This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 9 |
How would people feel about this..
Using far right does seem to concern more than one editor so perhaps right wing is a more acceptable term that both sides can accept. After doing some google searches, "Right wing" does seem to be used by a wider range of reliable media sources. BBC, Sky, Telegraph, Daily Mail, Times, The Guardian etc have all used "right wing", im not sure they have all said "far right" in the same way. BritishWatcher ( talk) 08:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I may well have missed this discussion somewhere up above, but has there been any consideration of whether "movement" is the best term to use? "Group" or "organisation" seem to me to be more neutral - "movement", to me, seems to give it greater substance and significance than the refs seem to support. If refs consistently suggest one word rather than another, we should go with that, but they don't seem to. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 10:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
There have been known to be a few violent incidents involving EDL demonstrations. Notably at Swansea (?), Dudley and Bolton. There is a general feeling they go hand in hand with violence among many.
Perhaps we can have a list of the protests with a simple breakdown of attendance and a section on violence and arrests? -- Omar418 ( talk) 10:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
A table with protests would be a good idea but there are points, when it comes to Dudley, the violence has been the main issue. -- Omar418 ( talk) 11:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I think the protests deserve their own table and its important to keep impartial. A section on violence, intimidation (i.e. the death threats that have been posted in the article) needs to seperate the two. There are hard facts to be laid out statistically and there are important events and actions that need to expanded upon. Need to go through the whole activities section seperating wheat from chaff as there is a lot of un-necessary repetition. The chanting could be summed up in a quick paragraph about the protests. Violence needs expanded upon. -- Omar418 ( talk) 11:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Posted above in the POV section but would like to see if I can get consensus so the reference can be posted through the admin. Stated below what I had above:
I'd like to update my reference for the Dudley demonstration where the Hindu Temple was attacked during a protest. The link I posted was simply to a comment about an article saying trouble had occured. I would simply like the current reference for the attack on the Temple to be replaced with the one below or to have this added to it.
This reference: http://www.stourbridgenews.co.uk/news/8283497.EDL_protest_bill_tops_half_a_million_pounds/ contains an informative quote from West Midlands Police: “Amongst the premises attacked were residential homes around Alexandra Street, cars parked in roads surrounding Stafford Street, restaurants on Wolverhampton Street and the Hindu Temple. “Many of these locations saw windows smashed, and damage caused to fencing. A couple of vehicles were damaged as they were targeted whilst being driven through the town.” The main point is that a Hindu Temple is being smashed up by a group that claims to be anti-Islamism. -- Omar418 ( talk) 11:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Whilst there are sources to back up Far right being used in the introduction, as several editors seem concerned about its use (and its come up several times) i have spent a little while looking through usage by media organisations. I think there may be a case to change far right to right-wing which seems to be used a lot too and backed up by a wider range of media sources (including the Mail, Telegraph, Express which are not left wing papers).
If "right wing" is just as bad to those opposing "far right" we may as well not even bother discussing this, but if the change would satisfy some editors concerns i would be prepared to support the change.
Whilst some of these organisations may also refer to the group as far right, ive found the following where the EDL or their protesters are just described as right wing. Daily Mail [1] [2], Daily Telegraph [3], Daily Express (Describes activists as far right, but the group as right-wing in the same article) [4], The Times [5] , BBC (right-wing protesters) [6] [7], Sky News (Right-Wing protests) [8] [9] and (controversial right-wing group) [10] , Evening Standard (right wing protesters) [11] .
Those will do for now. As i said before there are plenty of sources to back up use of far right, i came across ones including The Sun and Evening Standard, along with the guardian which has already been mentioned often and the BBC and Sky along with the express have also mentioned "far right" . Seen as some people in the debate above have questioned use of far right, i think its worth us debating this matter properly or to hold a vote on it like we are with other parts of the introduction above. But again if "right wing" is just as problematic as "far right" then there is no point. Both terms are absolutely justified, ill only support a change if it creates a wider consensus and deals with some peoples concerns. BritishWatcher ( talk) 16:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Right wing would be plenty, basically they are worried about mass immigration of the muslim people and the immense and recent mass changes to population demographics in some England cities. And they go on marches about it, they are not exactly far right Nazis are they. Actually if the Anti fascist league had not come disrupting them there would not even be any controversy. What is far right about saying, hello my town is being invaded by people from Pakistan? Off2riorob ( talk) 16:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
OK list,list all the source that call them far riight, then all the sources that call tehm right wing and see which is more commonly used? Slatersteven ( talk) 16:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Here is some "Far right" usage - Telegraph [12] , BBC [13] , Express (far right activists) [14] , The Guardian [15] , The sun [16], Evening Standard [17] , The Times (far right protesters) [18] . There are more, but those are just a quick few. Like i said before, when it comes to sources either Right Wing / Far right are justified. BritishWatcher ( talk) 17:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Just to let everyone know a mediation request has been opened here BritishWatcher ( talk) 14:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Just to say, I have requested this process to get an independent and neutral perspective on the issue of "reliability of sources" and the appropriate use or rejection of the references. Reading the whole discussion page, I am convinced if no consensus could be reached for months, it is wishful thinking it will happen within this active group of editors.
This is the last chance to resolve this issue logically and rationally. I do not have the time to spend arguing with bigoted individuals. But I do not quit on the face of unfairness. This is no exception.
Awmyth (
talk) 17:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
As most seem to support the path of mediation, are all of the debates above and below about potential changes now void? There is no point in us debating and agreeing to make changes now, if the whole thing is being questioned and challenged during mediation. BritishWatcher ( talk) 23:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi everyone. I want to say I am pulling out. I have a family bereavement. A couple of words on Wikipedia now seems pointless, I no longer care what you write.
I do not know how to withdraw the Request For Mediation. I am happy for any experienced editor to do so on my behalf.
Awmyth (
talk) 17:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Okay I have made up a table of demonstrations based on the references in the main article. Where information was lacking I have added my own references. A BBC report and a Sky News report. I think this should go below a paragraph dealing wioth violent incidents, abusive behaviour and intimidation. These would include the points on death threats. "Aggro" at demonstrations and noted points of violent intimidation. This should help sort out the Activities section a little.
Date | Town/City | Attendance | Arrests At Event (includes non-EDL) |
---|---|---|---|
8th August 2009 | Birmingham | Unknown | 35 |
5th September 2009 | Birmingham | Unknown | 90 |
13th September 2009 | London | Unknown | Zero |
10th October 2009 | Manchester | 700 | 48 |
31st October 2009 | Leeds | 900 | 8 |
5th December 2009 | Nottingham | 500 | 11 [1] |
23rd January 2010 | Stoke-on-Trent | 1500 | 17 |
20th March 2010 | Bolton | 2000 | 74 |
3rd April 2010 | Dudley | 2000 | Unknown |
1st May 2010 | Aylesbury | 800 | 12 [2] |
17 July 2010 | Dudley | 500 | 21 |
-- Omar418 ( talk) 07:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
It is annoying that you can't get the arrests for each group down but even figures that state each group are approximated. I think its quicker to disclaim which group the arrests were appropriated to. The only place we have figures for that is Bolton. -- Omar418 ( talk) 08:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Edited the N/A to unknown but a fifth column I don't know. What would you call it? Whats the word limit? -- Omar418 ( talk) 08:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Well this is the sort of thing i had in mind (just example text)
Date | Town/City | Attendance | Arrests (includes non-EDL) | Description of Event |
---|---|---|---|---|
8th August 2009 | Birmingham | Unknown | 35 | EDL and UAF protesters clashed in New Street, with trouble flaring around 7pm. Bottles, sticks and banners were thrown as police in riot gear struggled to stop the skirmishes. There were 35 arrests, mainly for disorder and atleast 3 people were injured before most of the violence was brought under control by 8.30pm. [3] |
Along those lines. BritishWatcher ( talk) 08:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I put in some basics of the actual incident in the example above. On my screen it looks fine but i guess for some who have their pages more zoomed in it may be too large and would have to contain less text for it to fit in the current article without taking up too much room. BritishWatcher ( talk) 10:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Date | Town/City | Attendance | Arrests At Event (includes non-EDL) | Description of Event |
---|---|---|---|---|
8th August 2009 | Birmingham | Unknown | 35 | Clashed with UAF supporters [25][26] |
5th September 2009 | Birmingham | Unknown | 90 | Clashes with socialist protestors[29], West Midlands police claims "No intent to protest" [34] |
13th September 2009 | London | Unknown | Zero | Counter demonstration to pro=Palestinian rally. Chants of "We hate Muslims" and "Muslim Bombers off our streets."[9] |
10th October 2009 | Manchester | 700 | 48 | Counter-protested by 1400 UAF. Riot police on hand to seperate sides.[35] |
31st October 2009 | Leeds | 900 | 8 | Counter-protested by 1500 UAF. Leeds council and West Yorkshire Police thank all participants..[37][38] |
5th December 2009 | Nottingham | 500 | 11 [4] | Demonstration following Mercian Regiment homecoming parade, clashes with Asian students and UAF. Policing cost estimated at £1 million..[39] |
23rd January 2010 | Stoke-on-Trent | 1500 | 17 | EDL break through police lines, injure police officers and damage police vehicles.[40] |
20th March 2010 | Bolton | 2000 | 74 | Counter-protested by 1500 UAF, 1300 police dispatched at a cost of £300 000.[43] 55 arrested from UAF and around 9 from EDL..[45][46][47][48] Policeman states "we have seen groups of people, predominantly associated with the UAF, engaging in violent confrontation."[48] |
3rd April 2010 | Dudley | 2000 | Unknown | Several EDL supporters knocked down fencing and escaped the police cordon.[50] |
1st May 2010 | Aylesbury | 800 | 12 [5] | Peaceful protest against militant Islam. Eight of the arrests on suspiscion of carrying an offensive weapon. |
17 July 2010 | Dudley | 500 | 21 | Hindu Temple attacked along with shops, restaurants, cars and residential homes by a group that broke off from the main demonstration. [6] |
Alright then...how's that for a start? -- Omar418 ( talk) 10:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
What is the sourcing for the attendance figures? I think it is quite normal for there to be varying estimates (organisers usually give a much higher estimate than the police, and media reports may vary in reliability). Think it is important to be consistent on the one hand and also try and get sourcing that is likely to be neutral. I appreciate that might be quite a tall order. -- FormerIP ( talk) 14:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
There are three straw polls, above. I apologise for the lack of advance warning - I should have let you all know yesterday - but I'm planning on closing the polls in one hour, i.e. at around 11:30am BST (10:30 UTC). TFOWR 09:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
{{
minnow}}
and {{
trout}}
. I'm going to be offline for the next hour, so don't feel in any way restricted in the fulsomeness of your praise for me ;-)
TFOWR 11:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC){{
barracuda}}
. --
FormerIP (
talk) 11:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC){{
editprotected}}
Could a non-involved admin please edit the lead to incorporate the text BritishWatcher proposes
above? Note that the discussion follows on from three straw polls (
above): you may wish to consider whether the three polls were appropriately closed. Thanks!
TFOWR 12:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Detailed request: please replace:
The '''English Defence League''' (EDL) is an [[Far right in the United Kingdom|English far-right]] single-issue political<ref>[http://www.warringtonguardian.co.uk/news/whereilive/8273411.Racist_graffiti_is_shame_of_Padgate</ref><ref>[http://www.uxbridgegazette.co.uk/west-london-news/local-uxbridge-news/2010/06/30/anti-islamic-group-blamed-for-st-george-s-day-riot-in-ruislip-113046-26759981/</ref><!-- The following references all attribute political designations to the group, hence support the text: <ref name=Newsnight /><ref name="BBC 20091012" /><ref name=Times1 />{{Failed verification|date=July 2010}} <ref name=HarrowTimes1 />{{Failed verification|date=July 2010}} <ref name=BirminghamPost2 /><ref name=SkyNews1 /><ref name=Independent1 /> --> or "quasi-political"<ref>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1238213/This-England-On-trail-English-Defence-League.html</ref> street movement formed in 2009.
...with:
The '''English Defence League''' (EDL) is an [[Far right in the United Kingdom|English far-right]] single issue group formed in 2009.<ref>[http://www.warringtonguardian.co.uk/news/whereilive/8273411.Racist_graffiti_is_shame_of_Padgate</ref><ref>[http://www.uxbridgegazette.co.uk/west-london-news/local-uxbridge-news/2010/06/30/anti-islamic-group-blamed-for-st-george-s-day-riot-in-ruislip-113046-26759981/</ref>
TFOWR 12:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Is the EDL a single issue organisation when it opposes several things, notably a) Sharia law b) Islamic extremism c)Islamism. Or am I being pedantic? Francium12 13:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Copied the following from a section above to ensure it gets debated and not overlooked as there is so much activity on this talkpage right now. BritishWatcher ( talk) 13:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
An example.
The alleged link to BNP is based on a Russell Jenkins writing in The Times "The groupings have attracted the support of BNP activists including Chris Renton, who created the English Defence League website." That is not evidence that is hearsay. What is recorded evidence is that the website owner is someone called Trevor Kelway.
http://whois.domaintools.com/englishdefenceleague.org
I do not understand the Wikipedia editors' hierarchy. There are serious issues of neutrality evidenced in this article that needs to be addressed.
Awmyth (
talk) 22:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
The current wording and sources do seem problematic and some changes are needed or the whole section removed if more sources can not be found BritishWatcher ( talk) 13:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
This was just added as an attempted slur, mostly OR and weak claims in an attempt to associate and connect them to the BNP, laughable, no actually depth to the claim at all. Off2riorob ( talk) 13:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
So how many people would oppose the removal of this section from the article? It seems like the best option. BritishWatcher ( talk) 12:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I am not aginst its removal, the material is at best inuendo really. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Agree strong support for removal from here :) preferably with a big stick --Errant Tmorton166( Talk) 13:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Copying the text here.
The first sentence is very problematic, the only evidence we have about the man being a BNP activist is based on an illegally leaked membership list. Searchlight is hardly a neutral group to take their word on this and with the exception of the guardian i cant see much media attention about this guy, which suggests it is not notable. The second line has one EDL member attacking another member, how notable this incident was at the time is questionable. The first two sources in the second paragraph about the BNPs response no longer work, i did a quick search on their website and found nothing. Final sentence again seems pretty questionable, what Searchlight says or thinks on this does not seem to justify inclusion. So in reality i dont think there is anything there worth saving. I agree a mention of the BNP VS EDL thing is noteworthy, its ironic two right wing organisations appear to hate each other so much and go out of their way to distance themselves, the BNP proscribing them is certainly noteworthy, but thats the only thing originally mentioned that belongs there, and it needs a working source. BritishWatcher ( talk) 22:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Is there a better was of fashioning the second sentence, now that the opening has good support? I'm refering to the bit about political direction. For background, I proposed that content about 9 months ago following a similar period of dispute. It didn't read too well then but was seen as a compromise for the "political" debate raging at the time.
I just don't think that saying ...."although the EDL's political direction is being debated within the group" hangs very well with the begining of the sentence. Could we agree to split this into 2 sentences as follows: "Its stated aim is to oppose what it considers as the spread of Islamism, Sharia law and Islamic extremism in England." "The EDL's political direction is being debated within the group.[3][4]".
Any suggestions? Leaky Caldron 14:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
do we have consensus on this? can I make an editprotected request to change the second sentence to:
Its stated aim is to oppose what it considers as the spread of Islamism, Sharia law and Islamic extremism in England. [12] [13] (sorry if this is "quick" but it seems a fairly non-contentious edit) --Errant Tmorton166( Talk) 12:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I've drafted this up. I'm sure it can be discussed:
The group states that its aim is to demonstrate peacefully in English cities,[10] but conflicts with Unite Against Fascism (UAF) and other opponents have led to street violence and arrests, resulting in some EDL marches being banned.[8] There is normally heavy policing of these demonstrations due to the likelihood of violence and the cost of policing these has ranged from £300,000[43] to £1m.[39] Journalists that have covered EDL marches have received death threats.[23] Guardian journalist Jason N. Parkinson wrote about receiving a death threat by email from someone he described as an EDL organiser, as well as death threats sent to Marc Vallée, a fellow journalist.[24] The National Union of Journalists also released a statement about journalists who had been intimidated after covering EDL marches.[23]
Four specialist national police units involved in policing hooliganism, extreme violence, and terrorism are investigating the EDL. After their second demonstration in Birmingham Assistant Chief Constable Sharon Rowe of West Midlands Police: "Really, there was no intent to protest. It think they knew that the community was very much against them coming to the city, which...potentially would generate violence".[34]
Before their Manchester demonstration of October 2009, the EDL held a press conference, during which they burned a Nazi flag and asserted that "There is no militant undertone. We will peacefully protest but we will not be scared into silence". In the press conference, the EDL wore black balaclavas and T-shirts with the name of different EDL divisions on the back. They justified wearing balaclavas by suggesting that the burqa was just as intimidating a garment. In response to the suggestion that EDL had been described as a drinking club with a website, the members laughed.[5][10] In Swansea on 17 October 2009, Nazi salutes were made during the first demonstration by the Welsh Defence League.[36]
In Stoke-on-Trent in January 2010, EDL members broke through police lines and there was a fracas in which four police officers were injured (two of whom needed hospital treatment) and police vehicles damaged.[40] In March 2010 in Bolton, 74 people were arrested in the demonstrations; reports state that at least 55 of the arrested were from the UAF and nine from the EDL.[45][46][47][48]
At their second Dudley protest, on July 2010 a group broke off and attacked a Hindu Temple.[57] The leader of Dudley council, Anne Milward, stated later "We are extremely saddened that Dudley has again been targeted by the English Defence League. Yet again this group of outside extremists have shown they are incapable of demonstrating peacefully and have brought public disorder and violence to our town."
The EDL plan to hold further demonstrations in Bradford and Tower Hamlets after the Guardian revealed that the EDL were plan to target some of the UK's highest-profile Muslim communities and "hit" places like Bradford.[54]
Would like to open up suggestions for a name for the section. i'm Going with "Violent and Questionable Behaviour" -- Omar418 ( talk) 12:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I would have to add two things. 1. We do not need to mention things twice in the articel. If its in one section it does no0t have (or need) to be duplicated here). 2. We should only include in this section actions that have been directly attributed to the EDL by RS. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Just to say thanks to all the editors who worked together over the last few weeks - its been a real pleasure in contrast to previous experiences. -- Snowded TALK 08:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Hmm I made that edit to put the table in and make a couple of changes and have messed up a little with my cutting and pasting of references. Need to get to work. So if anyone has spare time could they sort through and check that the end refs are put in properly.
Sorry about this.
-- Omar418 ( talk) 08:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Mercury3 - relates to 5 Sept 2009 protest. Nothing of real value in this source unless we go into more detail.
Walesonline_10-18 - is about the welsh protest in Swansea, it is not mentioned in the protest table, but i will add it to the introduction where it mentions about the WDL.
LutonToday1 mentions one march in Luton, but is mostly about the fact the Home Office granted a ban preventing the EDL from marching through fear of violence. This seems noteworthy for the violence section. So i will remove Mercury3, link Walesonline to the introduction and leave LutonToday1 for the time being. BritishWatcher ( talk) 09:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
There is also a problem with duplications of references. For example.. 23 jan 2010 Stoke on Trent has sources 31/32/33, one in each column but they are all the same link. 31 Oct 2009 Leeds links 27 and 28 in all 3 columns. What is the best way of dealing with these? Should we just link everything in the description box rather than the other columns? On some tables they have a small separate source column which would keep them neatly apart. Just having refs in the Description column seems like the easiest solution.
One other separate issue, at present the first sentence of the article is referenced by two local newspapers. We should probably have national sources for the lead sentence to strengthen it. BritishWatcher ( talk) 11:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
how is any of this "Before their Manchester demonstration of October 2009, the EDL held a press conference, during which they burned a Nazi flag and asserted that "There is no militant undertone. We will peacefully protest but we will not be scared into silence"." violance or anti-social behaviour? So burning a Nazi flag is anti-soclialo or violant? is saying tehy are not violant anti-social or vioolant? Slatersteven ( talk) 14:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Steven, the sourced fact that a Hindu temple was attacked following and EDL demonstration is clearly relevant to the article. We shouldn't frame it in a way that the source doesn't, of course, but the wording you removed doesn't do that. Are you suggesting it might be the case that the temple was co-incidentally attacked by someone unconnected to the demonstration? -- FormerIP ( talk) 15:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Can we junk the second mention of the Hindu temple incident - it seems out on it's own and lonely there and I see no rationale for having it twice (could be confusing). I wouldn;t like to see it given undue weight (by being mentioned twice) seeing as there is no source directly identifying it as EDL action --Errant Tmorton166( Talk) 19:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Why does this section require a citation for violence, arrests and anti-social behaviour? I'd have thought that was apparent in the content of the article. -- Omar418 ( talk) 23:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Not sure what yiu mean, But if you mean why do we need citations for claims. I think its best to avoid probloms whe someone tries to remove an 'unsourced' claim. Slatersteven ( talk) 00:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I mean in the text of the violent and anti social behaviour section it says citation needed when it says the demonstrations have been associated with violence arrests and anti-social behaviour. One would think this was evident from the numerous examples in the main body of the text and the table above. Are they not citations that validate the claims. To note each and every one of them after the claim in question would surely be pointless given the evidence of the fact from the stats given, --
Omar418 (
talk) 18:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I seem to recall that the demo table should only include demos organised by the EDL, not just ones they show up at. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
According to this Guardian article http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/11/english-defence-league-chaotic-alliance Tommy robinson is a pseudonym.
How do we address that? -- Omar418 ( talk) 23:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Another thing this article alludes to another incident where Robinson "may" have been arrested http://www.dudleynews.co.uk/news/local/8133852.EDL_UPDATE___roof_top_protestors_arrested/ Yet more anti-social behaviour fodder? -- Omar418 ( talk) 23:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
I think this article is looking better than it did a few weeks ago but I'm a bit concerned that the section about BNP links has been completely removed. Surely the content should have been improved rather than completely deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Francium12 ( talk • contribs)
Francium12 21:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
If we are seriously considering adding a new section on the BNP links to EDL, could we try and create a list of all sources detailing it? That would help us assess notability and choose reliable sources and content if someone is to be added. I do think the vast majority of "links" info will relate back to 2009 when the group was very new, and people obviously wanted to try and figure out who they are and connected with. It doubt its been much of an issue recently. BritishWatcher ( talk) 00:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
. Slatersteven ( talk) 00:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
From the EDL website (everything beyond this point is lifted from the link below):
Channel 4 Tomorrow Evening Tommy Robinson "Unmasked"
http://www.englishdefenceleague.org/images/stories/edl-media/passport.jpg%201.jpg
"Yes this IS the face of Tommy Robinson and here is his passport!!!
Contrary to the left wing effluent that spews from the unpatriotic Anti-English, Anti- Democratic, Anti-Jew and Islamist loving ranks of the unwashed who seem to think they have "exposed" Tommy we again laugh at their feeble attempts to cause him harm.
In fact all they have done is actually put some poor innocent peoples lives at risk and for what? For the sake of their own egos? For the sake of the Islamists we protest against?
Whatever the motive they have undoubtedly put innocent people in harms way, we hope they are proud of themselves and their despicable ways, lets hope that none of their identities get out into the public domain eh?
Of course if that were to happen the English Defence League would at least have the intellectual and moral integrity of getting it right rather than endanger innocent "joe public".
As the loony left celebrate we cant help but extinguish their party bonfire with this "FACTUAL" information. What kind of moral compass do these people have? What right have they to put peoples lives at risk? And for what exactly?
So for 5 minutes they can indulge their own egos with utter contemptuous fabrication?
The minds of the "far left" are incredibly warped, so much so they care not for the safety of innocent peoples, nor do they care how idiotic they expose themselves to be. Still if they had a brain between them they could be dangerous, lets thank God for small blessings eh?
At least Tommy, or should i say "Paul Harris" has done the right thing and publicly admitted who he actually is, lets hope that is enough to save innocents from getting hurt.
Tommy or "Paul" as you all know know was arrested recently so here we have his bail papers that strangely enough collaborate his REAL identity, at least he has the balls to come out and say who he is.
Would any of those who are intent on "exposing" him do the same? I use the term "exposed" in the loosest of terms obviously!
Congratulations you lefty idiots for putting people in harms way, if you decide to try and expose people then at least have the decency of getting it right you numpties!!!
Tommy or "Paul" will be on Channel 4 "unmasked" at 7pm tomorrow night talking about the problem of Islamism and Islamists here in the UK, another FACT that the brainwashed unwashed seem unable to comprehend."
(my own words) Picture of Bail notice for Paul Harris: http://www.englishdefenceleague.org/images/stories/edl-media/bail.jpg.jpg
-- Omar418 ( talk) 00:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Well its all over the EDL website that Tommy Robonson is Paul Harris but reading the EDL can we change the note of a Guardian claim of a psudonym to "The EDL stated that Tommy Rosinson is a pseudonym for Paul Harris citing a passport and bail notice as proof of identification." or is the way the article is worded an obstacle to establishing this as fact? Note there are plenty of inverted commas etc -- Omar418 ( talk) 22:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
What is this discussion about exactly, tommy is jonny. ? Off2riorob ( talk)Can I get the simple cited version please, It looks like cut and copied photo shop rubbish with lots of BLP issues if you ask me, please point me in the right direction if my spidey senses are tingling for another reason. Off2riorob ( talk) 22:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
The article clearly states (direct quote):
"Yes this IS the face of Tommy Robinson and here is his passport!!!"
This picture here:
http://www.englishdefenceleague.org/images/stories/edl-media/passport.jpg%201.jpg
is a scan of his passport from the same link
and this is a bail notice he recieved that suggests he has been arrested: http://www.englishdefenceleague.org/images/stories/edl-media/bail.jpg.jpg
From this info we can immediately state that Tommy Robinson is a psudonym and that has been established by the EDL. The question is whether to put his real name up to respect the right to privacy or not and also on the grounds that his real identity seems under dispute from the Guardian amd Channel 4 during their report where they used three names to refer to him.
I guess the EDL would be happy for us to put this name as his real name and psudonym but given that he has been named as Stephen Yaxley-Lennon by the Guardian and Channel 4 raises a dispute over whether this is genuine or, as you suggest, shooped. I'm just wanting the text that the Guardian CLAIM its a pseudonym changed. To either "The EDL acknowledge that Tommy Robinson is a pseudonym" or "The EDL unmasked Tommy Robinson as an individual named Paul Harris." its just changing the wording of the note on Tommy Robinson so this talks less like EDL or UAF speak and more like wiki speak -- Omar418 ( talk) 01:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bradford-west-yorkshire-11041289- Bradford, Guramit Singh, spokesman for the EDL. I also note, the group are again referred to as a right wing campaign/protest group, I also note no reference to fascists either. Off2riorob ( talk) 19:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Call them what you like but the Sky reports were all the same as well, 'right wing campaign group, my old consensus china. Off2riorob ( talk) 12:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I am not concurring with this group(s)? at all, however I fail to understand, the need to quote a line from a politician not officially backed-up by any other individuals. This makes it seem to be POV. Thank you.-- Cymbelmineer ( talk) 02:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I seem to recall that the demo table should only include demos organised by the EDL, not just ones they show up at. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree-- Omar418 ( talk) 23:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
There are currently around 16,000 registered users on the EDL forum. Obviously not all of them are supporters, but the majority of posters in all sections are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.109.170.24 ( talk) 01:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
News is coming in today (9/10/10) of the protests in Leicester. Incidents reported include the International Arts Centre has had its windows smashed by the EDL and that a police officer has been hospitalised after a leg injury:
Leicestershire police say five have been arrested:
One for a drug offence:
Fireworks, smokebombs, beercans and bricks have been thrown at police:
More on arrests: 5 arrested all male between 30 and 42 and none from the Leicester area. One for a drugs offence, two for posession of an offensive weapon and two for minro public order offences:
http://www.leics.police.uk/campaigns/142_updates_in_relation_to_the_city/
-- Omar418 ( talk) 15:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Which one? Won't remove anything but this is very busy and its good to get a rolling feed so we can report.
Reports of clashes with local black and Asian youth: http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/news/Violent-clashes-break-EDL-black-Asian-people-Leicester/article-2741048-detail/article.html
Video of EDL breaking our of designated protest site: http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/media.html?vid=8540-- Omar418 ( talk) 15:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Theres nothing on the EDL breaking into the UAF area in my posts is there? sorry for removing any posts of yours, accident. i'm just posting as it happens as there have been discussion about what has happenned on the day on the article and the facts involved. I'd intend to post a draft here and then change the article once the draft is accepted. Most reliable source is the police feed and local news. -- Omar418 ( talk) 15:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Nah, that was a twitter comment. There was no report from either local press or police on that. The police tweeted that it didn't happen and the local paper retweeted. I'm only posting reports. Police say 8 arrests from people aged between 21 and 42. http://www.leics.police.uk/campaigns/142_updates_in_relation_to_the_city/ -- Omar418 ( talk) 16:28, 9 October 2010 (UTC) Details of arrests from police: "6pm update
•37-year-old man of no fixed abode arrested for possession of a controlled substance and possession of an offensive weapon •30-year-old man from Wales arrested on suspicion of possession of an offensive weapon and public order offences •39-year-old man from Boston, Lincolnshire arrested on suspicion of criminal damage •42-year-old man from Holland arrested on suspicion of public order offences •21-year-old man from Alvaston, Derby arrested on suspicion of public order offences •38-year-old man from Gateshead arrested on suspicion of public order offences •27-year-old man from Long Eaton, Notts arrested on suspicion of public order offences •23-year-old man from Wigston arrested on suspicion of public order offences and assaulting a police officer." http://www.leics.police.uk/campaigns/142_updates_in_relation_to_the_city/ -- Omar418 ( talk) 17:12, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Edl members also injured http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8052875/Violence-flares-at-English-Defence-League-protest-in-Leicester.html A sky news van attacked http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/English-Defence-League-Protesters-Attack-Sky-News-Satellite-Truck-In-Leicester-Protest/Article/201010215755108?lpos=UK_News_Top_Stories_Header_3&lid=ARTICLE_15755108_English_Defence_League_Protesters_Attack_Sky_News_Satellite_Truck_In_Leicester_Protest Slatersteven ( talk) 17:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
More reports on arrests: 6.30pm update http://www.leics.police.uk/campaigns/142_updates_in_relation_to_the_city/ Police have confirmed five more arrests:
•30-year-old man from Leighton Buzzard, Bedfordshire arrested on suspicion of assaulting a police officer •37-year-old man from Leicester arrested on suspicion of possession of an offensive weapon and public order offences •39-year-old man from Leicester arrested on suspicion of public order offences •27-year-old man from Stoke on Trent arrested on suspicion of public order offences •23-year-old man from Halifax arrested on suspicion of public order offences This makes a total of 13 arrests at this present time, only 3 in custody from the Leicestershire area. -- Omar418 ( talk) 17:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Final poloce press release: http://www.leics.police.uk/news/4249_police_thank_public_following_protests/ -- Omar418 ( talk) 20:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
There has come to light an inquiry towards incidents at the Bolton demonstration and I thought they may be relevant to the story. Apparently a man protesting against the English Defence League, Alan Clough, who was arrested and charged has had charges dropped against him and there are parts of his case which indicate police brutality.
According to this article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/oct/21/inquiry-police-anti-fascist-protester
Clough was due to stand trial at bolton malgistrates court but:
"the Crown Prosecution Service dropped the case 24 hours before it was due to go ahead after viewing footage from the rally, filmed by Granada TV. It shows police in high visibility jackets pushing back crowds of protesters before a skirmish breaks out, with riot police and mounted officers involved. Batons are drawn and Clough is punched by an officer in riot gear who is lashing out at demonstrators. He is then dragged away and arrested."
It also quotes a spokesman for justice4bolton as saying: "The latest footage must be seen against the background of an overwhelming number of reports already received by justice4bolton describing violent and oppressive behaviour on the part of police on 20 March.
"The emerging body of reports already received raises serious questions, not only about the acts of individual officers, but about the broader approach taken by the police towards those seeking to stand up against racism and fascism."
It also indicates that the Greater Manchester Police is to have an nquiry into what happenned on the day in question
Thoughts please.. -- Omar418 ( talk) 20:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Apparently the EDL are not too welcome by Geert Wilders:
‘This demonstration means nothing to me. It is nothing to do with me, nor is the EDL,’ Wilders said. ‘I only know the group from the newspapers and I have never had any contact with them.’
http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2010/10/wilders_denounces_english_defe.php
"I have no involvement with this demo, I've never been in touch with the EDL," the MP told daily De Telegraaf on Tuesday.
Their demonstrations have a tendency to spark counter-protests and violence. Referring to this, Mr Wilders said, "Should this demonstration really happen, I would like to emphasise that I abhor any form of violence. If there's the remotest chance of escalation, I'd rather they call off the protest. Perish the thought that this turns into a battle. That's the last thing I need."
http://www.rnw.nl/english/bulletin/wilders-rejects-english-edl-radicals-support -- Omar418 ( talk) 12:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
The demonstration scheduled on the 30th October that is mentioned under International links is advertised as being in support of Wilders. That he rejects the support is surely worth mentioning? Also the council in amsterdam are considering banning the demonstrations. http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2010/10/amsterdam_considers_banning_pr.php -- Omar418 ( talk) 13:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
The last item on the demo table claims it was a protest at the Israeli Embassy. They weren't protesting the embassy they were rallying for it, and Israeli flags can clearly be seen flying prominently on video of the event. I think protest isn't an appropriate word for the event. 74.64.22.193 ( talk) 05:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
the article claims 40,000 from and old source, but the facebook page says 55,500 and has been growing at about 500/day over the past week. What should we do about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.108.86 ( talk) 22:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
what is his real name if not this one? what does he do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.125.31.232 ( talk) 17:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
In light of the recent attempt to install the world "violent" as one of the opening descriptions to the EDL I would like to state the following. All things should be considered when assigning such a word to a Pressure group. 1 NPOV 2 WP:V 3 Manual of Style .
1)What am I achieving by describing this group's founding activities as "violent". In most articles, the only things I think in which a founding statements of the group the word "violent" is applicable are terrorist organisations who openly advocate violence with direct statements. There are suitable sections for describing the activities of the group, and criticisms and other commentaries should be dealt with here. The opening phrase should deal with the largely indesputable solid information about the pressure group
2) Ask yourself is the source reliable/suitable in context to the group. You are citing the Harrow times. Not a big enough paper when the other British Papers have also written articles on the EDL. You must find something in context.
3) I suggest you read it.
If you wish to add further information to the group, you are invited to do so. But it is my opinion that your recent edits could be construed as mild vandalism, or at least provocative. Impartiality shall reign ( talk) 00:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
The word violent was added because the EDL's involvement in violent activities is well chronicled (and, indeed, a number of the sources provide examples of its track record in this regard). However, this part of my edit has been reverted and I will make no further attempt to reintroduce the word so long as the term "far right" is allowed to stand (because this fact is widely sourced and in itself implies a violent aspect). Most of the rest of the opening paragraph seems to read a bit like EDL propoganda, so the far right description should be retained for purposes of accuracy and balance (especially given the group's links with the BNP and its penchant for provocative street activities, the latter clearly differentiating it from centre right groups like UKIP). Multiculturalist ( talk) 12:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes you're right, it is well documented. No one is disputing that there has been violence at EDL rallies. One is disputing where this information should be contained. If you take a look at the UAF page for example, by your regulations they too should contain the banner "violent" in the opening line, as should all sorts of unsuspecting groups. Perhaps John McEnroe should be described as a "violent" tennis player because of his frequent outbursts on the court. Do you get where this is going? If you continue to approach all articles as "them" and "us" then you will rarely be able to contribute worthy information. Thank you for your understanding. Alexandre8 ( talk) 13:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
From a documentary today on Channel 4 in the UK entitled "Coppers", episode entitled "Public Order". Showed a senior officer from Greater Manchester Police (not named) briefing police before an EDL demo in Bolton earlier this year. The quote is about 4 mins 30 in.
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/coppers/4od#3142078
Mentioning this because the article seems to me to be unduly careful at the moment in not mentioning that the EDL are, according to some assessments, not much more than a sort of flag of convenience for pre-existing groupings of people. I'm assuming this is because of a lack of citable quotes.
Cheers. -- 92.14.122.173 ( talk) 01:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for that - I saw it and made a similar comment to you further up this page. Had not seen your comment at the time. Clearly they are far right. Multiculturalist ( talk) 18:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Notice a lot of mentions of arrests but "arrests" are not a very useful measurement of anything. The police will often arrest someone but take it no further. Good example is the Bolton demo, many more arrests on the UAF side but virtually no convictions, and the most serious charges all dropped (I think). Just because someone has been arrested doesn't mean they did anything wrong, so I;m not sure what the obsession with numbers of arrests really shows?
It's standard practise to cite arrests, you're right, convictions hardly ever follow. It's also very hard to get citations for the ones that do since they tend not to be printed whereas arrests are always made available to the press. Best not to change anything there unless it's a significant member of the protesting parties. Alexandre8 ( talk) 22:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
The image used in the organization info box shows a police officer and an EDL supporter that is masked and probably about to be (or just having been) engaged in something inappropriate. That's hardly neutral. How about the organization's logo which is usual in this place for most every other organization? __ meco ( talk) 20:45, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
The Morning Star quotation is not replicated in another other national newspaper as far as I can see on a google search. Here it is used as part of a British Communist Party attack on Police investigations. The Morning Star is not a broadsheet newspaper and the insert in the first paragraph gives undue weight to something which to all intents and purposes has not been reported in any mainstream source. In any event WP:BRD says it should be reverted and discussed. -- Snowded TALK 21:28, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
This is clearly just an attack on the article line which is not classed as anti-EDL. There are many smaller newspapers used throughout the article, including The Harrow Times, The Uxbridge Gazette, The Birmingham Post, The Scotsman, The Birmingham Mail, The Stourbridge News, Luton Today, The Leicester Mercury and so on. None of these have raised any objections. Questioning the Morning Stars' place in light of these sources is clearly just a push for an anti-EDL bias in the article . This is an Encyclopaedia, not a forum for pushing one's own views, and it must remain to be unbias and informative; the views of the UK's Domestic Extremism Unit is clearly valid and is an example of the counter-argument to the anti-English Defence League sentiments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.121.237.182 ( talk) 11:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I have posted an inquiry at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Morning Star (UK newspaper) that could possibly yield some valuable opinions and facts to assist in deciding on this issue. __ meco ( talk) 10:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
The list of marches is a synthesis of primary sources (news reports). We do not need laundry lists of this kind. A prose description of the development of their marches, supported by reliable independent sources so as to avoid original research, would be fine.
Reports of nazi salutes are very widespread, that should also be included at some point, if possible with some reliably sourced version of the group's reported statement that it has expelled people for doing this (though how you expel people from a mob is not entirely clear). Guy ( Help!) 20:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I would agree the list is wholly unnecessary for an encyclopedia article, which is what we're supposed to be writing here. If you were reading an article on the NF or the Brownshirts you wouldn't expect to see some lengthy table with arrests, injuries, attendance etc, so why does this article have them? It's recentism, looking back in 50 years time would anyone writing an article include all that information? I doubt it, so why do it now? The same value can be given in a few short sentences saying that EDL protests have increased in size, they've been repeatedly opposed by anti-fascists, there's been arrests and violence on both sides etc. Once you do that, things like the actual number of arrests at a particular protest or the attendance becomes just trivia. Obviously mention the bigger/more important protests in greater detail, but you don't need this level of crust in an encyclopedia article. 2 lines of K 303 14:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
I see there's been another attempt by a virtual far-right SPA to promote EDL claims regarding things like Sharia law as fact. Here's what several sources say, with emphasis added:
Based on these, I assume there's no objection from non-SPA editors to the reinstatement of the original long-standing wording in the lead? 2 lines of K 303 14:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
I think it breaks down like this: "EDL is opposed to radical Islam" implies that, by some objective standard, the things that the EDL oppose are "radical". However, this is a judgement call and we only have their word for it. But they are not the right people for us to call on for a judgement as to whether they are right or wrong about it. The right place to go for that judgement is third party sources. They seem to consistently add a qualifier such as "what they see as", and we should follow suite. On a more discursive note, it is clear that some things the EDL opposes are the building of Mosques and the sale of Halal food. These are things that all Mulsims, whether radical, half-interested or whatever, would consider to be essential parts of their religion. This does not seem consistent with the idea that the EDL only opposes "radical" Islam. We should therefore be cautious about reporting the EDL's view of itself as if it were unquestionable. The sources do subtly question them, and that's the lead we must take. -- FormerIP ( talk) 15:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Times2
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).BNP1
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).BNP
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Telegraph4
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Newsnight
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).BBC 20091012
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 9 |
How would people feel about this..
Using far right does seem to concern more than one editor so perhaps right wing is a more acceptable term that both sides can accept. After doing some google searches, "Right wing" does seem to be used by a wider range of reliable media sources. BBC, Sky, Telegraph, Daily Mail, Times, The Guardian etc have all used "right wing", im not sure they have all said "far right" in the same way. BritishWatcher ( talk) 08:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I may well have missed this discussion somewhere up above, but has there been any consideration of whether "movement" is the best term to use? "Group" or "organisation" seem to me to be more neutral - "movement", to me, seems to give it greater substance and significance than the refs seem to support. If refs consistently suggest one word rather than another, we should go with that, but they don't seem to. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 10:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
There have been known to be a few violent incidents involving EDL demonstrations. Notably at Swansea (?), Dudley and Bolton. There is a general feeling they go hand in hand with violence among many.
Perhaps we can have a list of the protests with a simple breakdown of attendance and a section on violence and arrests? -- Omar418 ( talk) 10:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
A table with protests would be a good idea but there are points, when it comes to Dudley, the violence has been the main issue. -- Omar418 ( talk) 11:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I think the protests deserve their own table and its important to keep impartial. A section on violence, intimidation (i.e. the death threats that have been posted in the article) needs to seperate the two. There are hard facts to be laid out statistically and there are important events and actions that need to expanded upon. Need to go through the whole activities section seperating wheat from chaff as there is a lot of un-necessary repetition. The chanting could be summed up in a quick paragraph about the protests. Violence needs expanded upon. -- Omar418 ( talk) 11:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Posted above in the POV section but would like to see if I can get consensus so the reference can be posted through the admin. Stated below what I had above:
I'd like to update my reference for the Dudley demonstration where the Hindu Temple was attacked during a protest. The link I posted was simply to a comment about an article saying trouble had occured. I would simply like the current reference for the attack on the Temple to be replaced with the one below or to have this added to it.
This reference: http://www.stourbridgenews.co.uk/news/8283497.EDL_protest_bill_tops_half_a_million_pounds/ contains an informative quote from West Midlands Police: “Amongst the premises attacked were residential homes around Alexandra Street, cars parked in roads surrounding Stafford Street, restaurants on Wolverhampton Street and the Hindu Temple. “Many of these locations saw windows smashed, and damage caused to fencing. A couple of vehicles were damaged as they were targeted whilst being driven through the town.” The main point is that a Hindu Temple is being smashed up by a group that claims to be anti-Islamism. -- Omar418 ( talk) 11:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Whilst there are sources to back up Far right being used in the introduction, as several editors seem concerned about its use (and its come up several times) i have spent a little while looking through usage by media organisations. I think there may be a case to change far right to right-wing which seems to be used a lot too and backed up by a wider range of media sources (including the Mail, Telegraph, Express which are not left wing papers).
If "right wing" is just as bad to those opposing "far right" we may as well not even bother discussing this, but if the change would satisfy some editors concerns i would be prepared to support the change.
Whilst some of these organisations may also refer to the group as far right, ive found the following where the EDL or their protesters are just described as right wing. Daily Mail [1] [2], Daily Telegraph [3], Daily Express (Describes activists as far right, but the group as right-wing in the same article) [4], The Times [5] , BBC (right-wing protesters) [6] [7], Sky News (Right-Wing protests) [8] [9] and (controversial right-wing group) [10] , Evening Standard (right wing protesters) [11] .
Those will do for now. As i said before there are plenty of sources to back up use of far right, i came across ones including The Sun and Evening Standard, along with the guardian which has already been mentioned often and the BBC and Sky along with the express have also mentioned "far right" . Seen as some people in the debate above have questioned use of far right, i think its worth us debating this matter properly or to hold a vote on it like we are with other parts of the introduction above. But again if "right wing" is just as problematic as "far right" then there is no point. Both terms are absolutely justified, ill only support a change if it creates a wider consensus and deals with some peoples concerns. BritishWatcher ( talk) 16:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Right wing would be plenty, basically they are worried about mass immigration of the muslim people and the immense and recent mass changes to population demographics in some England cities. And they go on marches about it, they are not exactly far right Nazis are they. Actually if the Anti fascist league had not come disrupting them there would not even be any controversy. What is far right about saying, hello my town is being invaded by people from Pakistan? Off2riorob ( talk) 16:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
OK list,list all the source that call them far riight, then all the sources that call tehm right wing and see which is more commonly used? Slatersteven ( talk) 16:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Here is some "Far right" usage - Telegraph [12] , BBC [13] , Express (far right activists) [14] , The Guardian [15] , The sun [16], Evening Standard [17] , The Times (far right protesters) [18] . There are more, but those are just a quick few. Like i said before, when it comes to sources either Right Wing / Far right are justified. BritishWatcher ( talk) 17:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Just to let everyone know a mediation request has been opened here BritishWatcher ( talk) 14:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Just to say, I have requested this process to get an independent and neutral perspective on the issue of "reliability of sources" and the appropriate use or rejection of the references. Reading the whole discussion page, I am convinced if no consensus could be reached for months, it is wishful thinking it will happen within this active group of editors.
This is the last chance to resolve this issue logically and rationally. I do not have the time to spend arguing with bigoted individuals. But I do not quit on the face of unfairness. This is no exception.
Awmyth (
talk) 17:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
As most seem to support the path of mediation, are all of the debates above and below about potential changes now void? There is no point in us debating and agreeing to make changes now, if the whole thing is being questioned and challenged during mediation. BritishWatcher ( talk) 23:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi everyone. I want to say I am pulling out. I have a family bereavement. A couple of words on Wikipedia now seems pointless, I no longer care what you write.
I do not know how to withdraw the Request For Mediation. I am happy for any experienced editor to do so on my behalf.
Awmyth (
talk) 17:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Okay I have made up a table of demonstrations based on the references in the main article. Where information was lacking I have added my own references. A BBC report and a Sky News report. I think this should go below a paragraph dealing wioth violent incidents, abusive behaviour and intimidation. These would include the points on death threats. "Aggro" at demonstrations and noted points of violent intimidation. This should help sort out the Activities section a little.
Date | Town/City | Attendance | Arrests At Event (includes non-EDL) |
---|---|---|---|
8th August 2009 | Birmingham | Unknown | 35 |
5th September 2009 | Birmingham | Unknown | 90 |
13th September 2009 | London | Unknown | Zero |
10th October 2009 | Manchester | 700 | 48 |
31st October 2009 | Leeds | 900 | 8 |
5th December 2009 | Nottingham | 500 | 11 [1] |
23rd January 2010 | Stoke-on-Trent | 1500 | 17 |
20th March 2010 | Bolton | 2000 | 74 |
3rd April 2010 | Dudley | 2000 | Unknown |
1st May 2010 | Aylesbury | 800 | 12 [2] |
17 July 2010 | Dudley | 500 | 21 |
-- Omar418 ( talk) 07:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
It is annoying that you can't get the arrests for each group down but even figures that state each group are approximated. I think its quicker to disclaim which group the arrests were appropriated to. The only place we have figures for that is Bolton. -- Omar418 ( talk) 08:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Edited the N/A to unknown but a fifth column I don't know. What would you call it? Whats the word limit? -- Omar418 ( talk) 08:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Well this is the sort of thing i had in mind (just example text)
Date | Town/City | Attendance | Arrests (includes non-EDL) | Description of Event |
---|---|---|---|---|
8th August 2009 | Birmingham | Unknown | 35 | EDL and UAF protesters clashed in New Street, with trouble flaring around 7pm. Bottles, sticks and banners were thrown as police in riot gear struggled to stop the skirmishes. There were 35 arrests, mainly for disorder and atleast 3 people were injured before most of the violence was brought under control by 8.30pm. [3] |
Along those lines. BritishWatcher ( talk) 08:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I put in some basics of the actual incident in the example above. On my screen it looks fine but i guess for some who have their pages more zoomed in it may be too large and would have to contain less text for it to fit in the current article without taking up too much room. BritishWatcher ( talk) 10:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Date | Town/City | Attendance | Arrests At Event (includes non-EDL) | Description of Event |
---|---|---|---|---|
8th August 2009 | Birmingham | Unknown | 35 | Clashed with UAF supporters [25][26] |
5th September 2009 | Birmingham | Unknown | 90 | Clashes with socialist protestors[29], West Midlands police claims "No intent to protest" [34] |
13th September 2009 | London | Unknown | Zero | Counter demonstration to pro=Palestinian rally. Chants of "We hate Muslims" and "Muslim Bombers off our streets."[9] |
10th October 2009 | Manchester | 700 | 48 | Counter-protested by 1400 UAF. Riot police on hand to seperate sides.[35] |
31st October 2009 | Leeds | 900 | 8 | Counter-protested by 1500 UAF. Leeds council and West Yorkshire Police thank all participants..[37][38] |
5th December 2009 | Nottingham | 500 | 11 [4] | Demonstration following Mercian Regiment homecoming parade, clashes with Asian students and UAF. Policing cost estimated at £1 million..[39] |
23rd January 2010 | Stoke-on-Trent | 1500 | 17 | EDL break through police lines, injure police officers and damage police vehicles.[40] |
20th March 2010 | Bolton | 2000 | 74 | Counter-protested by 1500 UAF, 1300 police dispatched at a cost of £300 000.[43] 55 arrested from UAF and around 9 from EDL..[45][46][47][48] Policeman states "we have seen groups of people, predominantly associated with the UAF, engaging in violent confrontation."[48] |
3rd April 2010 | Dudley | 2000 | Unknown | Several EDL supporters knocked down fencing and escaped the police cordon.[50] |
1st May 2010 | Aylesbury | 800 | 12 [5] | Peaceful protest against militant Islam. Eight of the arrests on suspiscion of carrying an offensive weapon. |
17 July 2010 | Dudley | 500 | 21 | Hindu Temple attacked along with shops, restaurants, cars and residential homes by a group that broke off from the main demonstration. [6] |
Alright then...how's that for a start? -- Omar418 ( talk) 10:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
What is the sourcing for the attendance figures? I think it is quite normal for there to be varying estimates (organisers usually give a much higher estimate than the police, and media reports may vary in reliability). Think it is important to be consistent on the one hand and also try and get sourcing that is likely to be neutral. I appreciate that might be quite a tall order. -- FormerIP ( talk) 14:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
There are three straw polls, above. I apologise for the lack of advance warning - I should have let you all know yesterday - but I'm planning on closing the polls in one hour, i.e. at around 11:30am BST (10:30 UTC). TFOWR 09:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
{{
minnow}}
and {{
trout}}
. I'm going to be offline for the next hour, so don't feel in any way restricted in the fulsomeness of your praise for me ;-)
TFOWR 11:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC){{
barracuda}}
. --
FormerIP (
talk) 11:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC){{
editprotected}}
Could a non-involved admin please edit the lead to incorporate the text BritishWatcher proposes
above? Note that the discussion follows on from three straw polls (
above): you may wish to consider whether the three polls were appropriately closed. Thanks!
TFOWR 12:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Detailed request: please replace:
The '''English Defence League''' (EDL) is an [[Far right in the United Kingdom|English far-right]] single-issue political<ref>[http://www.warringtonguardian.co.uk/news/whereilive/8273411.Racist_graffiti_is_shame_of_Padgate</ref><ref>[http://www.uxbridgegazette.co.uk/west-london-news/local-uxbridge-news/2010/06/30/anti-islamic-group-blamed-for-st-george-s-day-riot-in-ruislip-113046-26759981/</ref><!-- The following references all attribute political designations to the group, hence support the text: <ref name=Newsnight /><ref name="BBC 20091012" /><ref name=Times1 />{{Failed verification|date=July 2010}} <ref name=HarrowTimes1 />{{Failed verification|date=July 2010}} <ref name=BirminghamPost2 /><ref name=SkyNews1 /><ref name=Independent1 /> --> or "quasi-political"<ref>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1238213/This-England-On-trail-English-Defence-League.html</ref> street movement formed in 2009.
...with:
The '''English Defence League''' (EDL) is an [[Far right in the United Kingdom|English far-right]] single issue group formed in 2009.<ref>[http://www.warringtonguardian.co.uk/news/whereilive/8273411.Racist_graffiti_is_shame_of_Padgate</ref><ref>[http://www.uxbridgegazette.co.uk/west-london-news/local-uxbridge-news/2010/06/30/anti-islamic-group-blamed-for-st-george-s-day-riot-in-ruislip-113046-26759981/</ref>
TFOWR 12:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Is the EDL a single issue organisation when it opposes several things, notably a) Sharia law b) Islamic extremism c)Islamism. Or am I being pedantic? Francium12 13:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Copied the following from a section above to ensure it gets debated and not overlooked as there is so much activity on this talkpage right now. BritishWatcher ( talk) 13:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
An example.
The alleged link to BNP is based on a Russell Jenkins writing in The Times "The groupings have attracted the support of BNP activists including Chris Renton, who created the English Defence League website." That is not evidence that is hearsay. What is recorded evidence is that the website owner is someone called Trevor Kelway.
http://whois.domaintools.com/englishdefenceleague.org
I do not understand the Wikipedia editors' hierarchy. There are serious issues of neutrality evidenced in this article that needs to be addressed.
Awmyth (
talk) 22:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
The current wording and sources do seem problematic and some changes are needed or the whole section removed if more sources can not be found BritishWatcher ( talk) 13:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
This was just added as an attempted slur, mostly OR and weak claims in an attempt to associate and connect them to the BNP, laughable, no actually depth to the claim at all. Off2riorob ( talk) 13:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
So how many people would oppose the removal of this section from the article? It seems like the best option. BritishWatcher ( talk) 12:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I am not aginst its removal, the material is at best inuendo really. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Agree strong support for removal from here :) preferably with a big stick --Errant Tmorton166( Talk) 13:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Copying the text here.
The first sentence is very problematic, the only evidence we have about the man being a BNP activist is based on an illegally leaked membership list. Searchlight is hardly a neutral group to take their word on this and with the exception of the guardian i cant see much media attention about this guy, which suggests it is not notable. The second line has one EDL member attacking another member, how notable this incident was at the time is questionable. The first two sources in the second paragraph about the BNPs response no longer work, i did a quick search on their website and found nothing. Final sentence again seems pretty questionable, what Searchlight says or thinks on this does not seem to justify inclusion. So in reality i dont think there is anything there worth saving. I agree a mention of the BNP VS EDL thing is noteworthy, its ironic two right wing organisations appear to hate each other so much and go out of their way to distance themselves, the BNP proscribing them is certainly noteworthy, but thats the only thing originally mentioned that belongs there, and it needs a working source. BritishWatcher ( talk) 22:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Is there a better was of fashioning the second sentence, now that the opening has good support? I'm refering to the bit about political direction. For background, I proposed that content about 9 months ago following a similar period of dispute. It didn't read too well then but was seen as a compromise for the "political" debate raging at the time.
I just don't think that saying ...."although the EDL's political direction is being debated within the group" hangs very well with the begining of the sentence. Could we agree to split this into 2 sentences as follows: "Its stated aim is to oppose what it considers as the spread of Islamism, Sharia law and Islamic extremism in England." "The EDL's political direction is being debated within the group.[3][4]".
Any suggestions? Leaky Caldron 14:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
do we have consensus on this? can I make an editprotected request to change the second sentence to:
Its stated aim is to oppose what it considers as the spread of Islamism, Sharia law and Islamic extremism in England. [12] [13] (sorry if this is "quick" but it seems a fairly non-contentious edit) --Errant Tmorton166( Talk) 12:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I've drafted this up. I'm sure it can be discussed:
The group states that its aim is to demonstrate peacefully in English cities,[10] but conflicts with Unite Against Fascism (UAF) and other opponents have led to street violence and arrests, resulting in some EDL marches being banned.[8] There is normally heavy policing of these demonstrations due to the likelihood of violence and the cost of policing these has ranged from £300,000[43] to £1m.[39] Journalists that have covered EDL marches have received death threats.[23] Guardian journalist Jason N. Parkinson wrote about receiving a death threat by email from someone he described as an EDL organiser, as well as death threats sent to Marc Vallée, a fellow journalist.[24] The National Union of Journalists also released a statement about journalists who had been intimidated after covering EDL marches.[23]
Four specialist national police units involved in policing hooliganism, extreme violence, and terrorism are investigating the EDL. After their second demonstration in Birmingham Assistant Chief Constable Sharon Rowe of West Midlands Police: "Really, there was no intent to protest. It think they knew that the community was very much against them coming to the city, which...potentially would generate violence".[34]
Before their Manchester demonstration of October 2009, the EDL held a press conference, during which they burned a Nazi flag and asserted that "There is no militant undertone. We will peacefully protest but we will not be scared into silence". In the press conference, the EDL wore black balaclavas and T-shirts with the name of different EDL divisions on the back. They justified wearing balaclavas by suggesting that the burqa was just as intimidating a garment. In response to the suggestion that EDL had been described as a drinking club with a website, the members laughed.[5][10] In Swansea on 17 October 2009, Nazi salutes were made during the first demonstration by the Welsh Defence League.[36]
In Stoke-on-Trent in January 2010, EDL members broke through police lines and there was a fracas in which four police officers were injured (two of whom needed hospital treatment) and police vehicles damaged.[40] In March 2010 in Bolton, 74 people were arrested in the demonstrations; reports state that at least 55 of the arrested were from the UAF and nine from the EDL.[45][46][47][48]
At their second Dudley protest, on July 2010 a group broke off and attacked a Hindu Temple.[57] The leader of Dudley council, Anne Milward, stated later "We are extremely saddened that Dudley has again been targeted by the English Defence League. Yet again this group of outside extremists have shown they are incapable of demonstrating peacefully and have brought public disorder and violence to our town."
The EDL plan to hold further demonstrations in Bradford and Tower Hamlets after the Guardian revealed that the EDL were plan to target some of the UK's highest-profile Muslim communities and "hit" places like Bradford.[54]
Would like to open up suggestions for a name for the section. i'm Going with "Violent and Questionable Behaviour" -- Omar418 ( talk) 12:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I would have to add two things. 1. We do not need to mention things twice in the articel. If its in one section it does no0t have (or need) to be duplicated here). 2. We should only include in this section actions that have been directly attributed to the EDL by RS. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Just to say thanks to all the editors who worked together over the last few weeks - its been a real pleasure in contrast to previous experiences. -- Snowded TALK 08:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Hmm I made that edit to put the table in and make a couple of changes and have messed up a little with my cutting and pasting of references. Need to get to work. So if anyone has spare time could they sort through and check that the end refs are put in properly.
Sorry about this.
-- Omar418 ( talk) 08:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Mercury3 - relates to 5 Sept 2009 protest. Nothing of real value in this source unless we go into more detail.
Walesonline_10-18 - is about the welsh protest in Swansea, it is not mentioned in the protest table, but i will add it to the introduction where it mentions about the WDL.
LutonToday1 mentions one march in Luton, but is mostly about the fact the Home Office granted a ban preventing the EDL from marching through fear of violence. This seems noteworthy for the violence section. So i will remove Mercury3, link Walesonline to the introduction and leave LutonToday1 for the time being. BritishWatcher ( talk) 09:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
There is also a problem with duplications of references. For example.. 23 jan 2010 Stoke on Trent has sources 31/32/33, one in each column but they are all the same link. 31 Oct 2009 Leeds links 27 and 28 in all 3 columns. What is the best way of dealing with these? Should we just link everything in the description box rather than the other columns? On some tables they have a small separate source column which would keep them neatly apart. Just having refs in the Description column seems like the easiest solution.
One other separate issue, at present the first sentence of the article is referenced by two local newspapers. We should probably have national sources for the lead sentence to strengthen it. BritishWatcher ( talk) 11:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
how is any of this "Before their Manchester demonstration of October 2009, the EDL held a press conference, during which they burned a Nazi flag and asserted that "There is no militant undertone. We will peacefully protest but we will not be scared into silence"." violance or anti-social behaviour? So burning a Nazi flag is anti-soclialo or violant? is saying tehy are not violant anti-social or vioolant? Slatersteven ( talk) 14:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Steven, the sourced fact that a Hindu temple was attacked following and EDL demonstration is clearly relevant to the article. We shouldn't frame it in a way that the source doesn't, of course, but the wording you removed doesn't do that. Are you suggesting it might be the case that the temple was co-incidentally attacked by someone unconnected to the demonstration? -- FormerIP ( talk) 15:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Can we junk the second mention of the Hindu temple incident - it seems out on it's own and lonely there and I see no rationale for having it twice (could be confusing). I wouldn;t like to see it given undue weight (by being mentioned twice) seeing as there is no source directly identifying it as EDL action --Errant Tmorton166( Talk) 19:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Why does this section require a citation for violence, arrests and anti-social behaviour? I'd have thought that was apparent in the content of the article. -- Omar418 ( talk) 23:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Not sure what yiu mean, But if you mean why do we need citations for claims. I think its best to avoid probloms whe someone tries to remove an 'unsourced' claim. Slatersteven ( talk) 00:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I mean in the text of the violent and anti social behaviour section it says citation needed when it says the demonstrations have been associated with violence arrests and anti-social behaviour. One would think this was evident from the numerous examples in the main body of the text and the table above. Are they not citations that validate the claims. To note each and every one of them after the claim in question would surely be pointless given the evidence of the fact from the stats given, --
Omar418 (
talk) 18:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I seem to recall that the demo table should only include demos organised by the EDL, not just ones they show up at. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
According to this Guardian article http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/11/english-defence-league-chaotic-alliance Tommy robinson is a pseudonym.
How do we address that? -- Omar418 ( talk) 23:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Another thing this article alludes to another incident where Robinson "may" have been arrested http://www.dudleynews.co.uk/news/local/8133852.EDL_UPDATE___roof_top_protestors_arrested/ Yet more anti-social behaviour fodder? -- Omar418 ( talk) 23:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
I think this article is looking better than it did a few weeks ago but I'm a bit concerned that the section about BNP links has been completely removed. Surely the content should have been improved rather than completely deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Francium12 ( talk • contribs)
Francium12 21:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
If we are seriously considering adding a new section on the BNP links to EDL, could we try and create a list of all sources detailing it? That would help us assess notability and choose reliable sources and content if someone is to be added. I do think the vast majority of "links" info will relate back to 2009 when the group was very new, and people obviously wanted to try and figure out who they are and connected with. It doubt its been much of an issue recently. BritishWatcher ( talk) 00:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
. Slatersteven ( talk) 00:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
From the EDL website (everything beyond this point is lifted from the link below):
Channel 4 Tomorrow Evening Tommy Robinson "Unmasked"
http://www.englishdefenceleague.org/images/stories/edl-media/passport.jpg%201.jpg
"Yes this IS the face of Tommy Robinson and here is his passport!!!
Contrary to the left wing effluent that spews from the unpatriotic Anti-English, Anti- Democratic, Anti-Jew and Islamist loving ranks of the unwashed who seem to think they have "exposed" Tommy we again laugh at their feeble attempts to cause him harm.
In fact all they have done is actually put some poor innocent peoples lives at risk and for what? For the sake of their own egos? For the sake of the Islamists we protest against?
Whatever the motive they have undoubtedly put innocent people in harms way, we hope they are proud of themselves and their despicable ways, lets hope that none of their identities get out into the public domain eh?
Of course if that were to happen the English Defence League would at least have the intellectual and moral integrity of getting it right rather than endanger innocent "joe public".
As the loony left celebrate we cant help but extinguish their party bonfire with this "FACTUAL" information. What kind of moral compass do these people have? What right have they to put peoples lives at risk? And for what exactly?
So for 5 minutes they can indulge their own egos with utter contemptuous fabrication?
The minds of the "far left" are incredibly warped, so much so they care not for the safety of innocent peoples, nor do they care how idiotic they expose themselves to be. Still if they had a brain between them they could be dangerous, lets thank God for small blessings eh?
At least Tommy, or should i say "Paul Harris" has done the right thing and publicly admitted who he actually is, lets hope that is enough to save innocents from getting hurt.
Tommy or "Paul" as you all know know was arrested recently so here we have his bail papers that strangely enough collaborate his REAL identity, at least he has the balls to come out and say who he is.
Would any of those who are intent on "exposing" him do the same? I use the term "exposed" in the loosest of terms obviously!
Congratulations you lefty idiots for putting people in harms way, if you decide to try and expose people then at least have the decency of getting it right you numpties!!!
Tommy or "Paul" will be on Channel 4 "unmasked" at 7pm tomorrow night talking about the problem of Islamism and Islamists here in the UK, another FACT that the brainwashed unwashed seem unable to comprehend."
(my own words) Picture of Bail notice for Paul Harris: http://www.englishdefenceleague.org/images/stories/edl-media/bail.jpg.jpg
-- Omar418 ( talk) 00:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Well its all over the EDL website that Tommy Robonson is Paul Harris but reading the EDL can we change the note of a Guardian claim of a psudonym to "The EDL stated that Tommy Rosinson is a pseudonym for Paul Harris citing a passport and bail notice as proof of identification." or is the way the article is worded an obstacle to establishing this as fact? Note there are plenty of inverted commas etc -- Omar418 ( talk) 22:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
What is this discussion about exactly, tommy is jonny. ? Off2riorob ( talk)Can I get the simple cited version please, It looks like cut and copied photo shop rubbish with lots of BLP issues if you ask me, please point me in the right direction if my spidey senses are tingling for another reason. Off2riorob ( talk) 22:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
The article clearly states (direct quote):
"Yes this IS the face of Tommy Robinson and here is his passport!!!"
This picture here:
http://www.englishdefenceleague.org/images/stories/edl-media/passport.jpg%201.jpg
is a scan of his passport from the same link
and this is a bail notice he recieved that suggests he has been arrested: http://www.englishdefenceleague.org/images/stories/edl-media/bail.jpg.jpg
From this info we can immediately state that Tommy Robinson is a psudonym and that has been established by the EDL. The question is whether to put his real name up to respect the right to privacy or not and also on the grounds that his real identity seems under dispute from the Guardian amd Channel 4 during their report where they used three names to refer to him.
I guess the EDL would be happy for us to put this name as his real name and psudonym but given that he has been named as Stephen Yaxley-Lennon by the Guardian and Channel 4 raises a dispute over whether this is genuine or, as you suggest, shooped. I'm just wanting the text that the Guardian CLAIM its a pseudonym changed. To either "The EDL acknowledge that Tommy Robinson is a pseudonym" or "The EDL unmasked Tommy Robinson as an individual named Paul Harris." its just changing the wording of the note on Tommy Robinson so this talks less like EDL or UAF speak and more like wiki speak -- Omar418 ( talk) 01:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bradford-west-yorkshire-11041289- Bradford, Guramit Singh, spokesman for the EDL. I also note, the group are again referred to as a right wing campaign/protest group, I also note no reference to fascists either. Off2riorob ( talk) 19:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Call them what you like but the Sky reports were all the same as well, 'right wing campaign group, my old consensus china. Off2riorob ( talk) 12:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I am not concurring with this group(s)? at all, however I fail to understand, the need to quote a line from a politician not officially backed-up by any other individuals. This makes it seem to be POV. Thank you.-- Cymbelmineer ( talk) 02:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I seem to recall that the demo table should only include demos organised by the EDL, not just ones they show up at. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree-- Omar418 ( talk) 23:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
There are currently around 16,000 registered users on the EDL forum. Obviously not all of them are supporters, but the majority of posters in all sections are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.109.170.24 ( talk) 01:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
News is coming in today (9/10/10) of the protests in Leicester. Incidents reported include the International Arts Centre has had its windows smashed by the EDL and that a police officer has been hospitalised after a leg injury:
Leicestershire police say five have been arrested:
One for a drug offence:
Fireworks, smokebombs, beercans and bricks have been thrown at police:
More on arrests: 5 arrested all male between 30 and 42 and none from the Leicester area. One for a drugs offence, two for posession of an offensive weapon and two for minro public order offences:
http://www.leics.police.uk/campaigns/142_updates_in_relation_to_the_city/
-- Omar418 ( talk) 15:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Which one? Won't remove anything but this is very busy and its good to get a rolling feed so we can report.
Reports of clashes with local black and Asian youth: http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/news/Violent-clashes-break-EDL-black-Asian-people-Leicester/article-2741048-detail/article.html
Video of EDL breaking our of designated protest site: http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/media.html?vid=8540-- Omar418 ( talk) 15:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Theres nothing on the EDL breaking into the UAF area in my posts is there? sorry for removing any posts of yours, accident. i'm just posting as it happens as there have been discussion about what has happenned on the day on the article and the facts involved. I'd intend to post a draft here and then change the article once the draft is accepted. Most reliable source is the police feed and local news. -- Omar418 ( talk) 15:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Nah, that was a twitter comment. There was no report from either local press or police on that. The police tweeted that it didn't happen and the local paper retweeted. I'm only posting reports. Police say 8 arrests from people aged between 21 and 42. http://www.leics.police.uk/campaigns/142_updates_in_relation_to_the_city/ -- Omar418 ( talk) 16:28, 9 October 2010 (UTC) Details of arrests from police: "6pm update
•37-year-old man of no fixed abode arrested for possession of a controlled substance and possession of an offensive weapon •30-year-old man from Wales arrested on suspicion of possession of an offensive weapon and public order offences •39-year-old man from Boston, Lincolnshire arrested on suspicion of criminal damage •42-year-old man from Holland arrested on suspicion of public order offences •21-year-old man from Alvaston, Derby arrested on suspicion of public order offences •38-year-old man from Gateshead arrested on suspicion of public order offences •27-year-old man from Long Eaton, Notts arrested on suspicion of public order offences •23-year-old man from Wigston arrested on suspicion of public order offences and assaulting a police officer." http://www.leics.police.uk/campaigns/142_updates_in_relation_to_the_city/ -- Omar418 ( talk) 17:12, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Edl members also injured http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8052875/Violence-flares-at-English-Defence-League-protest-in-Leicester.html A sky news van attacked http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/English-Defence-League-Protesters-Attack-Sky-News-Satellite-Truck-In-Leicester-Protest/Article/201010215755108?lpos=UK_News_Top_Stories_Header_3&lid=ARTICLE_15755108_English_Defence_League_Protesters_Attack_Sky_News_Satellite_Truck_In_Leicester_Protest Slatersteven ( talk) 17:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
More reports on arrests: 6.30pm update http://www.leics.police.uk/campaigns/142_updates_in_relation_to_the_city/ Police have confirmed five more arrests:
•30-year-old man from Leighton Buzzard, Bedfordshire arrested on suspicion of assaulting a police officer •37-year-old man from Leicester arrested on suspicion of possession of an offensive weapon and public order offences •39-year-old man from Leicester arrested on suspicion of public order offences •27-year-old man from Stoke on Trent arrested on suspicion of public order offences •23-year-old man from Halifax arrested on suspicion of public order offences This makes a total of 13 arrests at this present time, only 3 in custody from the Leicestershire area. -- Omar418 ( talk) 17:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Final poloce press release: http://www.leics.police.uk/news/4249_police_thank_public_following_protests/ -- Omar418 ( talk) 20:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
There has come to light an inquiry towards incidents at the Bolton demonstration and I thought they may be relevant to the story. Apparently a man protesting against the English Defence League, Alan Clough, who was arrested and charged has had charges dropped against him and there are parts of his case which indicate police brutality.
According to this article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/oct/21/inquiry-police-anti-fascist-protester
Clough was due to stand trial at bolton malgistrates court but:
"the Crown Prosecution Service dropped the case 24 hours before it was due to go ahead after viewing footage from the rally, filmed by Granada TV. It shows police in high visibility jackets pushing back crowds of protesters before a skirmish breaks out, with riot police and mounted officers involved. Batons are drawn and Clough is punched by an officer in riot gear who is lashing out at demonstrators. He is then dragged away and arrested."
It also quotes a spokesman for justice4bolton as saying: "The latest footage must be seen against the background of an overwhelming number of reports already received by justice4bolton describing violent and oppressive behaviour on the part of police on 20 March.
"The emerging body of reports already received raises serious questions, not only about the acts of individual officers, but about the broader approach taken by the police towards those seeking to stand up against racism and fascism."
It also indicates that the Greater Manchester Police is to have an nquiry into what happenned on the day in question
Thoughts please.. -- Omar418 ( talk) 20:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Apparently the EDL are not too welcome by Geert Wilders:
‘This demonstration means nothing to me. It is nothing to do with me, nor is the EDL,’ Wilders said. ‘I only know the group from the newspapers and I have never had any contact with them.’
http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2010/10/wilders_denounces_english_defe.php
"I have no involvement with this demo, I've never been in touch with the EDL," the MP told daily De Telegraaf on Tuesday.
Their demonstrations have a tendency to spark counter-protests and violence. Referring to this, Mr Wilders said, "Should this demonstration really happen, I would like to emphasise that I abhor any form of violence. If there's the remotest chance of escalation, I'd rather they call off the protest. Perish the thought that this turns into a battle. That's the last thing I need."
http://www.rnw.nl/english/bulletin/wilders-rejects-english-edl-radicals-support -- Omar418 ( talk) 12:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
The demonstration scheduled on the 30th October that is mentioned under International links is advertised as being in support of Wilders. That he rejects the support is surely worth mentioning? Also the council in amsterdam are considering banning the demonstrations. http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2010/10/amsterdam_considers_banning_pr.php -- Omar418 ( talk) 13:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
The last item on the demo table claims it was a protest at the Israeli Embassy. They weren't protesting the embassy they were rallying for it, and Israeli flags can clearly be seen flying prominently on video of the event. I think protest isn't an appropriate word for the event. 74.64.22.193 ( talk) 05:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
the article claims 40,000 from and old source, but the facebook page says 55,500 and has been growing at about 500/day over the past week. What should we do about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.108.86 ( talk) 22:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
what is his real name if not this one? what does he do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.125.31.232 ( talk) 17:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
In light of the recent attempt to install the world "violent" as one of the opening descriptions to the EDL I would like to state the following. All things should be considered when assigning such a word to a Pressure group. 1 NPOV 2 WP:V 3 Manual of Style .
1)What am I achieving by describing this group's founding activities as "violent". In most articles, the only things I think in which a founding statements of the group the word "violent" is applicable are terrorist organisations who openly advocate violence with direct statements. There are suitable sections for describing the activities of the group, and criticisms and other commentaries should be dealt with here. The opening phrase should deal with the largely indesputable solid information about the pressure group
2) Ask yourself is the source reliable/suitable in context to the group. You are citing the Harrow times. Not a big enough paper when the other British Papers have also written articles on the EDL. You must find something in context.
3) I suggest you read it.
If you wish to add further information to the group, you are invited to do so. But it is my opinion that your recent edits could be construed as mild vandalism, or at least provocative. Impartiality shall reign ( talk) 00:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
The word violent was added because the EDL's involvement in violent activities is well chronicled (and, indeed, a number of the sources provide examples of its track record in this regard). However, this part of my edit has been reverted and I will make no further attempt to reintroduce the word so long as the term "far right" is allowed to stand (because this fact is widely sourced and in itself implies a violent aspect). Most of the rest of the opening paragraph seems to read a bit like EDL propoganda, so the far right description should be retained for purposes of accuracy and balance (especially given the group's links with the BNP and its penchant for provocative street activities, the latter clearly differentiating it from centre right groups like UKIP). Multiculturalist ( talk) 12:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes you're right, it is well documented. No one is disputing that there has been violence at EDL rallies. One is disputing where this information should be contained. If you take a look at the UAF page for example, by your regulations they too should contain the banner "violent" in the opening line, as should all sorts of unsuspecting groups. Perhaps John McEnroe should be described as a "violent" tennis player because of his frequent outbursts on the court. Do you get where this is going? If you continue to approach all articles as "them" and "us" then you will rarely be able to contribute worthy information. Thank you for your understanding. Alexandre8 ( talk) 13:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
From a documentary today on Channel 4 in the UK entitled "Coppers", episode entitled "Public Order". Showed a senior officer from Greater Manchester Police (not named) briefing police before an EDL demo in Bolton earlier this year. The quote is about 4 mins 30 in.
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/coppers/4od#3142078
Mentioning this because the article seems to me to be unduly careful at the moment in not mentioning that the EDL are, according to some assessments, not much more than a sort of flag of convenience for pre-existing groupings of people. I'm assuming this is because of a lack of citable quotes.
Cheers. -- 92.14.122.173 ( talk) 01:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for that - I saw it and made a similar comment to you further up this page. Had not seen your comment at the time. Clearly they are far right. Multiculturalist ( talk) 18:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Notice a lot of mentions of arrests but "arrests" are not a very useful measurement of anything. The police will often arrest someone but take it no further. Good example is the Bolton demo, many more arrests on the UAF side but virtually no convictions, and the most serious charges all dropped (I think). Just because someone has been arrested doesn't mean they did anything wrong, so I;m not sure what the obsession with numbers of arrests really shows?
It's standard practise to cite arrests, you're right, convictions hardly ever follow. It's also very hard to get citations for the ones that do since they tend not to be printed whereas arrests are always made available to the press. Best not to change anything there unless it's a significant member of the protesting parties. Alexandre8 ( talk) 22:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
The image used in the organization info box shows a police officer and an EDL supporter that is masked and probably about to be (or just having been) engaged in something inappropriate. That's hardly neutral. How about the organization's logo which is usual in this place for most every other organization? __ meco ( talk) 20:45, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
The Morning Star quotation is not replicated in another other national newspaper as far as I can see on a google search. Here it is used as part of a British Communist Party attack on Police investigations. The Morning Star is not a broadsheet newspaper and the insert in the first paragraph gives undue weight to something which to all intents and purposes has not been reported in any mainstream source. In any event WP:BRD says it should be reverted and discussed. -- Snowded TALK 21:28, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
This is clearly just an attack on the article line which is not classed as anti-EDL. There are many smaller newspapers used throughout the article, including The Harrow Times, The Uxbridge Gazette, The Birmingham Post, The Scotsman, The Birmingham Mail, The Stourbridge News, Luton Today, The Leicester Mercury and so on. None of these have raised any objections. Questioning the Morning Stars' place in light of these sources is clearly just a push for an anti-EDL bias in the article . This is an Encyclopaedia, not a forum for pushing one's own views, and it must remain to be unbias and informative; the views of the UK's Domestic Extremism Unit is clearly valid and is an example of the counter-argument to the anti-English Defence League sentiments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.121.237.182 ( talk) 11:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I have posted an inquiry at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Morning Star (UK newspaper) that could possibly yield some valuable opinions and facts to assist in deciding on this issue. __ meco ( talk) 10:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
The list of marches is a synthesis of primary sources (news reports). We do not need laundry lists of this kind. A prose description of the development of their marches, supported by reliable independent sources so as to avoid original research, would be fine.
Reports of nazi salutes are very widespread, that should also be included at some point, if possible with some reliably sourced version of the group's reported statement that it has expelled people for doing this (though how you expel people from a mob is not entirely clear). Guy ( Help!) 20:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I would agree the list is wholly unnecessary for an encyclopedia article, which is what we're supposed to be writing here. If you were reading an article on the NF or the Brownshirts you wouldn't expect to see some lengthy table with arrests, injuries, attendance etc, so why does this article have them? It's recentism, looking back in 50 years time would anyone writing an article include all that information? I doubt it, so why do it now? The same value can be given in a few short sentences saying that EDL protests have increased in size, they've been repeatedly opposed by anti-fascists, there's been arrests and violence on both sides etc. Once you do that, things like the actual number of arrests at a particular protest or the attendance becomes just trivia. Obviously mention the bigger/more important protests in greater detail, but you don't need this level of crust in an encyclopedia article. 2 lines of K 303 14:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
I see there's been another attempt by a virtual far-right SPA to promote EDL claims regarding things like Sharia law as fact. Here's what several sources say, with emphasis added:
Based on these, I assume there's no objection from non-SPA editors to the reinstatement of the original long-standing wording in the lead? 2 lines of K 303 14:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
I think it breaks down like this: "EDL is opposed to radical Islam" implies that, by some objective standard, the things that the EDL oppose are "radical". However, this is a judgement call and we only have their word for it. But they are not the right people for us to call on for a judgement as to whether they are right or wrong about it. The right place to go for that judgement is third party sources. They seem to consistently add a qualifier such as "what they see as", and we should follow suite. On a more discursive note, it is clear that some things the EDL opposes are the building of Mosques and the sale of Halal food. These are things that all Mulsims, whether radical, half-interested or whatever, would consider to be essential parts of their religion. This does not seem consistent with the idea that the EDL only opposes "radical" Islam. We should therefore be cautious about reporting the EDL's view of itself as if it were unquestionable. The sources do subtly question them, and that's the lead we must take. -- FormerIP ( talk) 15:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Times2
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).BNP1
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).BNP
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Telegraph4
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Newsnight
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).BBC 20091012
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).