Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Snowded (talk | contribs) at 19:39, 23 January 2012 (→Area's of Bias that need addressing.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

PassaMethod edits

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

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

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

Proposed deletion of #Table_of_demonstrations

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

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

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

Cute

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

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

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

Nobody paying attention then?

Like to additions like:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sociology of the EDL

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

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

Post spotted on EDL talk page:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's a copy:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me post the last revision for reference:

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

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

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

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

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

Area's of Bias that need addressing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two points need to be stressed here.

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

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

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

Quick question about lead

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

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

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

1. “The English Defense League” Faith Matters. Retrieved 15th January 2012.
2. "EDL leader slams academics’ report" Luton Today. 5 October 2011. Retrieved 15 January 2012
3. Copsey, Nigel. "The English Defense League: challenging our country and our values of social inclusion, fairness and equality". Faith Maters. Retrieved 14th october 2011.
4. English Defense league "Mission Statement" Retrieved January 15, 2012

• 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