven (talk) 10:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd be happy to see a brief mention - a link perhaps. As said, the EDL is predominantly an internet-based movement. Exposing Racism and Intolerance has been around since the EDL's beginning and has found literally tens of thousands of posts covering a variety of issues from racism, Islamophobia and anti-Semitism to threats of violence against the EDL's political opponents, Muslims, Mosques, etc. And as said - Expose is widely known (and thus hated) throughout the EDL. Unfortuently, Expose has no way to get the info out there by itself other than through twitter, the blog, etc. Surely, for a group as successful as Expose it would be unjustified to sidestep them? I invite anyone to take a look at the blog; the associated twitter account; even just to type in "Expose EDL" into Twitter and see the posts. Expose has the capacity, with people's help, to bring the EDL down - and the EDL knows it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.217.166.32 (talk) 10:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Just to update: Expose was referenced in the recent study of the EDL by the university of Northampton. It was also Expose contributors who found the EDL Support Group photo of Joey Barton (it was taken by Searchlight from the twitter account - Barton has refuted the EDLs claim's). Our work makes the press, even if the group doesn't get the recognition it deserves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.217.166.62 (talk) 04:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Police National Domestic Extremism Unit

Last time it was discussed at Talk:English Defence League/Archive 4#Morning Star there was no consensus for inclusion, and as pointed out by Daicaregos above they don't say the EDL aren't far right. Now that the comments have made their way into the Guardian there may be a case for inclusion, but since he's only reiterating his previous point I don't see how anything has changed. I suggest those who want to include this material gain consensus for inclusion here. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

And the mormninig star is not the only source. What does nock Knowles say http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/blog/archive/11/2010How about hope not hate itslef http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/news/article/1944/muslims-criticise-scotland-yard-for-telling-t are reapoting the gaurduian story. Question asked in the Lo0don assembly http://mqt.london.gov.uk/mqt/public/question.do?id=37589.Slatersteven (talk) 11:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I refer you to the last sentence of my post. I decline to try and decipher your ramblings. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Lay of the PA's, OK. And the morning star is not the only source. What does Nick Knowles say http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/blog/archive/11/2010How about hope not hate itself http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/news/article/1944/muslims-criticise-scotland-yard-for-telling-t are reporting the guardian story. Question asked in the Lodon assembly http://mqt.london.gov.uk/mqt/public/question.do?id=37589. This is reliabley sourced, from multiple RS. Slatersteven (talk) 11:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Slatersteven, i dont think that was a PA. I agree that it is hard to decipher what you are saying in your previous post. I recommend spellcheck next time. Pass a Method talk 01:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

If they user had said sorry cant read what you have said I would agree, the user described it as ramblings, implying no coherency to the argument (rather then saying it was badly spelt). Does it occur to you (or him) that I may not realise my spelling is not always that good? Perhaps a bit more understanding and less judementalism is needed here.Slatersteven (talk) 12:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Key people

Someone just added a coment describing Guramit Singh and Kevin Carroll as "key people" in the EDL infobox. These two men have made a couple of speeches for the EDL, but besides that are insignificant figures. Should everyone who made an EDL speech be added as a key figure of the EDL? Pass a Method talk 17:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

What does "key people" mean in this sort of article? Is there guideline or precedent? Obotlig (talk) 04:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

It is determined by what reliable sources say. For example the fact that Singh is a key figure is supported by a reliable source that says, "One of its [EDL} leaders is Guramit Singh...."[1] TFD (talk) 05:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

It might be best to support this with more then one source.Slatersteven (talk) 11:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

is N Copsey a notable expert

http://www.tees.ac.uk/sections/research/on_research_story.cfm?staffid=5 http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=nolge%20cosey&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a&source=hp&channel=np#pq=nolge+cosey&hl=en&sugexp=kjrmc&cp=10&gs_id=16&xhr=t&q=nigel+copsey&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=4ST&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&channel=np&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbm=bks&source=og&sa=N&tab=wp&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=dfbe623b05a9ce51&biw=1421&bih=711 http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?pq=nolge+cosey&hl=en&sugexp=kjrmc&cp=10&gs_id=16&xhr=t&q=nigel+copsey&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=4ST&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&channel=np&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&um=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&biw=1421&bih=711&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=ps So yes he is.Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

EDL threatens ALL Muslims (evidence)

The claim that the EDL and are only against Muslims extremists has to be seriously questioned. In the name of honesty and evidence. Here is quote from Tommy Robinson, the EDL leader from his Tower Hamlet speech:

“…every single Muslim watching this video on YouTube, on 7/7 you got away with killing and maiming British citizens…the Islamic community will feel the full force of the EDL if we see any of our citizens killed, maimed or hurt on British soil ever again.” Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8j7IX_5a_9M S

This is not Anti-Islamization, this is 100% Islamophobia in every sense of the word. If you swapped Muslim for Black he'd be called an racist for what he said. If you swapped it with gay he'd be called homophobic. Erzan (talk) 08:45, 11 September 2011 (GMT)

• • Wikipedia is a place for articles written from a Neutral Point of View. Our hatred of despicable groups can not be allowed to influence the editing of any articles herein. The 7/7 attacks were, as far as I know, carried out by a group with a specific agenda - and I suspect that the sentiments against those terrorists (I suspect many would have, indeed, called them "extremists") would be held by a great many people you are not racists. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:21, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

If Wikipedia is a place for articles to be written from "a neutral point of view" then why do you keep pushing your POV? Multiculturalist (talk) 09:24, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• • • I know what Wikipedia it is suppose to be a place for, but it hardly lives up to it. Hence my desire to join and help edit it. I have not used my emotions to argue my point, and you have no idea of my politics. So save me the lecture. It does not matter if a sentiment is held by a great many of people. Millions of people could share the same sentiment, but that does not stop it from being a bigotry sentiment. If a White man stood up in the streets and argued that every black person will fill the full force of his organisation, regardless of their innocence. That is a direct threat and also intimidation. The said person has a clear desire to mistreat people on the basis of their characteristics, in my example that is being Black, and in this case being a Muslim. The original point still stands, this was a speech that targeted not guilty Muslims of terror, but every single one. Which is a direct contradiction on the claims of the EDL only disliking extremists. Cheers. Erzan (talk) 17:18, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Completely out of context. Why do you people feel the need to do this in order to make a point?

In the same speech he clearly was talking about militant Islam and on (2:20). Over and over again he clearly stated islamist which is a general term for militant Islam. The whole speech he kept referring to extremist in one way or another.
Yes, I will give you this much to be more consistent with the rest of the speech he could have said, "every single mulsim involved..."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWBRmuqsl5Q

--OxAO (talk) 16:34, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

"you people"..? Sindinero (talk) 19:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

• What exactly do you mean by you people? The extended version of the original video depicts Tommy, the leader of the EDL using the following words repeatedly: Militant Islam, Islam, Islamic community and Muslim. Attacking Islam is attacking Muslims, as Muslims are simply people who follow Islam. If you don't follow Islam then you are not a Muslim. It is that straightforward. Just as if you don't follow Christianity you are not a Christian. Now If Tommy was only addressing Militant Islamic people, then explain why he said every single Muslim and threatened to unleash the full force of the EDL onto the Islamic community. Why is he threatening the entire Islamic community? the Islamic community are Muslims, remember. So when one threatens the Islamic community, you are threatening every single Muslim. Erzan (talk) 12:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

*you people* was used referring to a number of people on this site that likes to take things out of context in order to make a point. It seems to be a common occurrence on this site and it shouldn't be allowed. You are missing an important part of your argument. What about those that call themselves Christians or Muslims that don't practice their religions? Under the Islamic belief one must mimic the prophet Mohammad life completely Islam calls that Iqamat-ud-Deen or a complete system of life. Which means Islam requires the adherence to the Iqamat-ud-Deen but most Muslims can not or will not for the simple fact we are all human, thus Islam and Muslims are not the same thing.

--OxAO (talk) 09:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

This material suggest by Erzan is a good primary source. Since it clearly belies information currently included in the article, it would be right to include it. --FormerIP (talk) 00:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Let's try to all remain calm about this, guys. I can see this descending into an edit war on the article and a flame war on the talk page. Let's just try to stick to WP:COOL. Richard BB 01:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the evidence has correctly mounted up to suggest that the EDL is vehemently Anti-Muslim, rather than just anti Islamism (the revivalist political aspect of Islam) it's evident in radio interviews and speeches held by key people of the EDL. I believe a section must be incorporated to include islamophobia and anti muslim rhetoric within the EDL and projected outwards.

--elcor101 (talk) 11:52, 03 November 2011 (UTC)

Membership / support

Just skimming that article and am wondering about the membership section. the EDL has no formal membership procedure and therefore could be said to have no "membership" as such. It certainly has supporters, albeit in numbers that are hard to fathom. As the article says it has several hundred who can be mobilised (estimates differ) and then if one takes facebook, there are thousands of supporters, but again it's hard to see these converting to actual active participants. I'd suggest that the section be restructured to make it clear that there is no formal membership and that those who claim so to be are actually supporters. What do we think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by S ellinson (talk • contribs) 19:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know that much about the EDL but from this page it looks like they have a few hundred signed up members.

http://englishdefenceleague.org/tag/divisions/

It took me a few seconds and lot more time to write this to see how many members are signed on. Why didn't you look before you post?

--OxAO (talk) 03:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Nazi EDL

The EDL are Nazi scum.

Surely it is time that we inserted, in a prominent position in the article, a sentence highlighting the obvious fact that the EDL are Nazis. For those who doubt this, I suggest you take a look at the official UAF website (which is, I would contend, an excellent and impartial source for all things related to fascism). The UAF website bears a photo which shows very clearly an EDL thug doing a Nazi salute. What more evidence do we need? Further more, I would like to suggest that we import the said photo and use it as the main picture at the top of the EDL article, as it illustrates perfectly who the EDL are. I am just trying to be helpful without any particular bias. Multiculturalist (talk) 14:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Is this some kind of a joke? How do you think Unite Against Fascism is an impartial source in this instance and how do you think a photo of one person performing an action is a suitable reliable source that can be used to support your assertion?--Pontificalibus (talk) 14:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

A photo is not a reliable source and to draw an implication from it original research. There is a body of material in Searchlight's latest edition that we may want to think about at some stage regarding funding linkages. --Snowded ^TALK 15:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

You've been here long enough to know what constitutes a decent source. Why are you wasting time? Alexandre8 (talk) 16:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Where is your comment on this sindinero? Alexandre8 (talk) 16:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

[2] Sindinero (talk) 16:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

:-) --Snowded ^TALK 17:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Gotta love the double standards ;). Learn to take take it in ones stride )))! Alexandre8 (talk) 18:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I see that in the EDL's latest unlawful attack, they vandalised a Luton mosque with a swastika symbol - yet more evidence that they're Nazis. Multiculturalist (talk) 09:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

So because one of their members (presumably, how many people does it take to spray paint a cross on a wall?) did this, they are all Nazis? That's a very thick wedge you're trying to shove in there. On that basis we can presumably henceforth label any organisation/religion by the actions of one of their members/adherents? Just checking because that seems to be what you are saying. danno 21:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I have to step in here Multi as you are seriously misguided. Do you know what a Nazi actually is? Do you know its history and are you aware that Britain lost many, many lives trying to fight off the Nazi's? English Defence League....clue is in the name. I am not a member of the EDL nor support them but do you know what the movement is about? Read the article - they oppose Islam. They do not support Hitler. End of. Just because Neo Nazis infiltrate the organisiation does not label them all as Nazis does it...you have to use NPOW here dude. This is Wiki not a sandbox.

I guess you are for multiculture, as are we all. Yet some are not and just because an individual chooses to oppose multiculture it does not make them a Nazi. A person who supports the ideals of Hitler is a Nazi in the same way you cannot be a Marxist if you do not follow Karl Marx. Otherwise, by your own admitted logic, Islam is a Nazi organisation! http://islamwatch2010.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/muslim-antisemitism.jpg http://lh4.ggpht.com/_qbT9lfmNQI0/Sjnw8W_B6TI/AAAAAAAACIs/xmEXmaiKn8Y/islam19.jpg http://www.anorak.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/nazi-islam.jpg http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_u-AKWDZaYso/SA4KKaCK23I/AAAAAAAACNE/gqdltWv6sfA/s400/God+Bless.jpg http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_mveHL3n_4ME/TM8wh2RFuAI/AAAAAAAAEGc/JCRK_niArfM/s1600/islam_holocaust.jpg http://www.womanhonorthyself.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/anti-semite-signlowed1.jpg

I think I have made my case clear. If one is to judge an entire group of people by the actions of the few, then applies to everyone not just select groups. There should be no double standards, none whatsoever.

Normally I would not write such things, but it really gets my goat that people who oppose Islam in any fashion are labelled Nazi's all the time. DarkMithras 26/08/2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.246.254 (talk) 11:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Britain lost many lives fighting the Nazis. But there were also British Nazis, both before and after the war. And Islam is not an organization. — Red XIV ^(talk) 17:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

How many "isolated incidents" of the EDL using Nazi symbolism in their actions does it take before it's not "isolated incidents" and instead is representative of the group? — Red XIV ^(talk) 17:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

When it can be shown that a majority of its members cary out such acts.Slatersteven (talk) 12:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Guys, I can't see any current proposal to change the article so can we have less soapboxing please? --Snowded ^TALK 12:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of labelling every far-right group as Nazi. But to attempt to claim that somehow the EDL is any better than any other Far-Right group simply because it has replaced a predominant anti-Semitism with a predominant Islamophobia is sickening. The EDL still has its share of anti-Semites by the way.....and homophobes, who march right alongside its few LGBT Division members. There's even a video of Neo-Nazi Wayne Baldwin embracing "EDL Abdul" (who the EDL refer to as "Paki Abdul). In fact, the EDL tolerated the presence of the Racial Volunteer Force - even giving a few of them official roles at demos. And it was the RVF who left in the end over the Richard Price incident - they were not kicked out. Between the EDL burning the Swastika and the RVF members burning the EDL flag 15 months passed. To think of the EDL as 'not as far-right as other far-right' groups is misleading. They have the same MO. They have simply replaced Jews with Muslims. And quite frankly, anti-Semitism and Islamophobia are both as bad as each other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.217.166.32 (talk) 10:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Guys, please, don't feed the trolls. – Richard BB 02:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

A screenshot archive of Nazi and Anti Semetic sympathies within EDL: http://www.twitpic.com/e/1fnr — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.19.30 (talk) 21:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

EDL and weapons (new development)

This may deserve a mention.

Many photos have appeared of EDL activists posing with offensive, and often illegal weaponry. Among these have been Regional Organisers, founding member and EDL Youth Leader Joel Titus, and other confirmed EDL activists. The photos are beyond doubt valid.

Some can be seen here:

http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/blog/article/1341/the-guns-of-the-edl

Yet, this week the EDL released a statement on its website claiming that the photos were faked. To 'prove' this, the EDL posted disucssions on the message board 4chan which showed users (possibly even EDL members) in the process of faking pictures with guns. None of the photos used by the EDL are the one's that have appeared in the media. And as said; all the photos of EDL members with weapons are proven to be genuine as the identities have been established and tied to the EDL. Also, the photos on the EDL article are dated after the above photos were published.

http://englishdefenceleague.org/faked-shocking-photos-of-armed-edl-members-revealed-to-be-fabrications/

I believe this deserves a mention for two main reasons: Firstly, it shows beyond doubt that the EDL website is not a reliable source of information - that the EDL are actively engaged in disinformation not only about Muslims but about themselves. Secondly, that even after events in Norway the EDL has failed to take any action against its members with malicious and violent intent - prefering instead to deny any problem and use existing problems to attack 'Liberals'.

For an explanation, please see this link:

http://www.edlnews.co.uk/edl-news/edls-gun-denial-story-fail

Again, I'm not certain on the criteria on wiki. But in the interests of objectivity, I think its fair to give this a mention. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.217.166.32 (talk) 08:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that the EDL leadership is now actively attempting to conceal potentially illegal activity involving its activists and the possession of weaponry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.217.166.32 (talk) 10:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Um -- please read the talk page guidelines - article talk pages are for discussions as to what should be in the article, and not for diatribes against despicable groups. In addition, to the extent that living peo0le are mentioned, any edits regarding them must conform to the policy at WP:BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm saying that it should go in the article - EDL leadership denying the validity of genuine photos is a major thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.217.166.32 (talk) 21:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Then lets have some RS reporting it.Slatersteven (talk) 22:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree these are not reliable sources and the photographs if genuine appear to depict airguns, hunting rifles, replicas and the like and it is not for us to determine if the weapons or phtotos are real, illegal or "offensive" - let te press and Britsh police sort it out and come back with reliable verifiable information. Obotlig (talk) 04:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I find it interestingm that neither rifel appear to have a magazine or feed action.Slatersteven (talk) 11:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Whether the weapons are real or not isn't the point - the point is that they are verified EDL activists holding weapons (replicas or real) and the EDL has released a statement claiming that the photos are photoshopped and do not show EDL activists. EDL doing one thing, EDL saying something completely different. Completely discredits the EDL's .org site. Time and time again the EDL have been challanged for what their members say on facebook and other sites - and the response is always the same "its not our .org site. Go there for real news and opinions." And this time, it is the .org site and the EDL have been caught out openly lying.

And with all due respect to the person above, its impossible with some of the photos to say whether or not the guns are fake or real. Some are probably replicas, others rimfire or pellet guns. But again, its not the point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.217.166.32 (talk) 22:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

This is your analysis which is prohibited as original research. As you point out the reliability of the sources you mention does not meet the standard of a reliable source for this article. Until some legitimate news source reports on it I don't see what you'd want included here. A + B may = C to us but until a valid source reports it it's not fit for inclusion - especially if it might be potentially libellous. Obotlig (talk) 01:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

No reputabel news organisaton has picked this up. All we have is a blog (not RS0 and the EDL) not RS).Slatersteven (talk) 10:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The Daily Mail isn't the best kind of source, but it's a formally reliable source, and it has reported about the weapons (not the denial) [3]. This was also taken up by an opinion piece in the blog of ABC's "The Drum" programme. [4] And it was previously reported by Press TV. [5] Altogether that seems to make the information that EDL members like to pose with guns noteworthy. Unsurprising though it is for those familiar with the group, it's an important detail that can help readers to develop an accurate impression from this article. Hans Adler 12:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

OK with have some RS for this now. So it could be included, but wording needs to be carefull.Slatersteven (talk) 12:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

At least you can say the EDL has denied they are their members other wise your pushing thin ice as far as defamation. I see it is very carefully worded but it is still poor form. NRA doesn't deny they show weapons it wouldn't be libel to say so. But none of these pictures have any faces so there is no way to verify or deny the allegations even if other news sources have used them.

http://englishdefenceleague.org/faked-shocking-photos-of-armed-edl-members-revealed-to-be-fabrications/

--OxAO (talk) 03:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Screenshot archive of EDL and firearms, knives, etc. http://www.twitpic.com/e/1fmj — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.19.30 (talk) 21:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Image gallery

I suggest that the "Image gallery" section should be deleted. The two pictures should either be placed somewhere in the article where they are actually relevant and complement the text, or else just deleted, if they cannot be relocated. A separate image gallery containing pictures that don't seem to fit elsewhere in the article is pointless and unencyclopedic. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 02:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The @everythingedl screenshot archive, which catalogues the streams output from October 2010 - Present: http://www.twitpic.com/events/everythingedl — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.19.30 (talk) 21:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Opposing what "some" believe

... is a far-right street protest movement which opposes what "some believe" to be a spread of Islamism, Sharia law and Islamic extremism in England.

What does "some believe" even signify? That only some people believe that the EDL is against those things? Or some people believe that the spread of those exist? Either way, I think we have to go with what the EDL stands for in its mission statement.

Half the references provided are dead, by the way.

Proposed : What their manifesto says. If there are sources which dispute this claim, a more constructive and objective way of putting it would be : "movement which opposes the spread of Islamism, Sharia law and Islamic extremism in England" (, although this claim is disputed by...)

Ecthelion 8 (talk) 19:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the wording is there because the idea that there is a "spread of Islamism, Sharia law and Islamic extremism in England", or what exactly this means, is contentious. --FormerIP (talk) 21:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I think this should be what the EDL says.

Eg. "the IPCC opposes what some believe to be climate change.." seems silly, since this seems to cast doubt as to what the organization stands for. There are countless sources btw that validate that Islamism and Sharia ARE spreading in England. Seeking for complete media consensus for an issue will lead to everything being "what some believe". Review of the proposed change?

EDIT: This will also conform to EDL where :

"English Defence League, a British far-right single issue organisation, opposed to the spread of Islamism, Sharia law and Islamic extremism in England"

Ecthelion 8 (talk) 06:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

What sources say that Islamism and Sharia Law are spreading. --Snowded ^TALK 11:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd call the establishment of Sharia-controlled zones the spread of Islamism and Sharia law. This (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2019547/Anjem-Choudary-Islamic-extremists-set-Sharia-law-zones-UK-cities.html), for starters. I take it you haven't been following this issue too closely?

So if it's ok, I propose changing the lede to :

""movement which opposes the spread of Islamism, Sharia law and Islamic extremism in England"

if you have sources which doubt either the EDL's mission, or the spread of Islamism/Sharia law, then :

"although this claim is disputed by (insert here)."

Ecthelion 8 (talk) 16:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, its absolute nonsense. For who doesn't remember all the Anjem Choudarys, Al-Muhajirouns, oppressive Islamic schools, attempts of establishing "Sharia-controlled zones" and terrorist attacks of the, say, 1960s. —Filippusson (t.) 18:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not too good at getting sarcasm over the internet, but that's just me.... If you could clarify your stand for the lesser mortals.

what "some believe" sounds like a joke. Who is this "some" anyway? How is it not "most" or "few" or "infinitesimally small number of"? Weasel words?

Ecthelion 8 (talk) 19:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

You'll have to do better than a Daily Mail piece reporting one extremist. Try and find a body of material in academic articles or the quality press and you might be able to make the case. We are not here to validate the view of EDL or its supporters, but to report on reliable sources. --Snowded ^TALK 19:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2019547/Anjem-Choudary-Islamic-extremists-set-Sharia-law-zones-UK-cities.html

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-07-30/uk/29833064_1_sharia-law-poster-campaign-zones

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/features/3718799/London-suburb-put-under-Sharia-law.html

Are you actually disputing that Sharia law is spreading in England? Please stop making straw man arguments. Just how many sources do you need till "some" becomes "more than a few" or "quite a moderate number of" people believe to be the spread of ...?

This is sounding idiotic. I noticed your edit, where you reverted the anti-Muslim claim. EDL always claims that they are NOT anti-Muslim but against the radical elements. Or maybe that should be "some believe them to be anti-Muslim" and so on?

Ecthelion 8 (talk) 19:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

My comment was sarcastic in nature, yes. Since Islamism didn't even exist (by reasonable measure) in the UK some decades ago, it is inherently a fact that Islamism has increased, since there exist Islamism today. How else could you possibly explain that fact? —Filippusson (t.) 19:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing that up and noted. This article does not have a NPOV. The EDL is portrayed in a pretty (consistently) negative light. It implies that the EDL was involved with Anders Breivik, for starters. Reverts are being made with hardly an explanation.

Ecthelion 8 (talk) 19:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Adding the Sun as a source! Please, please realise that the purpose of this page is not here to propagate the views of the EDL but to summarise RELIABLE sources. --Snowded ^TALK 20:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2010/jul/05/sharia-law-religious-courts

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2957428/Sharia-law-courts-operating-in-Britain.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196165/Britain-85-sharia-courts-The-astonishing-spread-Islamic-justice-closed-doors.html

Again, how many sources do you need before you decide it isn't "some" but "a tad less than many"? Please realize that the purpose of this page is not to cast doubt in a biased manner either. I can't believe a line like this is being likened to a UFO sighting. Funny how them being an "anti-immigration" group, which they have denied, requires a single source.

Ecthelion 8 (talk) 20:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

An opinion column and a report that there are 85 courts then the Mail. Sorry it does not support the EDL claim and none of those a the sort of sources we would need - i.e. third party commentary --Snowded ^TALK 20:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The EDL sees itself as opposing the spread of Islamism. Unless you can find a source that says that Islamism has not increased (spread), there is no grounds to outright dismiss it as just being something "some believe". (And even then, it should be put in another sentence, as a conflicting view.) —Filippusson (t.) 20:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

THat is called proving a negative and there is also the clear question of context. The EDL's statements about the spread of Islam are very different from (to take an example) the Archbishop of Canterbury. The EDL position is to make claims about the spread of Islamism etc. If those claims are supported by reliable sources then we can included them, if not then we are not here to be a propaganda vehicle for the EDL. We have to be very careful on these issues not to endorse an extremist position. --Snowded ^TALK 21:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

First, I hope you agree that Wikipedia shouldn't endorse any position. Whether a position is considered extremist by some, or not, every issue is to be treated with NPOV. Nevertheless, I agree with the issue you point to about the EDL's possibly deviating considerations about what the "spread of Islamism" is. Therefore, I would suggest changing "what some believe to be" in the lead with "what it considers to be". Both the "some" and "believe" parts are anyway vague and pov. —Filippusson (t.) 22:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Again, Mr. Snowded, how many sources do you need once you decide that "some" becomes "more than some"? How did you agree with "some" in the first place? As Filippusson noted, we are not here to endorse any position, so whether or not they are extreme is not a factor in this discussion, or even Wikipedia's business.

Again, you are making a straw man argument. You have not responded to the fact the "some" itself is a weasel word. You have not clarified their "anti-immigration" stance either, since I can quote the same arguments you are quoting. Maybe it should "some believe that they are anti-immigration" (changes made by PassaMethod as well). If the claim is disputed, then those sources can be added as well, as in the proposed change.

I would think that the point of this article is to describe them fairly. If that's not the case, please don't waste the time of others.

Ecthelion 8 (talk) 05:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Filippusson, Wikipedia is not required to be be neutral on the EDL or any other issue, but to reflect reliable sources. I am happy with "what it considers to be" as the issue here is to qualify an EDL claim where that claim is not supported by reliable sources.

Ecthelion 8, you need to read up on what a straw man argument is, the wikipedia page is not a bad place to start. I also suggest that you stop wasting the time of others by using unreliable sources such as the Sun. You also need to be slightly more temperate in your remarks and edit summaries if you don't want to seen as a protagonist for EDL apologia. --Snowded ^TALK 08:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

When since the start I was opposed to the use of the word "some believe", you twisted it into saying Wikipedia should not endorse an extreme position. And there I was thinking that was a straw man. My bad.

Again, how many sources do you need till there's a consensus that Sharia law, Islamism et al IS spreading in England? Just curious. In fact, do you have any (stringently reliable) source to claim that it isn't?

The sources I provided were the first few after a simple Google search. If you notice, the Sun wasn't the only one I posted. Anyhow, I'm unable to find out why the Sun is not a reliable source. There are obviously several sources, but you ignored all of them because I included the Sun.

If you applied your stringent views on sources to yourself, I would definitely want anti-immigration to be as "the EDL are as some believe anti-immigration". Move on.

Ecthelion 8 (talk) 09:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Funny, for mr Snowded no sources are good enough to prove that Sharia law and islamization are spreading in the UK whilst any source would do for supposed 'anti-Muslim' orientation of the EDL.Estlandia (dialogue) 09:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I commented on all your sources (except the Times of India which is a one paragraph take from a news wire not a considered piece) - please read what other editors say. I suggest you also read up on reliable sources and generally on how to edit here. You might also want to read up on proper behaviour. If you can't do that then you will get no where. --Snowded ^TALK 10:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Reverted "some" back to "it", which was the consensus wording (changed without discussion by Mostleydead on 7th October), and added multiple sources that frame the EDL's opposition in terms of the EDL's own beliefs or perceptions. These were brought up at previous discussions about this, but never added to the article for some reason. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:21, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm unable to find out why the Sun is not a reliable source or discussions regarding the same.

There are plentiful sources to indicate that Sharia law, Islamic extremism et al IS spreading in England.

So, since the EDL is opposing those things, which are by no means imaginary or a minority view considering the media coverage, I proposed :

"movement which opposes the spread of Islamism, Sharia law and Islamic extremism in England"

"what it considers" implies a fringe view. The EDL is not the only source which claims their spread.

I see no reason to believe Sharia law et al is NOT spreading in England since I see no sources saying so.

Ecthelion 8 (talk) 12:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

How about "opposes what is percived as the spread of Islamism"?Slatersteven (talk) 13:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Your suggestion violates synthesis, it would be taking one source saying that the EDL believe Islamism is spreading and combining it with another that says Islamism is in fact spreading. And saying "perceived" violates WP:WEASEL. TFD (talk) 16:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

So is there any actual source that tells us Sharia law et al is NOT spreading in England?

"opposes the spread of Islamism..."

Any actual arguments against this change?

Ecthelion 8 (talk) 06:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Again that is OR. Sharia law btw is not "Islamism", it is Islam. TFD (talk) 06:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2011/July/Muslim-Extremists-Seek-Sharia-Law-in-UK-Towns/

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,330193,00.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7488790.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7238890.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7233040.stm

My point was "what it perceives to be the spread" is implying that this is solely held by the EDL, whereas there are several sources to support the view. My understanding of Islamism was the political aspect, and so spread of Sharia law and rejection of Western laws would be Islamism. Not too clear about this though. Is EDL opposing Islamism? Or Islam?

Ecthelion 8 (talk) 06:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

None of those stories support the EDL position and you are attempting a synthesis anyway. --Snowded ^TALK 10:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

None of these stories indicate Sharia law is spreading in England?

Ecthelion 8 (talk) 11:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Most of them pre-date the EDL. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:52, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The first source says, "Extremist Muslims in the United Kingdom are calling for the establishment of Islamic states complete with Sharia law.... Some government officials in the towns also agree that the... proposal doesn't represent the wishes of most of the Muslim population there." It does not support the assertion that the "spread of Islamism" is a mainstream belief. TFD (talk) 16:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Hpw about "it claims to oppose the spread of islamism and sharia law"?Slatersteven (talk) 14:12, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The fact that not every one on this page necessarily agrees that there is a "spread of Islamism" proves that it is a value judgement, therefore the word "some" is entirely appropriate. If the EDL's proponents wish to argue about what is the consensus or mainstream belief on this, then they would be advised to understand that mainstream belief is that the EDL are a Nazi organisation: and the internet sources for that assertion are plentiful (just see how many photos of EDL members doing the sieg heil salute you can find in a brief surf of the net). Multiculturalist (talk) 21:42, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

EDL stages roof-top protest at Fifa headquarters over poppy ban

Two members of the EDL climbed on to the roof of Fifa's headquarters in Zurich with a banner protesting against the ban. The two protesters displayed a banner with two poppies which read: "English Defence League. How dare Fifa disrespect our war dead and wounded. Support our troops."

This protest is being well reported and shows that the organization protest in multiple ways apart from marching, possible addition? Off2riorob (talk) 22:40, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Add it to the table maybe? --Snowded ^TALK 10:22, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Table of demonstrations

We have talked about this before but its getting excessive. Options are to summarise it, or create a separate article. Thoughts? --Snowded ^TALK 10:20, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing that can't be summarised in a few paragraphs. I don't see the need for a separate article, since it will just be a list of stats that usually vary little except for number - EDL demo, UAF and others counter-protest, arrests on one or both sides yadda yadda yadda. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:23, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

suggest to summarize. the table is indeed excessive.-- mustihussain  12:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I dont think the table is excessive. There are larger tables on wikipedia. It is fine as it is. Pass a Method talk 12:11, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Definitely summarise. The table was okay when there were five or six items in it, but it now represents an unnecessary level of detail for the general reader. No strong feelings about creating a separate article but, since we have the sources, why not? --FormerIP (talk) 14:06, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

A summery might wirk as this is prety much trivia, maybe the major demos only.Slatersteven (talk) 14:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

a summary should rather include the (violent) nature of these demonstrations. the demonstrations in support of geert wilders, and the ones attended by "defence leagues" from other countries and anders behring breivik should be mentioned.-- mustihussain  14:28, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Why os the Gert Wilders demo notable? amd we do have a sction on violence already15:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I have just created EDL demonstrations Pass a Method talk 15:16, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

lol, great! suggest you summarize as well.-- mustihussain  15:18, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I think a summary would be enough, but will not gain consensus so lets accept the table. I have hazarded a one line summary --Snowded ^TALK 18:38, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

why should the table be retained when another article concerning these demonstrations exists? be bold, and remove the table. take it from there.-- mustihussain  18:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

btw, you messed up the references with the removal.-- mustihussain  18:57, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

not seeing much of a consensus for a table. I don't think its necessary. What policy is it based on? Leaky Caldron 19:06, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Members

Having read that EDL does not have members, much of the article uses the term. This really needs to be corrected one way or another. A user referred to the memberships of the on-line groups, this would require more research to see if it constitutes membership of EDL any more than having a log-on here constitutes membership of anything. Rich Farmbrough, 19:44, 12 November 2011 (UTC).

There is a Guardian article somewhere which basically points out that a lot of the online members are journalists, anti-EDL activists etc. So I think you are right, membership is inappropriate. They have activists and passive followers as far as I can see. Given that the article references activities, maybe activists is the better word? --Snowded ^TALK 19:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Supporters?Slatersteven (talk) 19:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)::

I would have thought either term, depending on the context. This kind of article is very hard to edit well, page regulars have my respect. It would be good also to have more than just one BBC article which says

This in turn sparked a counter-demonstration by a group called the United Peoples of Luton.

Racial tensions

This group became the English Defence League (EDL),...

to source the transition between one group and the other. It looks like there is a lot of coverage of United Peoples of Luton and the transient (I assume) group might be worthy of a section or article of its own. Rich Farmbrough, 20:03, 12 November 2011 (UTC).

Far right?

They have jewish, pundshabi and black members how can they be rigthwing extremists, the most rightwing extremist are antisemitic?--95.114.78.147 (talk) 12:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Already discussed. That is how they have been categorized in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 12:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

You mean revert warred and bullied through by the consensus among the numerous islamophiles around here? Business as usual on this crappy website, where almost no-one read the controversial articles anyway. (Even I didn't read the vast majority of it, because it wouldn't be worth my time.) EDL disagree with the "right-wing" label, so obviously it shouldn't be stated as a fact, if the "article" is to be taken seriously. You don't care about that though, because like everyone here, they only care about their agenda and they write sad, crappy articles, that are just useless. Anyway, enough ranting and time wasting and off to a better website! -- angrydanishguy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.81.20.149 (talk) 22:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Right Wing and Racism are not always synonymous. Edit: your attempted spelling of Punjabi is astounding, please see correct spelling lol. Alexandre8 (talk) 13:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Left wing newspapers are not a reliable source. In my opinion, the best source for the EDL is on thier website. It quite clearly states what they belive they are about.

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.129.46 (talk) 15:58, 28 August 2011 (UTC) 

Do you think the Daily Telegraph (reference [4]) is a left-wing newspaper? Do you think any far-right organisation would describe itself as "far-right" (or a far-left organisation describe itself as "far-left")? -- Dr Greg  talk  16:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

For a start, the EDL is predominantly 'white'. Secondly, its Jewish Division is run by a woman named Roberta Moore - a Far-Right Kahanist and self-confessed Jewish Racial Supremacist. Thirdly, I've seen a lot of racism in the EDL by non-white members. That the EDL has non-white and non-christian (and maybe even a couple of Muslim) members does not have any sway over its political position, or racism or Islamophobia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.217.166.32 (talk) 10:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia's own definition of "far-right" is "a belief that superiority and inferiority is an innate reality between individuals and groups — and a complete rejection of the concept of social equality as a norm". Membership of a religious group cannot constitute "an innate reality". "Innate" means "existing from birth". No-one is born a muslim, and people can cease being muslims. Furthermore, EDL's stated opposition is not to muslims per se, nor even to islam, but to islamic extremism. The National Domestic Extremism Unit of the British Police force has twice said that the EDL is not a far-right organisation. . Clearly the political identity of EDL is open to dispute. Dematamoros (talk) 10:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The references provided say Detective Chief Superintendent Adrian Tudway wrote: "In terms of the position with EDL, the original stance stands, they are not extreme right wing as a group …”. (Grauniad), and “On the one hand, they are seen by many as the single biggest threat to community cohesion in the UK, but they are most certainly not extreme right-wing organisations.” (Morning Star). That says (in Tudway's opinion) the EDL are not an extreme right wing group. They do not say he said the EDL are not far right. Daicaregos (talk) 11:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

In what way is the Police National Domestic Extremism Unit only expressing a POV? How does that differ from journalistic sources (who may have no qualifications whatosever in which to asses these things, and may be relying on the circularity of "Wikipedia say EDL are far-right"? Also, you need to explain in what way "extreme right wing" differs for "far-right". As I have pointed out, Wikipedia's own definition of "far-right" would not apply to the project in which EDL are engaged. The 2nd Pillar of The Wikipedia 5 Pillars says that WP entries must be impartial. You are ensuring that this article remains biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dematamoros (talk • contribs) 14:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

"Flogging a dead horse" springs to mind here. There is quite clearly a distinct difference between "extreme right-wing" and "far right" and it behoves Dematamoros to find out how they differ - it is not the job of other editors to educate him in either political science or basic English vocabulary. (S)he suggests that journalist may have no qualifications whatsoever in which to assess these things, so let me break an otherwise personal rule. I have a degree in political science; I wrote a thesis on extreme and far right groups in Britain; I have taught politics and related subjects in one form or another for 40 years. So, I am probably qualified to say that the EDL is most definitely far right! Emeraude (talk) 17:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_right-wing Wikipedia's own entry on "extreme right wing" redirects to the entry on "far-right". Therefore, to WP they are equivalent terms. And your claims concering your own education is a logical fallacy, called "appeal to authority". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority. This article is biased, and violates Pillar 2 of the WP 5 Pillars. The bias has been pointed out to you. Dematamoros (talk) 10:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

"Appeal to authority" - quite right, and precisely what I said I would not normally do. However, it was you who questioned the qualifications of journalists - you can't have it both ways. Incidentally, any political scientist, yet alone member of the public with an ounce of common sense, will read nothing signifcant into Wikipedia redirecting extreme right wing to far-right; it has as much signifcance as redirecting dark blue to blue! There is a clear difference, but not enough to warrant separate definitions. Emeraude (talk) 10:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

We call them 'far right" because that is the description used by social scientists in peer-reviewed literature. TFD (talk) 12:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I wonder then what social "scientists" label themselves when they peer review each other. Rhetorical question. Obotlig (talk) 04:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Redirect SDL

Do you agree that Scottish Defence League should be redirected? Pass a Method talk 16:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

YesSlatersteven (talk) 16:50, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed --Snowded ^TALK 18:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Probably - see my comments there if I ever find may way back to the RFC. Rich Farmbrough, 19:44, 12 November 2011 (UTC).

Same rubbish, no redirect. Alexandre8 (talk) 20:16, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Fixing citations

Several changes were recently made to clean up the citations in this article. I agree that the citations need a lot of work, and that the article as it is now suffers from citation clutter, but I don't think we should actually delete any references unless they're completely extraneous, and this is for two reasons. First, a lot of discussion and negotiation has gone into working out some very contentious terminology here, and eroding the base of textual, RS support for these words could leave the article even more open to endless repeats of the same terminological battles that already fill the archives. Second, and more immediately, the whole-sale way that groups of citations were removed led to several citations (like the Garland and Treadwell article, which is one of the academic sources referenced) disappearing entirely due to misformatting.

I think the citation style should be standardized (so that we're either always using "<ref>" or "<refname =>", and not a mix of both. And second, cite clutter should be cleaned up by bundling citations, not deleting sources unless they're totally extraneous or misplaced in a given instance. I used to know how to bundle citations, but I've since forgotten, and it looks like the WP page on this has been changed. I'll look into it. Sindinero (talk) 23:28, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

PassaMethod edits

I thought my edit summary was clear, but to avoid ambiguity

• Anti-muslim was deleted in favour of anti- trade union on the basis of a couple of articles referencing attacks on trade union offices with chants of marxism. Its not enough evidence, and even with more examples it would still be original research to input an ideology from that without a third party source which made the statement.
• The fact that the EDL received 11k facebook supporters in one day is taken from an article which uses it with the key qualifier "but were not engaged to return". A part of a quote was taken here by PassaMethod to imply something different from the use of the material in the article
• The splinter group "The vandals" is in the reference a description of an internal dispute within parts of the EDL, it is not something that EDL has formed.
• One other reference to clashes with Unions was to a blog, which is not a reliable source and its not clear if it was directed or a peripheral attack anyway

As I said in my edit summary the sources were either poor, or where reliable did not support the use made of them in the edits. --Snowded ^TALK 04:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Cute

It is a real shame when a professor who focuses on anti-fascism (not sure if Teesside University is a real school) writes something for something like "Faith Matters" with the same resources we do goes and makes something more neutral than Wikipedia.[6]Cptnono (talk) 06:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

What's your point exactly? Is it an attack on Nigel Copsey, in which case it borders on the libellous. Your statement "not sure if Teesside University is a real school" displays a level of ignorance that is quite worrying? Emeraude (talk) 12:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I was wondering this myslef.Slatersteven (talk) 12:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of #Table_of_demonstrations

Looking at the brief discussion above, there not only was no consensus for the creation of a separate article, but in fact a consensus against it, with a preference for a summary in this main article. I will therefore list it for deletion at WP:AfD unless a clear consensus for keeping it is established. Leaky Caldron 13:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I've been suggesting its deletion from here for some time and generally this has been supported, either in toto or by setting up a separate page, though no compelling reason has been given for a separate page. The possibility of deleting the table was first raised back in January (see here and continued in February (see here) and again in July (see [Talk:English Defence League/Archive_5#List_of_marches|here]) and the arguments made then still appply, perhaps even more so (e.g. uncontrollable expanding list with dubious encyclopedic value). This has happened and will continue to happen. Now's the time to be bold. Let's delete it. Emeraude (talk) 17:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree, delete it --Snowded ^TALK 12:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Reference 40

Ref. 40, from the Guardian, contains a prediction of the future, contrary to Wikipedia's ban on future history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.134.251 (talk) 13:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

See WP:CRYSTAL. We cannot predict the future but may report people who do. TFD (talk) 18:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Sociology of the EDL

I referenced an article in Dissent by Ben Gidley that describes the EDL's sociology and intellectual influences. While Gidley is not sympathetic to the EDL he sees it responding to a real source of discontent and is trying to understand its origin. He has found a duel origin for what he calls the "booted wing" and "suited wing." The latter has broad intellectual support especially in cyber space (see Gidley's article). I'd would appreciate it if others could find additional information on this subject. I have found some similarities between Robinson's expressions and several intellectual online magazines and blogs but that would be original research. Aside from Gidley, there seems to be little effort to analyze the influences of Robinson and his cohorts. I write this note because many editors seemed taken back by what Gidley has found. Consequently, I have to quote Gidley word by word so as not to appear to be giving my personal opinion. Are there any question's on Gidley's work or comments on my use? Jason from nyc (talk) 13:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The EDL's "intellectual" influences..? Forgive me for saying so, but surely this is a joke? Multiculturalist (talk) 01:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Post spotted on EDL talk page:

"Forgive me for saying so, but surely this is a joke?" Signed, Multiculturalist.

I detect either a keen irony or blunt talk page abuse. Obotlig (talk) 05:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I have added a paragraph based on Nigel Copsey's study of the EDL (see references). Most of the study repeats what is already written. However, Copsey goes into the influence of the counter-jihad movement on key members of the EDL. And the EDL's mission statement expresses support for that movement. I believe this background is important to understanding how the EDL is part of a larger picture and how the EDL has been influenced by that larger picture. I see there are some objections to this material and would like to understand what they are about. Jason from nyc (talk) 17:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The only sources you supplied were from Luton Today. You need a proper source and then proposed words. I made some major changes to your Dissent article summary as phrases like "intellectual" influences did not match what was actually said and a misleading interpretation was given. There are also some limits to how many he said/she said things are needed in the article --Snowded ^TALK 17:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I must have forgotten to put the most important reference--the Copsey study--which, by the way, I found in the "Further Reading" section. I thought it was a balanced and interesting study. Is the missing reference the only problem with the deleted section. Shall we put it back with that reference? Jason from nyc (talk) 18:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, I'm not quite sure why you (and others) object to the word "intellectual" when Gidley says "operating at a reasonably high intellectual level compared to the traditional far Right ..." Can you explain in more detail. I was trying to include an extended exposition on the "suited wing" as it is missing elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason from nyc (talk • contribs) 18:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you put your proposed wording with the reference here for discussion. The Luton referenced stuff should not really be a part of it. Otherwise its obviously wrong to say a wing is intellectual, when the reference, somewhat sarcastically implies its relative to the brain dead. --Snowded ^TALK 18:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Here's a copy:

Nigel Copsey discusses the EDL’s place within the global counter-jihad movement. Paul Ray, one of the EDL’s early leaders, had “established links with US ‘counter-jihadists’, such as the Zionist blogger Pamela Geller.” Alan Lake, a speaker and purported financial backer of the EDL “represents the more ‘respectable’, intellectual wing of the EDL.” His views are “influenced by the writings of people like Robert Spencer.” (Tommy Robinson denies Lake is a member or provided funds. ) Plank #5 of Mission Statement on the EDL website proclaims its solidarity with the global counter-jihadi movement.

I don't understand how the links work on the 'talk' page. In any case here's the links: Copsley Article and Luton Today Jason from nyc (talk) 19:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind my tidying up the references and getting the indenting right. The Copsley article is a reliable source but why are you picking those aspects for a whole paragraph? The links to Geller are best handled in the international section (although I would drop the Zionist label), there is already stuff on Lake and no need to repeat it. I simply can't see that this edit adds anything. --Snowded ^TALK 19:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The idea is to add a discussion of some of the influences on the leadership, specifically that of the counter-jihad movement. I've seen amble discussion back and forth between certain members and global counter-jihad writers. Copsley seems to be an authoritative source that sums up some of the interactions between the EDL leadership and other like minded individuals. While Copsley discusses the other aspects of the EDL, these are already covered elsewhere in the wiki article. The paragraph is about the counter-jihad influence and support, not Copsley's total findings. Noting contact with others (like Geller who has a leading role in the States) and influence of Spencer's work gives us some idea of the basis for the ideas and/or rhetoric (depending on your point of view). The Zionist label isn't relevant (it came with the quote) and Lake's background isn't important if his role in the movement is established elsewhere. But links to Geller and Spencer help to give us an idea of the wider context of influence and contact between the English branch and global branches of the counter-jihad movement. Jason from nyc (talk) 23:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The counter jihad stuff is already there in the Gidley reference. Its enough, no need to repeat --Snowded ^TALK 23:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I disagree. "BNP" occurs 11 times. Do we need to hear about the "BNP" so often? "Hooligan" occurs 10 times. One can't miss it! "Jihad" or "Counter-Jidad" doesn't occur even once. The Gidley reference hardly conveys the connections to the counter-jihad movement. I believe this helps the reader understand an important influence. If Gidley is right that there are two wings, one is under-represented and only sketched in bare skeletal form. There is more in both Gidley and Copsley that is worth bring to the attention of the reader. Jason from nyc (talk) 03:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

And of course you are entitled to disagree, but please wait for agreement to changes on the talk page if they are disputed. WP:BRD applied --Snowded ^TALK 05:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused. I thought you merely wanted to tidy up a reference. I added the missing reference to a source we both respect and deleted the reference to Luton Today that you thought wasn't adding much. The edit was a scaled down version with only the essentials. It is well sourced and brings in important material from a neutral and well-respected writer. Is there still a problem with the remaining paragraph? Jason from nyc (talk) 12:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I said very clearly that this replicates existing material. THere might be a case for minor changes elsewhere but not a whole paragraph --Snowded ^TALK 21:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand how this replicates other material. Please explain. Jason from nyc (talk) 21:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Its fairly easy to find. The integration bit has a lot on connections you might want to add Geller there. Otherwise Alan Lake is up there at the start. I can't see why Spenced is relevant and finally the quote doesn't call them intellectuals, its a comparison per my comment above. --Snowded ^TALK 22:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I don’t quite understand your answer. I don’t see how that addresses my entry since it talks about “EDL’s place within the global counter-jihad movement” and then proceeds to elaborate in the next 3 sentences. I don’t see how this a duplication. Please explain. Jason from nyc (talk) 23:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Let me post the last revision for reference:

Nigel Copsey discusses the EDL’s place within the global counter-jihad movement. Paul Ray, one of the EDL’s early leaders, had “established links with US ‘counter-jihadists’” including Pamela Geller. Alan Lake's views are “influenced by the writings of people like Robert Spencer.” The EDL proclaims its solidarity with the global counter-jihadi movement in plank #5 of their Mission Statement.

Jason from nyc (talk) 00:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I’d like to continue our work on the EDL article. You and I worked on the material from the Gidley article to arrive at the compromise as it currently stands. Surely we can continue with the material from the Copsey document. I understand that you hold the above paragraph to be a repetition but I don’t see how. I believe the links to the global counter-jihad movement are important and the reader needs to know about this aspect of the EDL. Jason from nyc (talk) 17:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Well I've pointed out where the material was that is duplicated, not sure how much more I can do than that --Snowded ^TALK 21:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Where? There's no mention of it in the Gidley paragraph or anywhere else. You've stated that it was duplicated but it clearly isn't. I see no discussion of the connection to the counter-jihad movement in the article. Can you point to it? Jason from nyc (talk) 22:42, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

From reading the above the claimed duplicated content isn't that obvious to me, perhaps it would be useful to provide a comparison of the offending text? If the areas of text under comparison are large and would clutter this talk page you could use something like a collpased text box demonstrated here.—Glider87 (talk) 12:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd also appreciate such a comparison. Surely we can examine the problem and continue to improve the article together. Jason from nyc (talk) 21:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

It seems that Snowed does not care to explain how there is a duplication. I was hoping for a working relationship so that we could work towards a consensus on the valuable studies in a source we both respect, the Copsey study. Now we have the Univ. of Northampton study to consider. However, if further information is barred merely by the objection of duplication, how are further edits to this article possible? Is it essentially a completed article? Jason from nyc (talk) 18:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Quick question about lead

I know this has been much discussed here, but looking at the current version of the lead, it seems a touch redundant. Specifically, the sentence "The EDL uses street marches to protest against Islamic extremism," essentially repeats what was said in the previous sentence. Any objections to deleting that sentence? The new version of the lead would thus read: "The English Defence League (EDL) is a far-right street protest movement which opposes what it considers to be a spread of Islamism, Sharia law and Islamic extremism in the UK. At many of their gatherings, EDL members have clashed with counter-demonstrators, including supporters of Unite Against Fascism (UAF)." Comments? Sindinero (talk) 10:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks like an improvement to me --Snowded ^TALK 11:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

There's another possibility. Leave the second sentence--"The EDL uses street marches to protest against Islamic extremism."--and delete "street protest" from the first. If you go with your version (or the current version) that defines the EDL as a street protest movement you should consider removing "principle activity" in the sentence in the "Demonstrations" section. The definition implies it is only a street protest movement. Is that what you want? Jason from nyc (talk) 14:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

That's not a bad suggestion, but after the extensive discussion earlier on the talk page about "against Islamic extremism" vs. "against what it perceives as..", I personally think it would be better to delete the shorter second sentence. I don't have an opinion on whether or not to imply that street protests are the only or primary venue, but this does seem in line with what the sources say. Sindinero (talk) 16:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

My main concern is the we have too many modifiers in one sentence: “far-right” “street protest” ... “which opposes Islamism...” If a user first comes across the subject for the first time they might expect to see a genus (i.e. “movement”) and perhaps one or two differentia. One might hold back additional descriptors for the second sentence. Personally, I’d hold “far-right” for the second sentence. Perhaps: “It is generally considered far-right.” But that’s my preference since I don’t get much information from “far-right” except for it "being far from mainstream". Perhaps the phrase has a clearer and deeper meaning in the UK. Overall, the removal of the duplication is an improvement which ever way you do it. Jason from nyc (talk) 03:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The term "far right" is a generally recognized family of political ideologies and a subject of academic research. Their representatives are literally seated on the far right of most European legislatures and, unlike conservatives, liberals, socialists, etc., there is no other term to describe their ideology. TFD (talk) 03:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, it is a European usage. Thanks for the clarification. However, the anti-Islamic nature of the EDL would seem to me to imply “far right” so that the first sentence has a repetition. Repetition is fine if you desire the rhetorical emphasis. Of course, that’s what I thought the double mention of “street” activity achieved.

Sindinero, Let’s consider the following change. Delete the second (“The EDL uses street marches ...”) and change the 3rd from “At many of their gatherings ...” to “At many of their street protests ...” What do you think? Jason from nyc (talk) 05:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't personally find the first sentence too cumbersome as it is, but I have no objection to your suggestion. Sindinero (talk) 08:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Status of Paul Ray

LutherBlissetts (talk) has been refusing to follow BRD and has reverted to his edit that Paul Ray is a co-founder of the EDL. Two of his sources are from pressure groups, and one is a blog. His most recent addition is a publication from the so-called "Radicalism and New Media Research Group at the University of Northampton" whose website can be found here. I have my doubts about whether these are reliable sources, but would like to hear other editors' views before taking further action (if any). ISTB351 (talk) 05:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

This report would be better if it were peer-reviewed, but it is an academic source and it seems reliable, not to mention well-researched and non-polemic, to me. Considering that most of the sources for this article are anecdotal (i.e., journalistic sources that privilege events), this one might be a welcome bit of analysis. My two cents, anyway. Sindinero (talk) 07:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

It would seem to be rs. TFD (talk) 07:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is an extensive report that continues the work of Copsey. Most of its material on Paul Ray comes from Copsey. Overall it describes Ray's involvement during the formation of the EDL and how he is no longer a player. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

No problem with the source. The Northampton research group is a reliable academic outfit in its field. Emeraude (talk) 15:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I have stripped out the obviously non-RS sources and left the Northampton one in. ISTB351 (talk) 18:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Nobody paying attention then?

Like to additions like:

On Thursday, December 22, 2011, Tommy Robinson, the leader of the EDL, was attacked by a group of Pakistani youths with knuckledusters shouting: "Allahu akhbar" and "Merry Christmas, Tommy". Allegedly this was a revenge attack because planning permission for a thirty second mosque in Luton, Tommy's home town, had been turned down. The police are now treating this as a hate crime. The mainstream media completely ignored this news story

Ignoring the blog which isn't a reliable source, we're left with Luton Today. So let's see what's accurately sourced.

• On Thursday, December 22, 2011, Tommy Robinson, the leader of the EDL, was attacked by a group of Pakistani youths - nope, source says "Asian appearance"
• with knuckledusters shouting: "Allahu akhbar" and "Merry Christmas, Tommy" - no mention of any chants in either source, reliable or otherwise, and the reliable source makes only mention of an apparent pole and that "the hospital said the injuries looked like they’d been caused by a blunt object".
• Allegedly this was a revenge attack because planning permission for a thirty second mosque in Luton, Tommy's home town, had been turned down - nope
• The police are now treating this as a hate crime - nope
• The mainstream media completely ignored this news story - nope

The other addition is just as bad, completely misrepresenting the facts. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 10:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Well said! It is clear that some of those who are trying to corrupt this article are active EDL members. To them the word "Asian" is interchangeable with the word "Pakistani". A recent contributor to their website said that the new MP for Feltham & Heston, Seema Malhotra, wanted to turn the Labour Party into the "Muslim Party". Yet Seema is a Hindu! Basically, the EDL are not terribly bright people. Multiculturalist (talk) 13:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Well done! (Though "EDL are not terribly bright people" may be flattering them somewhat.) Emeraude (talk) 15:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

He may be on to something. In case there's any attempt to add back Robinson getting a good kicking, it's got no place in the section it was added to and there's no verifiable evidence of any connection to the EDL.

As for the Remembrance Day incident, the police arrested them under the belief they were going to attack the Occupy camp, which wasn't mentioned. In addition the claim that none of them were charged isn't germane, since they were arrested in order to prevent a breach of the peace. Once the chance of that happening had receded, they were released. Plus as the EDL made very clear it wasn't an EDL demonstration, anyone there was acting as a private citizen not as an EDL member so what relevance does it have to the EDL article? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I would hope then that all thiose paragrapsh about EDL supporters attacking things are removed if there is no claim made that these were official EDL actions.Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that would be a bit over the top. Whether or not an action was officially claimed by EDL leaders, if reliable sources attribute a significant action to EDL or EDL supporters, it certainly makes sense to mention it here. _W^\|/_haledad (Talk to me) 16:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

That's not what I said Slatersteven. The EDL made quite clear that it was nothing to do with the EDL before it ever happened, "This is not an EDL march and EDL colours/hoodies and banners should not be bought along" makes that clear. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 09:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I hear he has bruising to the brain, lol, those poor 2 brain cells. IraqiLion (talk) 07:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Breivik

Why two seperate mention of him, indeed his membership of the NDL is irrelevant.Slatersteven (talk) 13:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

It might be better to combine the two paragraphs - list the NDL and then make the Brevik link a part of it. ----Snowded ^TALK 13:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Possibly, but I still don't see the relevance of Brekils membership.Slatersteven (talk) 13:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

It provides context, he was a member of the NDL (established by references). His expulsion is also only a claim by the NDL leader so I don't think the paragraph can stand without some reference. I suggest you revert or modify. Otherwise we can just delete the whole paragraph (per WP:BRD while we sort out what it should contain. ----Snowded ^TALK 13:25, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that mentinng that the EDl and NDL have links is worthwhile. I just don't see what this had to do with Brevik. His membershio of this organisation is certianly a patern of actiosn involving anti-Islamism, but this page is not about him (or the NDL), its about the EDL.Slatersteven (talk) 13:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

And the fact that the EDL is linked to an organisation of which he was a part is significant. It tells the reader something about the organisation and it is a significant part of the NDL's history and identity. Including the assertion he was expelled would make sense to provide more balance but its relevant. ----Snowded ^TALK 13:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The identity of the NDL belongs on the NDL page. Where's the evidence that Breivik's connection to the EDL was via the NDL? Jason from nyc (talk) 14:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Not sure why that is relevant. The point is that he was a member of the NDL, therefore its appropriate to say that given the NDL/EDL linkage ----Snowded ^TALK 14:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. The current version has “who was, using a pseudonym a member of the NDL” as a modifying phrase for Breivik and should be on the Breivik page. Unless I missed it, the sources do not make it clear that he was a member when he had contact with the EDL and, more importantly, whether he had contact as a member. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree any mention of Breviks realsionship with the NDl belongs on his or theire page, its not our job to draw links.Slatersteven (talk) 16:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The preoccupation with Breivik is not really relevant to this article if covered at any length - we should stick to one sentence, and leave details to more apt articles. Right now "coatrack" seems entirely too present here. Collect (talk) 17:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Our purpose here is to provide full context to readers and its incongruous to mention NDL without that link in my view. However lets see what other editors think, its a judgement issue rather than one which is absolutely right or wrong. I've attempted a compromise in that last edit ----Snowded ^TALK 17:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Breivik appears from the available information to stand as a possible bridge, or bridgehead even, between the EDL and the NDL, not merely a tangential connection. With Breivik's self-proclaimed extensive contacts with the EDL AND its leadership coupled with the facts that a) he is the first person ever documented to have advocated the establishment of a Norwegian offshoot of the EDL (as he did on December 6, 2009) and b) he was according to two of the early leaders of the NDL a member of that organization before being evicted in March 2011, this entire complex needs, in my opinion, to be fully elucidated in the present article. __meco (talk)

A brige that operated under an assumend identiy in the NDL. Moreover no link has been made between his operations in the NDL and any contact he may have had with the EDL. Any such links are synthasis. The only link is that he claimed to have contacts with the EDL, the EDl has contactsd with the NDL, and he was a member of the NDLSlatersteven (talk) 21:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Its a simple fact that he was a member of NDL using a pseudonym. Its difficult to see how that is not a relevant fact to any mention of that organisation - My moving it into the Breivik section I think we overcame any issue there ----Snowded ^TALK 06:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The references tell us he was at one time a member of the NDL. It tells us very little about his activities as a member. Thus, you are right that “having once been a member” is part of Breivik’s identity but it is one fact among many that can be singled out to remind us who Breivik was. It takes several inferences, speculative at best, to reach the conclusions that it is as a member of the NDL that he is important to the EDL.

Worse of all, the way you left it (“who was, using a pseudonym a member of the NDL”) and the position of that modifying phrase suggests he was a NDL member at the time of the Norway attacks. The references imply he was expelled at that point. This is the problem with mentioning arbitrary isolated facts about Breivik in the EDL article that are better off left in the Breivik article. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Happy for you to modify it to remove that implication. I would not read it like that, but if there is a danger of confusion fine. ----Snowded ^TALK 15:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

It would still leave the synthesis problem. Jason from nyc (talk) 02:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Arrests

I'd prefer it if the content in this edit were removed. Being arrested on suspicion of having done something is not reliable evidence of culpability, since people can be wrongfully arrested. Therefore arrests are not reliable evidence for the violence and anti-social behaviour of the EDL or UAF. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 22:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I would think that arrest statistics have some relevance. However, I don't understand how "believed to be heading to the protest, had earlier been arrested" is relevant to the demonstration in question (the person never arrived) and the arrests at the demonstrations. Jason from nyc (talk) 23:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Actualy there is some merit to this point. Unless they were charged its not evidacen of anythying. Also it says nothing about this being an arrest for violence. Slatersteven (talk) 13:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Anent this - are any sources about disposition of the cases available? Sentences etc.? Collect (talk) 13:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know. In my view the disputed content should be removed until such citations are found. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 13:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The fact of the arrest is not in doubt. That the result of the arrest is not known is another matter, but the article does not make any conjecture on this. More mischievous is the inclusion in the edit referred to above of UAF leaders being arrested and charged with conspiracy to commit violent disorder. This should definitely be removed (or at least amended) since all charges were dropped ("Anti-fascist protesters to avoid charges after EDL clash", Manchester Evening News, 19 November 2010. The article also reports that police were to be investigated when footage was found of a 63 year old being hit by arresting officers; charges against him were also dropped.) This is not unkown to Wikipedia; it is clearly detailed in the Unite Against Fascism article and referenced (#35). Emeraude (talk) 13:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but the section is abuot violence, so it should only include proven examples of violence.Slatersteven (talk) 14:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The nature of the arrests is an indicator of violence though, surely?--Snowded ^TALK 14:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree its not always the case, but in these examples I think it may be. Not the biggest issue on the article however. Charges being dropped against named individuals might indicate deletion, but we need to look at the sources to see what reason was given. --Snowded ^TALK 14:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me but are you guys talking about the proposed removal of: "Greater Manchester Police confirmed a man, believed to be heading to the protest, had earlier been arrested in Birmingham on suspicion of distributing racially aggravated material." Surely this isn't a case of violence at an EDL demonstration. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but the section is abuot violence, so it should only include proven examples of violence; not according to the section title. 109.156.150.100 (talk) 14:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Outcome of this discussion

The above discussion featured several people agreeing that material relating to arrests should be removed. Can I, therefore, interpret this as consensus in favour of removing the material? Also, given that several people have raised objections -- and given that the material concerns living individuals -- my view is that the material should be removed until a definite consensus in favour of including it has occurred. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 19:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Regarding labels

The insertion of "islamophobic" is absurd and it would be like using "judeophobic" in place of "antisemitic" (the absurdity of Jews claiming exclusive rights to the label Semite aside). As to to "racist" that is a very crude and vague assertion. Racism has many possible meanings. If the goal of the group is to attack Muslims that is not racism (Persians are quite ditinct from Arabs and there are Muslims of many ethnic groups). If the group is anti-nonwhite then a label lke "nationalist" or "white nationalist" or something would apply but it does not appear to given membership of Jews and Indians. If some elements of the group are racist then that deserves specific mention but doesn't cover its activities on the whole. Let me ask, what "race" is the target of the EDL? Caucasians? Obotlig (talk) 19:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Well the second source quoted in the lede statement marks them as anti-islamic and then in the conclusion outs all those movements into an islamophhobic category described as the new racism. The third reference says the leadership is less overtly islamophobic than its memberships. I think there is at least a case for the inclusion ----Snowded ^TALK 20:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

'Islamophobic' and 'anti-semitic' are equivalent terms, with WP giving very similar definitions for both in the relevant articles. Your complaint about this and the use of the word 'semite' seems a little bizarre, as language is a messy business and words generally take their meaning from common usage rather than strict etymology. The original point about racism is fair, we should expect more clarity from an encyclopedia, but 'nationalist' is too vague and 'white nationalist' fails to take into account the overtures that the group has made to non-white groups such as Sikhs and Hindus. A careful examination of the incidents to determine the extent to which the EDL itself distinguishes between Muslims and other races/religions/nationalities that could be mistaken for Muslims would add weight to the case for including the term (at least a couple of the incidents in news reports cited in the article refer to the victims as Asian, rather than Muslim, and pro-EDL editors on this page have failed to make the distinction between Hindus and Muslims in the past).Snumbers (talk) 01:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

That's correct: there has been at least one incident of the EDL attacking a Hindu temple, making them anti-Indian. Further more, their marchers regularly perform the Nazi salute, making them anti-Jewish and anti-Semitic. Plus, of course, they are anti-Muslim - which in practical terms makes them anti-Pakistani. But of course most EDL members do not understand the difference between an Indian and a Pakistani, and regard the two terms as interchangeable.Multiculturalist (talk) 20:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Help request from Talk:Norwegian Defence League

A content dispute has been lingering at Norwegian Defence League. It relates to whether a discussion about Breivik's connection to the organization should appear early on in the article. It has been tried solved through both a third opinion and an RFC, the latter was called six days ago and remains unanswered. If someone from this place could look into that dispute and possibly weigh in that might help resolve the stale conflict. See Talk:Norwegian Defence League#RfC: Breivik's "role in founding" __meco (talk) 08:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Anti-Muslim?

EDL has muslim members, an anti-muslim group would not have muslim members. Tommy Robinson, the leader of the EDL. Has always said that the EDL is anti islam, not anti mulsim. To describe the groups goals as anti-muslim when all their documents and leadership say they are not, is a false representation of the group. The 3 'sources' used to support the claim of anti-islam are completely superficial. 1. Repeatedly calls the EDL a anti-muslim group, with out ever refering to them as a anti-islam group, even through in nearly all interviews given by EDL leadership, they calm they are anti-islam. 2. Only claims the group is anti-muslim in the title of the article. Does not even explain how it is, just speculation. From that article "The organisation, which denies it is racist and insists it is only against Islamic militants rather than all Muslims, has set up a wing north of the Border called the Scottish Defence League. " This source could be used as evidence that EDL is anti-islam just as much as it could prove its anti-muslim. 3. Is an opinion polls of EDL supporters. While it is likely true that many EDL supporters are anti-muslim, this does not mean the group is anti-muslim. We do not define a group's goals by the opinions of some of its followers. If opinions of their followers count as group goals, then we should also say they are a pro-drinking organization, or a pro-pub organization. Goals are stated by their group leaderships, and their groups official documents, NOT by their followers.

Lets remember people, that this isn't a majority rule contest, even if 90% of the articles online say EDL is anti-muslim, it does not mean they necessarily are. We should listen to what their party leadership makes clear, over and over again, that they are anti-Islam, not anti-Muslim, not just there detractors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.171.168.146 (talk) 02:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

"That's correct: there has been at least one incident of the EDL attacking a Hindu temple, making them anti-Indian. Further more, their marchers regularly perform the Nazi salute, making them anti-Jewish and anti-Semitic. Plus, of course, they are anti-Muslim - which in practical terms makes them anti-Pakistani. But of course most EDL members do not understand the difference between an Indian and a Pakistani, and regard the two terms as interchangeable.Multiculturalist (talk) 20:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)"

It is absurd to claim the action of one EDL member towards at Hindu temple means the group as a hole is anti-indian, its the same as suggestion Christianity is anti-children because a few priests are pedophiles. It is also equally absurd to claim that the EDL is anti-semetic and anti-jewish because of a few members. The EDL has continually tried to remove Nazi elements from its rallies, their leader has headbutted a nazi at his really, their leader receives death threats from Nazi groups, their leader repeteadly references the Jewish community as evidence of group fitting in. There is no official document or words spoken by the EDL leadership that supports your claims that they are anti-Semitic or anti-Indian, your purely basing it of the actions and views of only a few of their members. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.171.168.146 (talk) 02:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are based on published sources. They aren't based on the self-serving assertions of fringe political groups. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

":Wikipedia articles are based on published sources. They aren't based on the self-serving assertions of fringe political groups. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)" Surely it is based on the evidence found within those sources, not the fact that the sources exist. If there is 100 sources that just claim a group is anti-Muslim without backing it up, then surely it doesn't matter that there is 100 of them. Media interviews and official websites are published sources, and in all of them the EDL makes it very clear it is anti-Islam. Unless the sources provided contain actual evidence they are anti-muslim (leaked documents, videos of group meetings etc) then we cant claim its anti-Muslim simply because of plurality of bad sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.171.168.146 (talk) 03:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

We use reliable sources, as defined in policy and do not check that they have evidence. If you do not like the policy then get it changed. In the meantime, you are wasting our time, and could you please sign your postings. TFD (talk) 04:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

"We use reliable sources, as defined in policy and do not check that they have evidence. If you do not like the policy then get it changed. In the meantime, you are wasting our time, and could you please sign your postings. TFD (talk) 04:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC) " So the content of the source is not important. So there is no point in pointing out that the sources dont prove what they are being used to prove? It seems the only way to prove that the EDL is not far-right is to get a bigger list of sources (regardless of their quality) saying it isn't? Is that how Wikipedia sourcing works, just a numbers contest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.171.168.146 (talk • contribs) 04:47, 10 April 2012

Anon, if you had any interest in wikipedia policy rather than pushing your own point of view, you would register as an editor and you would start following the basic etiquette of signing your comments. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia based on existing reliable sources, not a news site for reporting stuff based on what we think we know or a scholarly site where we display our original research. It is not our business to tell academics and journalists that they are wrong. It is our job to suammarise as neutrally and carefully what reliable sources tell us. If there are reliable sources giving a different account, we can use them. If not, we are left with what the weight of journalism and published research tells us.BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Area's of Bias that need addressing.

There are several occurances of Bias in this article which need addressing. Judging by some of the comments in this Edit section, it seems that several authors have a negative view towards this group and this has come across in the writing.

Firstly, I feel the section about Anders Brevik needs the inclusion of the fact that he stated in his dossier that he actually didn't agree with the EDL (page 1438 of his dossier "The EDL, although having noble intentions are in fact dangerously naïve. EDL and KT principles can never be reconciled as we are miles apart ideologically AND organizationally" (info provided from: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2011/07/anders-breivik-and-the-english-defence-league.html)) The author has shown the links between Breivik and the group, however this rather relevent piece of information has been left out, and I belive it would paint a clearer picture once included.

Futhermore, the fluidity of membership to the group needs a mention. It is rather unclear how one becomes a member of the EDL, there is no offical members list and no subscription fee. So from this, it makes it rather hard to blame acts of violence carried out by people who have attended EDL marches or "liked" them on facebook as offical acts of the EDL.

Some people say this is deliberately done by the group so that they can distance themselves from aggressive action carried out by thier members (see newyorker link above). On the other hand, you have the EDL's website, where they repeatedly denounce this form of conduct, and say people like that are not welcome on thier marches, but again whether this is true or just an elaborate front, is a matter of speculation. But it is a fact that they do denounce this form of conduct on thier website, and this does need mentioning in the article.

Anders Breivik attended an EDL march, but he didnt agree with thier beliefs, so it seems that not everyone who attends a march is a member of the group. However this does raise the issue of why he was drawn to them in the first place.

The group have got several monitors, who remove trouble makers from the EDL protesters before a protest begins (apparently, this information was obtained from thier website, but it shouldn't be hard to find the truth behind it, video's on youtube, photo's etc.) Supposedly there have been instances of these undesirables then going on to smash up windows and spray "EDL" on things, but again the truth behind this remains elusive. That said, it is plausible, and I belive should be mentioned in the section of violent acts carried out by the EDL. There is a clear line of logic that some acts could infact be carried out by people who dont support the group and it is thier way of dropping the group in the preverbial. The other two instances are that the acts are organised and carried out by the group, or they are carried out by people who are drawn to the group but dont actually understand what they groups values are. Out of these three points, the only one mentioned in the article was the second one, which is somewhat bias, when one understands the complex nature of the group. The truth about whether or not these acts were carried out by the "EDL" group is unknown. This has not been mentioned.86.26.129.46 (talk) 22:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

There is a lot of bias by editors on this article and they are not too shy about admitting it. However, discussing it only gives them more opportunity to organize their efforts and find "reliabe" sources. For example you mention one source which is a blog - this will likely be challenged. Using Breivik's manifesto as a source has been questioned but I think you could try to insert a direct quote from it. The reality of bias in the English media makes finding neutral and reliable sources difficult. I would suggest that the easiest approach is to simply make the changes you would like to see, whether based on reliable sources or improving the neutrality of characterizations and phrasing made by wikipedia editors. As Admiral Grace Hopper of the US navy once said, to paraphrase, it is easier to do something and ask for forgiveness after, than to get permission first. I hope I didn't mangle her words or misattribute them, but why give opponents the chance to prepare a negative response. If it comes to a dispute then we can argue about it. If it is worth your time then I hope you can invest more. People generally edit articles they care about, one way or another. Overcoming systematic bias against this group will be difficult - not because most Englishmen disagree with their sentiments (which they may or may not) but because their opponents are extremely active, large in number, organized, and have often been indoctrinated by universities (i.e. they will be intelligent enough and determined enough to prevail). Also they are often American - witness the "intelligent" comment above that calling a Pakistani "asian" in appearane is "not too bright" - these folks spent too much time in socialology class and not enogh time getting an education, traveling, or looking at maps. How many sympathetic or unbiased Americans will care about this article versus fanatically organised leftists? And there, I have also spent time analyzing a situation that could have been used editing. Obotlig (talk) 23:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

...? Quoi? So which is it? Have the hordes of leftists working on this article been indoctrinated by university or made intelligent there? Do they have too much education or not enough? Did all that time in American socialogy [sic] classes give them an education or deprive them of one?

How about this: in the interests of this article, rather than rambling on clutching a passel of vague accusations that begins to resemble nothing so much as a conspiracy theory (that itself seems to have a family likeness to the paranoia on the far-right about the sinister powers of "Cultural Marxism"), why don't you point to the specific sentences or words—the "area's of bias"—you feel are problematic, explain in clear, good English why they are problematic and why, in your opinion, they are not supported by reliable sources? Even better would be if you could provide reliable sources to support your own change in wording, so that, through discussion and consensus, we can move on. Does that sound to everyone here like a more appropriate solution than levelling vague blanket insults against most other editors? To me it seems that way. Sindinero (talk) 07:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh my you caught a rather serious misspelling of sociology there. I had no idea of the correct spelling. This is almost as good as a liberal arts education. Anyway, I believe I said that the conspirators, due to having been indoctrinated into multiculturalism, egalitarianism, socialism, cultural relativism and the like (not to say I disagree or agree with those sorts of social theories) at universities, they are probably smart enough to wage a good battle, especially with number and cooperation. I don't think these sorts of people have the highest IQs at universities, which I would guess would be found among the scientists and engineers, just that they are probably not imbeciles. And if observations on systematic problems of bias are forbidden, I can't imagine what conversation would be relevant. WP:RS is applied in a biased manner and this experiment in "democracy" seems to prove the absurdity of mob rule. Obotlig (talk) 06:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

That's pretty speculative, although your understanding of intelligence is almost charmingly puerile. Furthermore, your tone and contributions suggest that you certainly seem to disagree with "those sorts of social theories"; the fact that you lump multiculturalism, egalitarianism, and socialism together speaks volumes.

You know nothing about other editors' education, background, and motivations, and it's counterproductive and insulting for you to speculate like this. If you don't like collaborative endeavors (or "mob rule," as you sneeringly call it), maybe Wikipedia isn't the place for you. If you can bear to work with all of us inferior others, then please stop insulting other editors en masse, assume good faith, and get down to it: suggest or make the changes you envision, back them up with reliable sources, and then see where discussion goes. If the mainstream media sources, solid academic research, and general social consensus prove too "biased" to your liking, maybe your efforts would be better served by other outlets.

All best, Sindinero (talk) 16:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Sindinero, your post wasn't particually helpful, and does seem to illustrate the point Obotlig was making. Thankyou for your post obotlig. It is known that the british media is somewhat bias, and I found it refreshing that another person is aware of this. Further more, the level of bias that exists against this group in general needs addressing and it makes for rather poor reading in the article, hopefully we can get a bit of neutrality back into things. I will wait to see what other feedback I get before I change anything in the article as I may be incorrect in my reasoning, or I may have missed something. Although you do make some good points as to why I should simply update the article with my changes now, and discuss it later. Lets see what other people have to say 86.26.129.46 (talk) 20:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC).

You need to back off from the multiple accusations of bias. If you make edits based on the arguments above they will just be reverted. You need to look to content based on sources rather than opinion. --Snowded ^TALK 20:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately your post wasn't very helpful either Snowded. You have not commented on any of my points. You are quite rudely telling me to "back off", if you do chose to post, I would rather it was in relevence to what I have said. The point I made about Ander's Breivik was rather concise, and sourcing it is just a matter of finding his "manifesto" the fact that you have dismissed this, rather than discussing its inclusion, show's me that you are not neutral on this article. The point I made about the groups membership was rather more complex, but again it won't take much to show that they don't have an offical membership list (as far as I am aware?) and they don't charge people subscription fee's. Then from this, the point that it is hard to proove whether the violent acts were actually carried out by the "EDL group" or by people who have attended thier marches can come to the fore, which is an important point to make.86.26.129.46 (talk) 21:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

My initial statement was designed to generate discussion on the topic, with the end goal of either including, or not including my points in the article. However from Snowded's post, I get the feeling that there will be several people that will simply wish to brickwall any discussion on this unless I provide an exact source. So after a short search here is the link to follow if you choose to download A.B.'s manifesto. http://depositfiles.com/en/files/xkfpsa8ex The link does work, and once in the manifesto you can find the quote "The EDL, although having noble intentions are in fact dangerously naïve. EDL and KT principles can never be reconciled as we are miles apart ideologically AND organizationally." Word has it down as being on page 1437, the third paragraph.86.26.129.46 (talk) 21:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you establish an account and an identity and argue your case? You might even find that quote in the New Yorker. Make your case. Jason from nyc (talk) 00:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I told you to back off from general accusations against other editors which is against policy. Also you need to read up on WP:RS, primary sourcing (i.e. his manifesto) is not desirable, we need reliable third party sources to make a statement. So someone in a book, article in refereed journal or one of the broadsheet journals needs to make the point. Working from primary sources as you suggest is original research and/or synthesis. --Snowded ^TALK 05:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I am shocked by the fact that Ander's manifesto cannot be used as a source for Ander's view on the EDL. This is stupidity in the extreme.198.28.69.5 (talk) 11:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:PRIMARY. There are good reasons for these policies. Sindinero (talk) 11:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Having read the link you supplied, I find nothing in there that says that this source cannot be used in this article. This is what I've taken from it: "Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages"

It seems that 86 26 has been following this, and was trying to discuss it with the other editors on here, but for some reason there seems to be resistance to any form of discussion on her/his points. Rather than just loosely quoting wp:primary at me, I would request that you take specific parts from it that back up your claims that Ander's manifesto cannot be used.198.28.69.5 (talk) 11:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Please learn to indent your comments. The policy says "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources.". Primary sources (such as the diary) are not favoured especially if any claim is to be made about the EDL. You might also want to read about original research before making any proposal --Snowded ^TALK 11:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Although primary sources are not favoured, there is a difference between not favoured and not allowed, as you said earlier. I assume you didnt read my quotation as you did not respond to it so I shall post it again. "Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages" Maybye you need to read up on WP:PRIMARY. I am not seeing a whole lot of discussion on here about any of the points raised. Just people misquoting WP:PRIMARY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.28.69.5 (talk) 12:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Please read a little further. There you'll find the following: "Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base articles and material entirely on primary sources. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material. Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people; see WP:BLPPRIMARY, which is policy. Please also see my comment below - we have a secondary source, so there's no reason to turn to Breivik's journal. And please start properly indenting your posts. Sindinero (talk) 12:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you actually able to read english? Snowded said that the journel couldn't be used full stop. This is not correct. Ander's view of the EDL is not an interpretation of the source, it is his view as written by him. There are other secondary sources who confirm that the journel was written by Ander's, so based on your post above, the use of Ander's journel as a source is up for discussion. It it NOT to be instantly ruled out as not complying with WP:PRIMARY. I hope that not all of the editors on this site are of the calibre of Sindinero and Snowded. Furthermore, please refrain from petty behaviour such as asking me to indent my posts, snowded already made this comment, in you making it it simply shows your calibre.198.28.69.5 (talk) 12:32, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes I'm able to read english [sic], but thanx for asking! Let me reiterate: we have a reliable secondary source, so we don't need to use Breivik's journel [sic]. I hope you can understand that the policy on primary sources indicates that secondary sources are always preferred. Second of all, whether or not Breivik's journal is instantly ruled out, the situation is more complicated than you're making it out to be. If you'll recall the original motivation for this discussion thread, it was that one editor wanted to use Breivik's own words to show that he actually wasn't that close to the EDL. This is problematic, and tricky ground - in general, it's best never to use a figure's own account of their politics to illustrate their politics. We've had this discussion on this page before. If political affiliation were as simple as self-identification, then we could just quote straight from the EDL to show that they are not racist. Clearly, one can see that it's not that simple. Breivik's journal may shows that he had some criticisms of the EDL - but to move from there to a characterization of the relationship between them is inference and analysis, although it seems fully transparent to you. We don't use primary sources on Wikipedia where we can avoid it because, surprise surprise, any statement can have differing interpretations. Critical thought, not to mention responsible editing, entails being aware of implications, assumptions, inferences, and entailment. I agree with you that reading is a good thing. Critical reading is much better.

I asked you again to indent your posts because you still weren't doing it properly, not to be petty. Any more questions? Sindinero (talk) 12:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, I might ask whether you are reading carefully. Look back at Snowded's comments - Snowded never says that primary sources cannot be used "full stop." Just that it's not desirable, for the reasons we've been trying, apparently unsuccessfully, to convey here. Sindinero (talk) 12:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

That is a different point and is indeed correct, secondary sources are preferable to primary sources, however it is still at the editors discression. Using a loose interpretation of WP:PRIMARY to promote your own adjenda is questionable. I understand that the use of Ander's journel is complicated, and that was the point I was making, it was in opposition to snowdeds comments that said "Also you need to read up on WP:RS, primary sourcing (i.e. his manifesto) is not desirable, we need reliable third party sources to make a statement" which trys to paint it in a simplistic way and infers that it cannot be used. I do strongly suggest that you both re-read WP:primary.198.28.69.5 (talk) 13:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I've reread it, but thanks for the suggestion. I didn't read Snowded's comments as implying (not "inferring") that a primary source couldn't be used, but simply that in this case it was not desirable. Please see my comments below on the difference between a personal political view and an editorial POV. I don't have an "adjenda" with regards to this article, other than to see that it's accurately written and in line with the best sources we can find, according to wikipedia policy. For the third or fourth time, WP:PRIMARY is clear that secondary sources are preferable, and since we have a secondary source on the topic in question, we can hopefully end this discussion soon. Sindinero (talk) 13:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Again you are showing a worring lack of understanding of WP:primary. WP primary states that "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully" As the topic is mainly composed of seconday sources, the use of a primary source in the article should actually be open for discussion. I don't read this as saying secondary sources are preferable to primary ones, only that an article should mainly be composed of secondary and tertiary sources, but can have primary sources included within it aslong as they are used carefully. Further more I did mean inferr rather than imply, the link you provided didn't really show anything other than perhaps your loose grasp of some english words, by saying "we need reliable third party sources to make a statement" that quite clearly infers that a statement cannot be made unless third party sources are used, which is incorrect. At the same time, I do appreciate the time you have spent typing your messages, thankyou.198.28.69.5 (talk) 13:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The policy also states this: "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." Instead of this circular haggling, why don't you suggest the specific change you'd like to make to the article? Wouldn't that be more productive? Sindinero (talk) 13:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeed it does, however it is open to debate whether the initial quote is actually any of the 4 actions you list. Ander's is clearly stating his views on the EDL in his journel, these views are then being lifted and debated about whether they should be included in the article. This is not an interpretation of his views, or a synthesis of his views, or any of the other items you listed. However I do agree that this would be open to debate. The main point I was making was that Snowded instantly dismissed the comments made as they didn't have a tertiary source, I was trying to clear this up and point out why this behaviour was incorrect and somewhat unhelpful. I would hate to see this attitude adopted by other editors on this site. Thanks again for the time you have taken to engage with me on this.198.28.69.5 (talk) 14:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I do think it's important that editors make the effort to arrive at understandings, if not always agreement. I think you might have misunderstood Snowded, however. Unless I'm wrong, he was referring to third-party sources but not to what Wikipedia calls tertiary sources. I believe he meant, simply, that with something as contentious as extremist politics, a secondary source is generally preferable to a primary one, a point with which I agree. Sindinero (talk) 14:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I suppose there is a remote possibility that someone might confuse third-party and tertiary but I'm surprised to see it. Sindinero is correct --Snowded ^TALK 16:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Guys, before you finish, as a new contributor, I have a question on this policy. SPS#Self-published_sources states "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, ..." This seems to have some relevance here. Comments? Now, I think a tome as large as Breivik's puts an undue burden on any editor. How would any know if an item is cherry-picked? A summary secondary source is much better. Jason from nyc (talk) 19:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

If it was appropriate to say something along the lines of "Breivik's manifesto said ..." then we could use it. However we are encouraged not to do that but to find a secondary source which references the manifesto. Using a primary source can easily lead to original research etc. etc. --Snowded ^TALK 19:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I second Snowded's comment above. But I'm a little confused as to why it would be necessary to cite Breivik's journal - I think the New Yorker link suggested twice now quotes the passage in question, and I do think that the New Yorker certainly qualifies as a reliable source. But when including the "distance" between Breivik and the EDL, let's not cherry-pick. After all, the New Yorker piece concludes thus:

No, the E.D.L., which bills itself as “a human rights organization that exists to protect the inalienable rights of all people to protest against radical Islam’s encroachment into the lives of non-Muslims,” does not condone the murders of civil servants and summer campers. But the E.D.L. and groups like it do contribute to the creation of worlds, online and actual, in which people like Breivik find reinforcement. They foster a community in which openness and tolerance are called treachery and threats to the nation’s well being. They gather kindling, but shrug when there’s a fire.

Sindinero (talk) 12:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: "The reality of bias in the English media makes finding neutral and reliable sources difficult". Whether or not that is true, Wikipedia policy on reliable sources and neutrality require us to use those sources and reflect the view of the EDL that they present. TFD (talk) 05:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Is that a NPOV application of RS? If the selection of RS (as chosen or as available) is patently biased shouldn't the article be balanced with differing points of view as available from any RS. And I think we know left-leaning sources are less likely to be vigorously challenged than right-leaning ones? Somewhat off topic for the article, but what possible credibility could propaganda rags like Mother Jones and Harper's have? Sources need to be balanced to meet NPOV unless there are only dubious opposing POVs. Obotlig (talk) 06:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

We don't know any such thing, you believe it. If you have specific examples where you think a source is not reliable raise it. If you have specific sources and amendments to the article based on those sources, propose them. Otherwise stop wasting people's time with general statements and accusations --Snowded ^TALK 08:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be some fundamental confusion on Obotlig's and 86.26.129.46's part as to what constitutes "NPOV." Let me quote from WP:NPOV:

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

Two points need to be stressed here.

1. First, NPOV does not mean that we need to depict every subject as a neutral thing, but that we need to depict it neutrally. Do you see the difference? So that, to pick a random example, if reliable sources X, Y, and Z say that the EDL is largely xenophobic, that emphatically does not mean that we need to go and find a source, even an unreliable one, that says that they are not xenophobic. This is the Fox News version of balance, where every claim can be met with a "no it isn't." If the reliable sources characterize the EDL in a certain light, then being neutral does not entail challenging this characterization, but presenting it clearly to our readers. Do you understand this?
2. Secondly, there is a huge difference between having a personal political opinion and editing to uphold a particular POV. As I've said above, people who don't understand this distinction have no business using any human language on a regular basis, let alone editing Wikipedia. Everyone has a personal political opinion, whether they're aware of it or not, whether they can clearly articulate it to themselves and others or not. The solution is not to hunt for ideal editors with no personal politics at all, but to uphold a standard of professionalism that dictates that one always edit according to policy, always present the subject in accordance with the best reliable sources, whatever the subject, whatever one's private opinion. I may think the EDL are saving Albion from Sharia and jihad, I may think the EDL are a bunch of ignorant little racists—it's totally irrelevant. If I want to edit Wikipedia responsibly, I have to do so by presenting the views of the best reliable sources. When I edit on groups or causes I may personally be unsympathetic to, I strive to do so by the same standards I use when editing on groups or causes that have my political sympathies.

What is really alarming is that two editors here seem to think it's just common sense that this group needs a more "sympathetic" presentation. The last thing this article (let alone Wikipedia) needs is editors who edit out of a sense of "sympathy" to fringe extremists. Besides the obvious reasons for alarm, this suggests that you cannot see the difference between a personal political opinion and a POV that you deploy when editing. Please think about this.

Finally, I'll repeat what I said earlier. Rather than insulting other editors en masse, make specific suggestions with specific sources. We can move on from there. Sindinero (talk) 09:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Let me propose a constructive edit in response to the above discussion. I propose a very brief note summing up what Collins has found. I propose the following at the end of the Breivik paragraph:

While Lauren Collins quotes Breivik’s repudiation of the EDL--“The EDL, although having noble intentions are in fact dangerously naïve. ... we are miles apart ideologically AND organizationally ...”--she nevertheless says the EDL created an inflammatory environment. [ref]

This would seem a fair use of Collins. Comments? Jason from nyc (talk) 15:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Excellent proposal, thanks for taking the initiative. Perhaps it might be helpful to specify, and modify your sentence so that it reads, "...created the inflammatory environment that encourages such actions as Breivik's." I think that would be an accurate reading of the last paragraph of that article. Sindinero (talk) 16:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand what Sindinero is saying about altering the end of the sentence, but i think the way he suggested doing it isn't great. I suggest the following "Which had the potential to encourage his actions" or simply "created an inflammatory environment in which people like Ander's can find re-inforcement." She did say that he found "re-inforcement" for his actions, this is subtley different from "encouragement".198.28.69.5 (talk) 08:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Works for me. Sindinero (talk) 08:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, she uses the word "reinforcement" while the word we used "encouragement" does suggests something slightly different. I think a change might make it more accurate to the author's intent. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The areas of biased that need addressing consist of the the mainstream media who far too often use opinion rather than fact. This opinion is then used as fact to disgrace the EDL. Jeremy Paxman qusetioned Tommy Robinson from the EDL on newsnight and stated that pictures of muslims were placed on the EDL website in the cross hairs of gun sights, this is FALSE. Are the BBC researchers so poor they cannot tell the difference between FACEBOOK and the official website of the EDL. Anyone could put up a page on facebook about the EDL and it is only in the control of FACEBOOK, for all we know this page could have been put up by islamic extemist Sayful Islam.

The media seems to have an agenda to paint the EDL into a far right racist organisation without any real evidence of that in order to stop their support from increasing. The facts are that you cant join the EDL and get a membership card, its very unclear on the supporters racial and political views as whole and they appear to be varied. It's also clear that the members who front the EDL state they are not racist and are against racism. Black support of the EDL is clearly there and a sikh gentelman was introduced to a crown at a rally in the north of England, some supporters were clearly racist at that point and were forcibly removed by the EDL. The EDL clearly state that Black, Asian, homosexuals and indeed any colour or sexual orientation are welcome to support the EDL. Their only mission seems to be to counter FAR RIGHT islamic extemisim, if that makes the EDL a FAR RIGHT organisation then to Anti Facist League must be FAR RIGHT on that basis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shammie62 (talk • contribs) 09:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree there does seem to be an anti-edl focus on this article. Many of the sources being used to describe it as "right" "far-right" and "anti-muslim", either simply assign the label without explantion, or are based on the opinions of a subsection of EDL's "membership". And as it has already been stated, EDL's membership is very fluid and open, so it seems unfair to label the EDL as having official positions that a) they repeatedly reject and b) only a percentage of their followers hold.--58.173.129.238 (talk) 11:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

We are reflecting what the sources say, not what EDL says about itself. Its very simple and the way Wikipedia works. So if you don't like the way the media portray EDL then you need to get them to change, you can't change it here. ----Snowded ^TALK 14:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

This is a terrible article, at the very top the article states the EDL is "hard right", the EDL is; pro choice, pro gay rights and pro women's rights. It doesn't have an economic agenda and isn't promoting the merging of industry/commerce and state. The EDL having Sikh and Jewish members is multifaith and secular. There isn't anything about the organisation within the accepted benchmarks that could reasonably make it a hard right organisation, in fact it's views in the 1960s would have been seen as hard left. The EDL claims to have been formed to protest against what is a hard right organisation/religion - radical Islam - which among other extreme right wing views believes homosexuals should be killed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wattys123 (talk • contribs) 00:57, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

at the very top the article states the EDL is "hard right" - no it doesn't. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 22:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Racist

By Glen Jenvey for Asian Tribune London, 27 May, (Asiantribune.com): The British media and political leaders mainly from the left call the British street movement the English Defence League (EDL) racists. But having been invited by the EDL to meet its members and talk with its leader Tommy Robinson for the Asian Tribune, I found out they were not! http://www.asiantribune.com/news/2012/05/26/inside-britains-street-movement-interview-leader-english-defence-league — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.73.37 (talk) 08:11, 28 May 2012 (UTC) I would like to put forward a motion that we include the adjective 'racist' in the introduction. This group is painfully racist and a large amount of evidence can be found to support this, such as this youtube video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2VrK8EAHuU and this one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8j7IX_5a_9M and also this one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w132VRGGglU&feature=related. Please say what you have to say but by my power those words will be in the article uncontested by this weekend. Inshallah =)IraqiLion (talk) 07:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Youtube doesn't really work as a source. Please read WP:RS and WP:OR. Sindinero (talk) 08:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Thankyou brother =) Would a newspaper article from England do?IraqiLion (talk) 08:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I have found one, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/30/let-english-defence-league-march, I can find many more. What are peoples thoughts to this information being added to the article as empirical and indisputible evidence?IraqiLion (talk) 08:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

You should read up on reliable sources, and also check out the article's history and the talk page discussions. For one, comment is free can be used to demonstrate the writer's opinion, but not facts or analyses. For another, you'll see that the current lead is the result of a lot of haggling and compromise; radical new changes will be difficult to effect, especially if they seem to be motivated by a particular WP:POV. Also check out WP:LEAD - the lead needs to summarize the article's content. Sindinero (talk) 08:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Rather than use simple labels like "racist" why not just describe what they believe in, their actions, etc. Then let the reader decide if the group is, for example "racist". That's generally how wikipedia implements its WP:NPOV policy. --Merbabu (talk) 09:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but criticizing Islam is not racism. Blanket-calling them "Racist" is not neutral, even though they obviously have racist elements. It's a bit like calling all the members of the IRA terrorists. --Nutthida (talk) 19:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

They are not Racist, in any way. If the English Defence league can be seen as racist because of their formation reason to stand for the rights of the indiginous Englishman. Then the Black Police Officers Assosiation are racist for the same reason!English n proud (talk) 17:31, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Is the EDL racist? Is the Pope a Catholic? Multiculturalist (talk) 20:09, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I have often wondered if members of the family Ursidae defecate in low-density forest. Emeraude (talk) 08:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

---

wikipedia is now an extension of the mainstream media, where media opinion is used as fact within Wikipedia, regardless of wether it's true or not. The EDL website has nothing racist about it, there is very little organisation within the EDL, no real membership or control of policy. The mission statement is to counter FAR RIGHT ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISTS. The EDL accept support from any colour and their only agenda is stop Islamic fundamentalists from fullfilling their agenda of making the UK an islamic state.

This country is supposed to be free and fair, well it's hardly fair to label the EDL, RACIST of FAR RIGHT at this stage. Although some supporters are claerly racist and far right they do not seem to be running the EDL. The world as his brother could turn up and and EDL protest with an EDL shirt they purchased over the internet and commit violence or racist abuse and the EDL would get the blame, for all we know members fo the Anti Facist League and the BNP infultrate these marches in order to disgrace the EDL and I am sure on occassions they do — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shammie62 (talk • contribs) 10:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure members of the "Anti Facist League" [sic] are quite willing to act like racists just to discredit the EDL *rolls eyes* 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 10:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks to Shammie62 for providing me with my biggest laugh of the year! Multiculturalist (talk) 20:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Multiculturalist, it is your posts that have all been of the comical nature! You have come here not to enter facts about the subject matter, the EDL. You have come here for one reason and one reason only, to make assertions about the EDL that are simply not true. Unite against Facists HAVE been under cover in the EDL ranks. They have been caught in the act on a couple of occasions. One such occasion they actually stood out in their use of deregortory words of a racial nature, they stood out because it was a peacful demo and it was only the UAF members who were making the most noise, of a racial nature! Carried out for one reason and one reason only- to breed hostility towards a growing movement of Englishmen sick at what their country has turned into. May i suggest you stop you're maniacle laughing (at a comment which bears no comedy) and wake up!English n proud (talk) 17:45, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

"wikipedia is now an extension of the mainstream media, where media opinion is used as fact within Wikipedia, regardless of wether it's true or not." That comment is not only true but is enshrined in Wikipedia policy called neutrality. Instead of complaining here, you should raise the issue at the policy page. TFD (talk) 00:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the point about the mainstream media is that wikipedia allows the views of mainstream journalists to validate articles within wikipedia. Simply because someone has the outlet of a national newspaper to voice their opinions doesnt make it fact, however wikipedia will clearly accept that newspaper article as proof of fact within wikipedia but would not do so with Joe Publics opinions. The EDL are not proven to be an organisation in the true sense let alone a far right organisation as stated within wikipedia. Thats the point wikipedia allowing the EDL to be tarnished with the label racist and far right with mainstream journalists articles(opinions) being used to justify this. I thought the idea was the articles are based on fact, this one seems more fiction than fact, just as well read about the EDL in the newspaper as on wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.221.98.153 (talk) 01:46, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

No the idea is not that articles are based on fact, but that they are based on what mainstream sources say. (See Wikipedia:Verifiability). You can either ask Wikipedia to change its policy or persuade journalists to change their reporting, but unless you do one of those, there is nothing we can do to change the article. TFD (talk) 05:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

You obviously know far more about wikipedia policy as I have never researched and have no real wish to, however doesn't change the fact that if dozens of individuels write their views in a national newspaper it's down as fact on wikipedia, yet if thousands write write on internet sites and take a different view, its unreliable. Seems their is an agenda and that is to stiffle debate on racism. It suits the powers that be to trash EDL. If you look at the heading of the article it states English Defence League--A British Far right organisation. I thought the point of calling it the ENGLISH DEFENCE LEAGUE was it's an ENGLISH organisation, they cant even get that right — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.219.252.102 (talk) 00:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but your remarks contain a number of spelling and grammatical errors. For a start, "individuels" should be spelt "individuals". Further more, at the end of your first sentence you failed to use an apostrophe in the word "its". In addition, based upon the context in which you have used it at the beginning of your second sentence, "their" should be spelt "there" . Also, "stiffle" is in fact spelt "stifle"; and "cant" should have an apostrophe after the n (i.e. can't). To top it all, you have failed to end your final sentence with a full stop. All of my Muslim friends know these things, so why don't you? It is simply hilarious that you people claim to be upholding English culture when you do not even have a rudimentary grasp of the English language. Multiculturalist (talk) 20:09, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Hope Not Hate

Has no current official connection to "Searchlight" per the two sites. Collect (talk) 11:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

It was a Searchlight research/campaign initiative, there was a subsequent split but the original research on which this was based relates to the combined period. ----Snowded ^TALK 14:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Nope -- the current organization is specifically notconnected to Searchlight, thus that arguemnt fails. Any opinions of HnH must be specifically labelled as "opinion" at best. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Not now, but then Collect. That said it may or may not be current. I will have a hunt through Searchlight over the weekend. ----Snowded ^TALK 05:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

You'll have to remove the statement that Hope Not Hate was involved in the decision to ban Jones as the cites make no mention of that.82.31.236.245 (talk) 09:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

They were, as were others, but you are right about the source. Edited. Emeraude (talk) 10:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

purpose/focus

Surely instead of anti muslim it should be anti islam. The sources arn't credible to say that the edl is against muslims but instead they oppose the religion of islam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.222.152 (talk) 22:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Before continuing, and to save everyone's time including your own, please read and digest the previous discussions. Then, if you want to continue, you need to say which sources are not credible, and why, and provide alternative credible sources (and note that what the EDL says is not the same thing). It is no good you just saying they aren't credible - that's just your opinion and is totally irrelevant to producing an ancyclopaedia. But, having read what goes before and being au fait with Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources, you will be aware that credibilty is not the same as reliability, and it's the latter that we seek. Emeraude (talk) 00:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that a Muslim is a person who follows the religion of Islam, so being against Islam means by default the group is anti-Muslim. Just thought that needed clearing up. 81.107.5.206 (talk) 11:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but that is not correct, I can dislike an idea without passing judgement on thise who hold that idea. I can dislike (for example) conservative policies and yet no harbour any dislike of Boris Johnson.Slatersteven (talk) 13:49, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Far-right?

The 5 sources that are used to support the statement that EDL is far right, do nothing else then just claim it is. They do you explain, WHY they are far-right. These can not count as sources.

A groups political status is not determined by what the majority of people think about it, it is defined by its own stated ambitions and goals. EDL is a single-issue movement, it does not have any other political agendas. EDL is a pro-democratic organization, how exactly is it far-right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.171.168.146 (talk) 02:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment. I could provide 5 sources that say the Earth is flat, but it doesn't make it true or a fact. Clown666 Clown666 (talk) 18:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm opposed to labels in regards to anything in politics. I don't think it conform to a standard encyclopedian language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.104.63.33 (talk) 19:09, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Definition of far-right from wikipedia:"In politics, the Right, right-wing and rightist has been defined as the support or acceptance of social hierarchy.[1][2][3] Inequality is viewed by the Right as inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable,[1] whether it arises though traditional social differences,[4] or from competition in market economies.[5][6]" The EDL is only opposed to the spread of political Islam and sharia law. It is not about making muslims second class citizens, changing the social hierarchy or creating inequality. Unless people can point to specific political goals of the EDL that fit into a far-right spectrum of politics, it cannot be fairly viewed as a far-right group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.171.168.146 (talk • contribs) 02:42, 10 April 2012

"A groups political status is not determined by what the majority of people think about it, it is defined by its own stated ambitions and goals". No. Not as far as Wikipedia is concerned. We base articles on published reliable sources - and these describe the EDL as far right. So we will too... — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyTheGrump (talk • contribs) 03:21, 10 April 2012

The classification of groups is determined by how informed sources view them, not by how they view themselves. As the sources show, informed sources consider them to be part of the far right and group them with the BNP, etc. No group calls itself far right, yet far right groups exist. That anyway is Wikipedia policy. Other Wikipedia articles cannot be used for this article. TFD (talk) 03:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

"A groups political status is not determined by what the majority of people think about it, it is defined by its own stated ambitions and goals". No. Not as far as Wikipedia is concerned. We base articles on published reliable sources - and these describe the EDL as far right. So we will too... — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyTheGrump (talk • contribs) 03:21, 10 April 2012

The classification of groups is determined by how informed sources view them, not by how they view themselves. As the sources show, informed sources consider them to be part of the far right and group them with the BNP, etc. No group calls itself far right, yet far right groups exist. That anyway is Wikipedia policy. Other Wikipedia articles cannot be used for this article. TFD (talk) 03:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Informed is the key word. If the sources provided can not sufficiently back up the claim with evidence, then they should not be regarded as evidence at all. The sources so far provided do not substantiate the claim that the EDL is a far-right movement, they simply assert it to be true. They make no reference to the definition of right-wing politics and how it relates to the EDL. Unless more credible sources can be found, the far-right description is unjustified and misleading.

I think it is important that we include that the group at least denies the label of "far right-wing" even if we agree that the majority of sources do consider it right-wing.--Darklordabc (talk) 12:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

We already have enough of their "denials" there. The sources say they are right wing. We don't dispute reliable sources or evaluate their evidence. ----Snowded ^TALK 09:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The whole article is constantly calling the EDL right or far-right, any reader of this article should at least know the group emphatically rejects the label. Otherwise the readers will assume the group accepts the label of far-right, which is misinforming. Nobody is asking that we dispute reliable sources or evaluate their evidence, only that we show fairly both sides of the issue.--58.173.129.238 (talk) 09:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Are there any reliable sources which carry the denial? --John (talk) 09:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Does this count http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/03/23/britain-rightists-idINDEE82M0N620120323 "The EDL has denied any formal links to Breivik and Lennon rejects the description of his group as far-right, arguing that genuine extremists hate him."?--58.173.129.238 (talk) 10:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

It reports a statement by a leader of the group, it does not evaluate it. So no ----Snowded ^TALK 05:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

John was asking for another source that confirms the EDL denies the label. Which this second source clearly achieves. We only need to find enough reliable sources to confirm they have made that claim, not sources discussing the validility of that claim.--203.45.124.182 (talk) 05:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

We don't publish every single denial anyway, we reflect what third part sources say. ----Snowded ^TALK 06:14, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

It could maybe go in the main body article, I object to it going in the lead. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 07:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The we need to re-word the lead to make it claer the 'accusation' is contested.Slatersteven (talk) 13:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

If 100 people say I'm ugly and I say I disagree, that doesn't make it contested. Is the label disputed by any reliable sources? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:56, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes it does, you haved contested the claim. What you are in effect saying is that you are not RS for your opinion.Slatersteven (talk) 12:33, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I have added two sources, namely the "Asian Tribune" (editorial)[7] and the "Morning Star"[8] (citing the 'National Public Order Intelligence Unit' of the Metropolitan Police stating that in their view (the police's) the group are not "far right") which evaluate the claim by some that the group is "far right" and are evidence of the dispute regarding that definition which is not considered to be universal. I would contend that the article was unduely biased and one-sided and I hope this has been corrected to some small extent. Reference should be made to the dispute regarding the "far right" label early on in the article. The dispute over this definition is shown to come from the group itself (see Asian Tribune article), the editorial of that newspaper, and also by the Police (see Morning Star article). I hope the reasonable edit I have made will be maintained in the interests of a balanced article. Snowded, you are good at this sort of thing, the link for the editorial in the Asian Tribune has issue because wikipedia seems to generate a "%7C" at the end of the URL thus misdirecting the link...can you fix that? To see the editorial you need to delete %7C from the url when directed to that site. (talk) 11:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

The Morning Star article was extensively discussed a year or so ago and the edit rejected. The other article is primarily referencing racism and is not a reliable source anyway. ----Snowded ^TALK 11:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Snowded, but why is the Morning Star rejected (the important point of that article is the fact the police do not categorize the EDL as "far right") and why is the Asian Tribune "not a reliable source" given that whether or not something is or is not regarded as "far right" is a subjective evaluation and that in this case this news source deemed them not to be "far right". Who decides if something is reliable or not? Is it you? The point that the applied label "far right" is DISPUTED is surely quite clear?Aetheling1125 16:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Its all in the archives Aetheling, done to death. ----Snowded ^TALK 07:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

(out) The Asian Tribune does not discuss whether they are far right. The Morning Star, despite the headline, actually quotes the police as saying the EDL is "not extreme right", not "not far right". It is unclear what they meant. The police explained their reasoning at a conference, Global, Hate Local: England’s Far-Right in Focus], and it would be helpful if someone could find a transcript or other explanation of their comments. As I understand it, the far right is not necessarily violent or criminal. TFD (talk) 17:42, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Reliable source, how vague and convienient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.104.63.33 (talk) 19:11, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The EDL statement certainly should stay in this article in some form. The fact that the EDL's statement carried in Reuters was "reported" and not "evaluated" absolutely does not preclude it from inclusion. Much if not most of WP is founded upon reportage and straightforward chronicling – evaluations and analysis are trickier and never form the baseline of article texts. The EDL's denial of rightist political influence is certainly questionable, but it is no less illuminating for that. The complexity of their self-image has been reported in many different sources for good reason: for an understanding of any political group, it is crucial to know how they see themselves. SteveStrummer (talk) 23:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The article has multiple mentions of the EDL's self-definition. See the sections "Views and reactions," "Academic analysis," and "Membership and diversity". Sindinero (talk) 06:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The idea of removing it seems to be floating around this talkpage constantly and I just wanted to voice my opinion. SteveStrummer (talk) 14:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, I have done as asked and read the talk page on the subject and can only assume that nobody has ever invited you or any of the other admins to attend an EDL meeting to see what really goes on, for starters the EDL are not and have never been a political entity, we the EDL are patriotic persons of an English decent that do not want islam to dominanate our once great land, islam is nothing but a facist cult and unfortunately the majority of the UK do not see what is really happening to their land. Calling the EDL Patriotic is NOT my PoV, it is FACT in the mind of at least 100,000 peaple in the world and for Wikipedia to continue to call us far-right not only proves you are not neutral but proves that you want to portray lies as fact as we are not far-right nor are we political. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FREEDOM66 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Having seen the EDL on the street, I have to say that any invitation from them would be a most disturbing prospect. To repeat what has been explained to you before, Wikipedia relies on third party sources, not on what you claim 100,000 people in the world say - that is a POV. Those sources say the EDL is far right. You may not like it, live with it. Emeraude (talk) 16:04, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

All I have to say is this. Wikipedia claims to be politically neutral, but this is clearly untrue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.172.178.149 (talk) 02:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the majority of users here agree that the label of "right wing" is biased, so why is it still in the article? Clearly the article has een hijacked by editors with left wing ideologues who are interested in making this article a political piece instead of a factual representation. Clown666 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Please take off the tin-foil hat and stop assuming bad faith. We keep it here because it is sourced. – Richard BB 18:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Please stop slinging the mud around and try to build a better article. It's obvious that this "far-right" assertion is highly-disputed, and the dispute is not going away. Having a heap of non-scholarly "sources" does not eliminate its questionable nature. As with most recent events and living people, reliable evaluations are hard to come by and I don't see anything incontrovertible in that long (and disruptive) list of references. It would be best to choose the most useful two or three of them and use them to source a statement which says something like, "Although the EDL rejects the characterization, most observers consider them to be a far-right political group." SteveStrummer (talk) 21:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Consensus does not mean pandering to people who's arguments are 'I can source that the world is flat' and unless you have specific concerns about the reliability of the sources then they can stay. There is no policy that says they must be scholarly. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 07:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I hardly think that I am the one slinging mud, here. – Richard BB 09:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

counterjihad conference and edl

the fact that the edl is attending a counterjihad conference is a significant development,

Worldwide Counter-Jihad Alliance to Launch with Stockholm Demonstration on August 4.

this should be mentioned somewhere in the article.-- altetendekrabbe  22:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• No. The fact that a press release (not from the EDL) has said that they are going to attend a conference that has not happened yet is neither a development nor significant. This is a clear case of "if and when". Emeraude (talk) 09:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

ok, we'll see what happens.-- altetendekrabbe  09:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

And even going to the conference in itself means nothing as to the EDL's purpose/focus/type/ideology/anything else people want to claim, as happened in this edit and this edit. That's a conclusion being drawn by editors based on their attendance alone. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 16:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)