Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:32, 9 June 2011

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics of the United Kingdom This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. More information: /  This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. England This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Organizations Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Archives

Archive 1 (Aug–October 2009) Archive 2 (Oct–December 2009) Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Sweden Democrats

Sweden Democrats are described as far-right in multiple news sources and a Google Books search shows up similar descriptions, please stop removing this. Sweden Democrats avoids mentioning this, a pov problem there. --Dougweller (talk) 19:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, its also a very badly written article! --Snowded 19:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Many sources also do NOT describe them as "Far Right" - probably because, conventionally speaking, they aren't! Look at the article on http://en.wikipedia.org/Sweden_Democrats It does not use the "Far Right" label, which is normally reserved for fascistic groups. AFolkSingersBeard (talk) 11:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The WP article does say things like "introduced a uniform ban in 1996", "in 1999 they rejected Nazism", "influenced by the French National Front", " Expressen ... retains the ban on Sweden Democrat advertising". This doesn't make them sound very MOR. Why their article isn't very clear about how they are viewed in terms of political position I wouldn't like to say, but Misplaced Pages is often not very accurate on these matters. --FormerIP (talk) 11:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

This is why I do not like non-slef applied lables. There seems to be a few sources that call the SD far right, but its not in the artilce and most sources seem to avoid callinig them anything they do not call themsleves. But i tink the SD artciel needs lookinig at.Slatersteven (talk) 12:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

We may call them far right if there is academic consensus to describe them that way. It is important to use good sources however, because the term far right can be used very loosely, for example to describe UKIP the the U.S. Tea Party. However I have not found any sources for this. It may be that they are too obscure. TFD (talk) 14:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Too obscure? they have more support then the BNP and EDl combined. How much less obsure do you want?Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit lost. Numerous sources describe the SD as far right. We can qualify and say 'described as far-right', but we certainly have the sources. Dougweller (talk) 14:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Well provide them then. The BNP got 563,000 votes in the 2010 election, compared with 339,000 for the Sweden Democrats and has a rich history which traces back to the NF and the BUF. Also, the Swedish may not gain the same attention in literature on right-wing politics. TFD (talk) 14:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Thye SD got 5.7% of the vote and 20 MPs, how many has the BNP got? I think thats my point. Its not that they are less far right then the BNP but that the BNP have been targeted for that accusation.Slatersteven (talk) 15:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

" merely put back in what your far-right ally 86.96.227.90 had taken out" This is completely unacceptable as an edit description Mutliculturalist. And you know it. Alexandre8 (talk) 19:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

While the article now says that the SD had "long-standing ties" with the NF, the source actually only says that the NF "was one of the larger sources of inspiration during the latter half of the 1980s" (before the SD rather became inspired by other parties such as the French NF from the 1990s). As the claim is not supported by the given source, I will remove it as I did with all the other ambigious information about this that is not really relevant to this particular article (nor uncontroversially correct). – Bellatores (t.) 11:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I deleted the whole thing. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the foundation of EDL, it might have a place in the Swedish article, it might have a place in the international section on this one although it seems to be very minor. --Snowded 11:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Brown2695, 7 May 2011

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The English Defence League is not a "Far Right" organisation, It is a Peacefull Peoples Movement

Brown2695 (talk) 20:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

 Not done 4 sources say it is. CTJF83 22:14, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I expect there are far more than four sources that prove it is far right! By the way, Brown2695, "Peaceful" only has one "l". Multiculturalist (talk) 14:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

And "People's" has an apostrophe. Emeraude (talk) 16:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Considering that an organizations place on the political spectrum is arbitrary, I doubt you could find a single article that "proves" anything of the sort. Misplaced Pages editors these days are really gotten to be sub par, pretentious and left leaning. Kinda annoying... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.101.176.143 (talk) 03:09, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Muslims Against Crusades

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Both Stellas4lunch and Bobadillaman blocked for hoaxing, likely sockpuppetry too. Fences&Windows 22:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not at all sure this material is notable and I can't verify it. Even if a Kilmarnock newspaper reports it, for it to be notable I would expect it to be in a national newspaper or a journal. --Snowded 14:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits that I have diligently made have been continually reverted by Snowded (in violation of WP:3RR, I hasten to add) in relation to the EDL's views on Muslims Against Crusades and the St John's Jerusalem incident. Both of which have attracted substantial coverage in reliable sources which were footnoted, and I believe are notable. After all Misplaced Pages is not a paper encyclopaedia and I believe content of this sort is notable, reliable, and indicative of the EDL's views on MAC and therefore merits inclusion. Stellas4lunch (talk) 14:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Why are the views on Muslims Against Crusades relevant, and in what way is it notable? I can see from the article that a new spokesperson is keen to get across the point that the EDL is not racist per se, but I don't understand what additional information of note you are adding. Thank you. --HighKing (talk) 15:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec)You are in violation of WP:BRD. You state that there is substantial coverage in reliable sources. The only source was the Kilmarnock one, and a search on the web site did not produce any reference to EDL. Given that you talk about sources (plural) perhaps you would care to list them here --Snowded 15:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

P. J. Edmunds, "Peaceful resolution to MAC occupation of Kent manor house", Eastern Daily Press (Norwich, 30 April 2011) and J. Gibson, "Islamist group in Royal Wedding Stunt at Kent castle", Ayrshire Post (Ayr, 1 May 2011) give the background to the incident including references to the EDL's trenchant opposition to the group. A. Johnson, "The English Defence League and Muslims against Crusades: a brown mark on the UK", Kilmarnock Standard (Kilmarnock, 5 May 2010) has further in-depth coverage, including an EDL spokesman's views. There was substanial local coverage of this, especially in Scotland and Southern + Eastern England, much of which is unlikely to appear on-line due to the nature of local newspapers. The EDL's plan to launch a counter-demonstration at the Royal Wedding clearly shows their hostility to the group, which is confirmed in the reliable and verifiable sources above. Stellas4lunch (talk) 15:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

So nothing in national newspapers or journals? If it was notable I would expect it to be picked up there. Ayrshire post has a web site, search on EDL produces no results, ditto Kilmarnock standard, ditto Eastern Daily Press. --Snowded 15:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

As I have explained these are local newspapers, with limited on-line coverage, you appear to be implicitly questioning good faith. The idea that something must appear in a national newspaper or 'journal' to be notable is risible, especially in light of WP:Paper.Stellas4lunch (talk) 15:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

If you have the original articles then scan them and send so that other editors can read. I'm sorry but we don't have to take your word for it. However we have discussed the issue of notability before and generally for something to past that test it should appear in a national newspaper, and ideally one with some reputation as a Broadsheet. Local newspapers are OK as sources for local events, but not for a national organisations. --Snowded 16:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

You fall foul of WP:Faith and WP:V there I'm afraid. The notion that I should have to buy a scanner to overturn your assumptions of bad faith on my part is ridiculous, especially for such an uncontroversial and well-sourced edit. I think your summary of whether local newspapers are or are not 'OK as sources' misrepresents what is on this talk page. Stellas4lunch (talk) 16:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

If you quoted a book then it would be reasonable then I could ask you to quote the exact text here and then it might be my responsibility to go and check it. I am less sure that is the case for regional newspapers where verification might make it a lot cheaper to buy you a scanner. Its largely irrelevant anyway, for notability on a national organisation you need more than a few local newspapers. --Snowded 16:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Your novel theory that 'for notability on a national organisation you need more than a few local newspapers' is interesting, and seemingly of your own creation rather than rooted in the bedrock of Misplaced Pages policy. In any case, scanning an article without permission would be a flagrant contravention of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, and as attractive as your inducement sounds, I have no intention of being prosecuted! Stellas4lunch (talk) 16:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed Stellas4lunch (talk) 16:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I would have to say that I agree with Stellas4lunch on this issue in that he seems to comply with Misplaced Pages policy and best practice and his edits do appear to meet notability criteria in regards to the merits of encylopaedic content. However, I think we are right to be cautious when monitoring material appearing on a page as contentious as this but Stella's comments seem unlikely to be inflammatory in any regard. I do believe that Snowded makes a good point in that citations included by less well-respected wikipedians than yourself should be subject to "reasonable" levels of scrutiny in order to determine validity. In this instance I am reminded of one of my favourite quotes from Shakespeare, “Our doubts are traitors and make us lose the good we oft might win." Bobadillaman (talk) 16:47, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it's potentially dangerous to add anything that can be taken in a negative light to an encyclopedic article *without* a high standard of verifiability. In order to state that the an organization is *against* something, the reference should be watertight - preferably official and verifiable. I came across this BBC article stating that the EDL would hold a counter-demonstration to a MAC protest and there's a couple of other mentions throughout the BBC news website about counter-demonstrations and clashes. --HighKing (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I would add that the EDL's own website states their own intentions towards MAC and further articles can also be found on The Telegraph. If Stellas4lunch wanted to include this material in his edit then I think we could declare the matter closed. Bobadillaman (talk) 19:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Please provide the Telegraph references The EDLs site is not a reliable source. Please also explain why you think this is notable. If it can be verified and if notability can be established then we can discuss wording --Snowded 19:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry to be so blunt but your claim there is patently absurd; how can their own website not constitute a reliable source for their own opinions on MAC - it might not be a reliable source for any other content but for their professed beliefs it is the MOST reliable! Telegraph link contains similar information to BBC ones in regards to EDL's intent on holding a counter demonstration if one was held by MAC. In regards to notability it is perhaps the largest press coverage the EDL have received in recent months and is therefore not just notable but positively essential to this encylopedia. Bobadillaman (talk) 19:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

You need to read up on WP:RS, we have to be very careful of any claim on the web site. Check out the debates on the lede where the EDL's statements are not accepted as we rely on third party reliable sources. Your telegraph source is a blog which talks about what might happen. Its not sufficient. The BBC report simply has a one liner saying that the EDL say would counter demonstrate, its speculation at best. We need a lot more than this. --Snowded 19:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Please also see The Mail, BBC (same one but has more than one sentence), International Business Times (even more detail about another incident), Channel 4, Asian Image, East London Advertiser, Evening Standard and finally, video evidence on YouTube - happy now? =D Bobadillaman (talk) 19:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

So we have a series of reports about something that might happen, two references to a previous demonstration in which Lennon was charged which I think is already in the article and a video taken by an EDL supporter. If you have some reports on what happened (as opposed to what might) then there will be a case for including it in the table as another demonstration. Its not notable in the sense proposed earlier. --Snowded 19:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The wealth of information that Bobadillaman (talk) has produced surely settles the question of inclusion in the article. A consensus has emerged here. User:Snowded should be consulted on the precise wording in advance, provided that the general principles agreed by consensus remain intact. Stellas4lunch (talk) 20:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Please, you have two new editors, both created within a few days of each other and editing the same articles arguing for inclusion of material. So far there are two other editors who are asking for some more information. You really can't use speculative reports of things that might happen to justify inclusion and you don't have a consensus --Snowded 20:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

HighKing implied that BBC articles were sufficient and since then far more information has been found. And I would please ask you not to cast aspersions on my own person, please see WP:NPA. Bobadillaman (talk) 20:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

You might want to read High Kings comments again. I see by the way that the pair of you are using the same dubious sources on a similar subject here we could do with some other editors taking a look at that article as well. --Snowded 20:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Please don't take this the wrong way but I suspect that we may be dealing with a WP:COI in this instance and I would advise Snowded to be aware of the statement that, 'Any editor who gives priority to outside interests may be subject to a conflict of interest.' Bobadillaman (talk) 20:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Regrettably, I feel duty bound to agree with that statement given User:Snowded's repetitious edits today which have tended towards vandalism at times, and his repeated implications of bad faith on the part of me and others, wilful disregard for Misplaced Pages policy and other serious editing violations. Stellas4lunch (talk) 20:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit request from Craig.w.mcg, 25 May 2011

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

EDL not Far-Right just right

Craig.w.mcg (talk) 10:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages relies on verifiable evidence. There are four reliable sources listed that describe the EDL as far right, more than sufficent for our purposes. There are many more sources for this. If you have reliable sources saying the EDL is not far right, please post them here. Emeraude (talk) 13:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

•  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Alpha Quadrant 22:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

EDL far right?

I think the EDL should not be described as a far-right. Mostly because far-right groups care about race, the EDL do not. Also far-right groups do not welcome ethnic miniorities but the EDL do. If the EDL are far-right then can you explain why one of the leaders is an Indian man?

Far-right is not an accurate description to use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.190.52.90 (talk) 14:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The description is used because that is how reliable sources describe them. If you disagree with their judgment, then you must take it up with them. WP is supposed to report what sources say and cannot correct perceived errors. TFD (talk) 16:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Well said. Further more, it is not true to say that the EDL do not care about race. Why are their rallies dominated by BNP members and why did they attack a Hindu temple in Dudley last year? The claim that the EDL "welcome" ethnic minorities is laughable.Multiculturalist (talk) 14:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Why?Alexandre8 (talk) 15:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Errr... Because they don't. Multiculturalist (talk) 13:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I rewrote the lead to state they have been described as far right, which is obviously the neutral way to write this. The Four Deuces reverted my change saying there is a "consensus of opinion" now that is laughable. I should like for him to explain what that is. The Last Angry Man (talk) 07:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Pov

I have had to tag this article for neutrality due to two editors who seem to think that the lead ought not say "they have been described as right wing" which is the neutral way to write such a thing, especially as the EDL deny being right wing. I fail to see how my change was not in line with WP:NPOV and should like to hear from the two editors who have reverted my changes. The Last Angry Man (talk) 08:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Read the archives. We've already discussed this over and over. Jarkeld (talk) 08:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Which is entirely irrelevant to this discussion, consensus changes. Please tell me how you feel that what I wrote was not in line with wikipedia guidelines? Removing a POV tag before any sort of discussion has taken place is disruptive, please do not do so again. The Last Angry Man (talk) 08:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Its been discussed many many times and all the sources say they are right wing. Until you have reliable sources that support your view that position doesn't change and you should not tag something just because you don't like. Please either find some evidence or leave it alone, and in any event reach agreement here before editing the article on this issue. --Snowded 09:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

No the sources describe them as right wing, hence my edit saying they have been described as right wing. Your removal of the tag without discussion is also disruptive, please abide by policy. The Last Angry Man (talk) 09:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

See previous discussions, if reliable sources say something is right wing then it is right wing. Unless you can provide some sources then insertion of that dubious tag is vandalism and an obvious ploy to avoid 3rr --Snowded 09:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

You quote policy yet break it three times on this article, well done you. I fully intent to add the same tags again once time has expired, your removal of tags is a breach of policy. The group has been described as right wing, this does not make them right wing, there is a difference. Previous discussions have naught to do with this, consensus changes. The Last Angry Man (talk) 09:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages relies on reliable sources and those sources are not qualified. On the assumption that you are a new editor, you really need to read up on policy. By the way 3rr is not a right, so you can't simply wait a day then start over again that will get you blocked. Now please come up with some evidence to support your position or back off --Snowded 10:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree w/ Snowded and Jarkeld. TLAM, if you can find reliable sources (academic publications, for example) that challenge the right-wing characterization, that would be something to include in the article. Without that, "has been described as" is certainly true, but also trite, irrelevant, and politically dubious; it is a common strategy of the contemporary extreme right to downplay their filiations and affinities in order to generate a more palatable public face. For an encyclopedia, giving the impression that a far-right group might just be far-right in some people's opinion would be misleading and irresponsible. Sindinero (talk) 11:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Just in light of the comment "wikipedia relies on reliable sources". Let me just bring a few interesting facts to your attention. "According to Quarkbase, The Guardian was the most cited UK newspaper on Misplaced Pages as of August 2009 with 106,424 citations. The Times was second with 52,457.". London N1 9GU Circulation Of Guardian - 283,063. Circulation of Daily mail 2,100,000. I doubt somewhat people would take the Daily mail to be a decent source, even though it is accepted here. But It never stands alone, it has to be backed up by other sources. Seeing that the guardian is read by under %2 of the population, has columnists in the likes of George Galloway, <-- see why he's not fit to write on anything but his own arrogance and misinformation, and party members of the Socialit Party of Britian. Question, why on earth is it the most cited paper on wikipedia. Because the editors read it. So regardless of what the archives say, there not worth A piss pott palace guard if the editors who discussed the changes all share the same opinion. Alexandre8 (talk) 11:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that reliability be determined by circulation? Have you got any reliable sources to back up your views? Do you intend to continue commenting on editors not on content? Maybe this is not the place for you? --Snowded 12:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you've just ignored everything I just said. Very dangerous. Perhaps you might wish to consider a different pastime. Oh, the views are from wikipedia itself. Wouldn't wanna say that was unreliable now would we. Lastly, editors not content? what is that rubbish. Who writes the content? We're not at hogwarts. Man presses button on keyboard, makes a letter. Letters makes words. Words make content. Alexandre8 (talk) 12:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

And I will continue to ignore your unsupported opinions, this is not the place for them. --Snowded 13:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

%2 of readership. Vast majority of supporting quotes. This paper is a liability to all politically based articles. Alexandre8 (talk) 14:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC) p.s how on earth is my "opinion" unsupported?. I've given you the facts. Waht more do you want? Alexandre8 (talk) 14:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

What more do we want? How about an ability to spell words like "what" and "2%" correctly before you put yourself forward as a Misplaced Pages editor? Based upon your logic we should be allowing The Sun Page 3 Girl to edit all of Misplaced Pages - after all, more people look at her each day than read the Guardian. Given the fact that that wretched newspaper (The Sun) supported the South African apartheid system I could well imagine who on this page would favour Misplaced Pages using them for its sources. Multiculturalist (talk) 13:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Articles in peer-reviewed academic journals categorize the EDL as part of the far right. Saying that they "describe" them as far right would cast doubt on their analysis. TFD (talk) 14:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually regardless of what is written it is fact that any article written about this group is a description. Neutrality would be to write it as such and as stated I fully intend to tag this article until such a time as policy is followed IE do dot remove the tag until such a time as the dispute is ended. The Last Angry Man (talk) 16:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be some methodological confusion here. If we're getting into tautologies and truisms, then any article on anything constitutes a "description," but we wouldn't write that "China is described as a country in Asia" or that "the Earth is described as round." Now obviously, a political assessment of a specific group is a different type of information than facts of geography or natural science, but if there is a scholarly consensus from reliable sources that a group is far-right, then for the reasons listed above it is misleading, misinformative, politically dubious, disingenuous, and unnecessary to use qualifying language such as "is described as." Is Nazism "described as" a far-right movement, or communism "described as" a far-left one? Sindinero (talk) 17:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see your point, all the sources used are written by people voicing their opinions, no more, no less. Given the EDL claim they are not right wing wackos then it ought be written in the neutral manner that they have been described as. The article remains POV and as such I shall tag it as such. The Last Angry Man (talk) 19:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Clearly you fail to see my point if you cannot even distinguish between opinions, research, facts, and scholarly consensus. The sources used generally have nothing to do with "opinions," but are rather based on analysis, interpretation, and reasoning. By your criteria, most if not all articles on wikipedia should be tagged as POV.

Granted, if the article stated that the EDL were "right wing wackos" then you'd have a case for tagging it as POV. But that's not the language used, and the claim that they are politically far right is backed by the sources. I think a more constructive approach than facile relativism ("everyone has an opinion, how do we decide between them?") would be to provide reliable sources that challenge the characterization of the EDL as right-wing. Just because you don't want them to be of the right doesn't mean they're not.

Rather than removing the POV tag, though, I'd like to hear what other editors think. Sindinero (talk) 19:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

And looking through the sources used I fail to see these peer reviewed articles which TFD mentioned, although there is one from what could only be described as a biased source. and of course is just the opinion of that papers author. There is a link to what appears to be a primary source, the minutes from the HOC select committe meeting. The rest are just newspaper reports. The Last Angry Man (talk) 19:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

See, it would be most enlightening to hear why you think that the journal you mention is a "biased" source. The simple assertion of bias does not demonstrate bias, at least not in the way you intend. There is a difference between opinion and analysis. But besides these epistemological questions, the issue here is whether the sources supporting a label of the EDL as right-wing fulfill the criteria of WP:RS. They do. If you have other reliable sources that describe the EDL as left-wing, centrist, or transcendent of the entire political spectrum in their own special way, please provide them. Otherwise, the POV tag needs to go. Again, just because you don't like something doesn't mean it's not true. Sindinero (talk) 19:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

(ec)This source is of interest. It says that the far right label has been foisted on this group by those asshole fascists the UAF. I propose this source be used to help balance the lede. Race and Antiracism in Black British and British Asian Literature By Dave Gunning pp 151 152 The Last Angry Man (talk) 19:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you're misreading your own source, it says nothing of the sort. And by bizarrely labeling a group called "United against Fascism" "asshole fascists," you're sort of outing yourself, in a few ways, as a tendentious editor. I don't want to doubt your good intentions, but it's really hard to avoid the impression that by "balance" you mean about the same thing as Fox News does. Diluting a characterization based on good sources is not balance, but intellectual dishonesty and political trickery. Sindinero (talk) 19:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Just to add to that - even if the source were saying what you seem to think it's saying (and it's not), it's a literary study, and thus not really an appropriate rs for this article. Sindinero (talk) 20:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the POV tag there are enough reliable sources to back up the text and here we use verifiability not truth. Mo ainm~Talk 20:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Again, TLAM, you are making changes to the lead against consensus and without responding to any of the objections on the discussion page. Your recent addition of the sentence "The group says they are a peaceful protest group and that they are a multi ethnic and multi religious group," for "balance," is problematic for a number of reasons.

• Let's start with the source - the source you found on google books is a literary monograph of a number of novels in the context of antiracism, and not a study that attempts to politically evaluate the EDL. So yes, at a very trivial level, the source says more or less what you say it does: that the EDL describes itself as peaceful, and anti-racist. However, the context is a discussion of the photograph on the cover of the source, and not an in-depth discussion of the EDL. In the context of the conclusion, the author is doing this to show, I presume, the complexity of navigating and reshaping contemporary antiracist discourse in the UK. With all due respect, I suggest that you read enough of your source to know not just what they're saying on a literal level, but how it fits into the context of their argument, since this is the only way to actually know what they're actually claiming, and what they're not actually claiming.
• Second, the source you provide uses as its prime source for this second-hand claim the EDL's own website, which is decidedly not a reliable source. A common tactic of the extreme right these days is an appropriation of the rhetoric, symbols, and practices of the left; besides the EDL's putative antiracism, one could also point to neonazi use of the black bloc in Germany, the discursive popularity of relativism among "populist" conservatives in the US, or the anticapitalist stance of national anarchists. My point is that the EDL's self description as inclusive, peaceful, and antiracism decidedly does not make them so.
• About "balance," I can only repeat my previous, unanswered comment: "And by bizarrely labeling a group called "United against Fascism" "asshole fascists," you're sort of outing yourself, in a few ways, as a tendentious editor. I don't want to doubt your good intentions, but it's really hard to avoid the impression that by "balance" you mean about the same thing as Fox News does. Diluting a characterization based on good sources is not balance, but intellectual dishonesty and political trickery."

Ne'ertheless, you raise a good point. One interesting thing about the EDL is their inclusive, antiracist posturing, and perhaps this should be mentioned in the lead. I'll take a stab at it, and I'd like to hear what other editors think as well. TLAM, if you disagree, please use the talk page to work towards consensus rather than mechanically and tendentiously reverting. Sindinero (talk) 11:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Any group which uses violence to suppress free speech are fascist assholes, UAF do it on a regular basis. The source being from the academic press is I believe a good source, it does not matter who the author is quoting. A popular tactic of the left is of course the smearing of all who disagree as racist and right wing. For neutrality reasons the EDL`s opinion of themselves ought at least be mentioned, and also from the source the fact that UAF tend to cause the trouble at the rallys ought be mentioned as well. The Last Angry Man (talk) 12:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

See, now we're getting somewhere in figuring out the difference between opinions, analysis, and claims based on reliable sources. A statement like "any group which uses violence to suppress free speech are fascist assholes, UAF do it on a regular basis" is an opinion, a blanket claim, and something that can form no basis for editing wikipedia.

Yes, the source is from "the academic press" but so are books about butterflies. My point was not that the source was not a RS on anything, just that it's not an RS on the EDL, because it's a book about novels quoting from the EDL's own website. It actually does matter who the author is quoting. I've changed the lead to include the EDL's opinion of themselves, based on a substantial, focused discussion in the source I cite.

As to your last request, that the UAF should be mentioned, they are, and they are mentioned extensively in the article, especially in the 'protests' section. I don't think they're notable enough to mention in the lead, since they are counter-protesters of the EDL and not, as far as I can tell from the sources, in any way essential to our understanding of the EDL. Sindinero (talk) 12:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Probaby best to use a third party source such as this article that says "Unlike other far-right organisations, the EDL are proud of their diversity" (p. 227). TFD (talk) 15:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

That's basically what the source from Garland and Treadwell say, but they say it in more detail and depth, and go so far as to challenge the contention that the EDL is actually significantly diverse (p. 32). Sindinero (talk) 16:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Your last edit has made this article even less neutral than before, you have basically written that all EDL members are bigots, what a strange idea you have of neutrality. The Last Angry Man (talk) 16:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

And once again a fully justified tag has been removed, the source you have used to portray all EDL members as bigots is an opinion piece, never before have I seen so many "maybe" "perhaps" "could be" in a source, it is all speculation and conjecture. The page range is also a bit much for just a few sentences. The Last Angry Man (talk) 17:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Now you're just getting petulant. My last edit says nothing of the sort, and it's disingenuous of you to try to circumvent consensus by repeatedly using different means of alleging POV without addressing the basic issues on the talk page. I'm trying to work towards consensus by meeting you half-way: despite substantial, nearly endless discussion on this talk page (see also the archives) about this very issue, I think it would be fair to include some version of the EDL's self-characterization in the lead, since this seems notable and is clearly important to you.

However, wikipedia is not a soap-box, and we cannot simply copy promotional material from the EDL's website (which is essentially what a google-books cherry-picking of a claim from the EDL website via a literary study was). The article I linked to was hardly lopsided, it was from a publication called "Papers from the British Criminology Conference."

If you're not even willing to read the archive of exhaustive past discussions on this topic, wikipedia policy, or even your own sources carefully, then you're editing disruptively and wasting the time of others. I suggest you see WP:GEVAL to sharpen your understanding about what constitutes neutrality, and WP:RS on reliable sources.

Finally, I'll repeat what I said earlier - if you think the article has POV problems, find reliable sources that describe theEDL as left-wing, centrist, or transcendent of the entire political spectrum in their own special way, please provide them. Sindinero (talk) 17:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

(out)Now heres the thing, I do not actually care one way or the other about this group, personally I think they are morons. However neutrality is important, and everyone deserves to have their voice heard. I am glad you believe that some self characterization ought be in the lede, what would you suggest? The Last Angry Man (talk) 17:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Passamethod addition

"Tommy Robinson, the founder, has described sharia law as "barbaric", and has considered forming a political party." was added a couple of days ago in the lede. I trimmed it down to the political party element which I think is notable and suitable for the lede. The earlier statement that the founder condemned sharia law is not especially notable and is not linked to the political party element. YouTube is not really a reliable source either. My inclination is to return the simple referenced statement about the political party to the lede and remove the description element. If that isn't acceptable then I'll remove the whole paragraph per WP:BRD while we resolve it here. --Snowded 10:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Politics of the United Kingdom articles
• Unknown-importance Politics of the United Kingdom articles
• C-Class England-related articles
• Unknown-importance England-related articles
• WikiProject England pages
• C-Class organization articles
• Mid-importance organization articles
• WikiProject Organizations articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics