Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edit about terrorism

This edit was reverted and the comment was, "reverting well-meaning addition; this is not necessarily the sort of material we need in the lead." So I put it back well away from the lead. Please explain why it was reverted a second time. Proxima Centauri ( talk) 15:44, 24 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Well (for a start} read wp:lede, it is a summary of the article, and this does not appear to be a summary of anything in the article. Secondly, its one poll so may fail, wp:undue. Thirdly, it may fail wp:rs (especially given its origin is the Daily Mail). I can see a number of issues with this, but the lede is not the place for it anyway. Slatersteven ( talk) 16:30, 24 May 2021 (UTC) reply
Agree with Steven, this clearly isn't lead material. In fact for the reasons he listed, I'm not sure it has any place in the article at all. — Czello 17:04, 24 May 2021 (UTC) reply
I concur. Emeraude ( talk) 07:54, 25 May 2021 (UTC) reply
I think the source ( Counter Extremism Project, a neo-conservative NGO) fails rs. If so, even if we can reliably source the statement, we have to establish its weight in reliable sources. Also, when we quote raw data, we need explanation. Could it be for example that there was a particular reason for the poll results or has it subsequently changed. TFD ( talk) 12:00, 25 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Why is this article locked?!

This article makes serious accusations about violence without citations. 2604:3D08:5B80:B70:4FAE:C089:E195:43E7 ( talk) 14:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Give one example, ohh and to answer your question, to prevent vandalism. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The entire section on violence is well sourced. — Czello ( music) 14:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Why don't you give me at least one quote?! The "section on violence" is basically the main introductory section at the very top. There is not ONE source in that section.
Here's a quote: "Both online and at its events, EDL members have incited violence against Muslims, with supporters carrying out violent acts both at demonstrations and independently."
No citation for that whatsoever! No citation whatsoever in the entire (very long) section where that quote is located. How is that possible?! How can anybody lock an article like this?!! 2604:3D08:5B80:B70:4FAE:C089:E195:43E7 ( talk) 19:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply
That is the lede, (read wp:lede), the cites are in the body. Slatersteven ( talk) 19:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply
I stand corrected and I apologize.

Look, violence is a serious charge. The (sub)section on violence shouldn't be under "organization and structure"; it's probably best to arrange it differently.

Now, here's a quote from that section:

"...EDL members stormed and ransacked an Ahmadiyya Islamic bookstore in Sandwell,[120][258] and in August 2011 an EDL member was convicted for vandalising a mosque.[259] Demonstrations also led to physical attacks on Asians themselves.[260]".

These are really serious charges.

The first citation in that quote is a paper that I don't have access to right now.

The second citation is from a (small?) town news source that I haven't heard of before and could find very little information on it.

I must wonder, why isn't a serious charge like this linked to some of the more prominent, internationally recognizable news sources?

The third citation is an article on the Independent which talks about graffiti "attack" on a mosque. I don't want to downplay the seriousness of a graffiti offence. I recognize that historically this sort of thing might have evolved into more violent acts. But the article doesn't even tell me what the graffiti damage or message was. Under what conditions did she admit to "conspiracy to commit racially aggravated criminal damage," which is very serious. Did they have proper representation? Those details aren't clear to me at this point. It's a very short article apparently.

The fourth citation, again, is a book by a journalist that I don't have access to right now. The charge is very serious, and again, I must wonder why more references from recognizable news sources haven't been provided?

So, this (Wikipedia) article is important and has citations, but appears to have shortcomings for general consumption on the web. 2604:3D08:5B80:B70:4FAE:C089:E195:43E7 ( talk) 21:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Thanks for pointing that out. Have added the 2013 Centenary Square riot sentencing to the violence section as another example. I think you'll find the BBC to be a prominent, internationally recognised news source. I also just assume contributors got bored of providing examples of EDL violence after 2011, as there are many more to be found with a little research.
I wasn't sure about the following sources though [1] [2]. It describes July 2023, Centenary Square, but no specific date. Also reports of 30 officers injured, rather than one for July 20. I assume it's the same event, which is already covered anyway.
FYI there's also the 2012 Walsall protest [3] CommunityNotesContributor ( talk) 22:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply

The article about the English Defense League

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Defence_League

has a link located under "External Links" that was at one time was the English Defense League's website.

Currently the link to the English Defense League's website redirects to a porn site. There is a notice next to the link that says it's a dead link, and at one time that might have been true, but currently it's not a dead link but instead it just redirects to a porn site.

The article is locked so I can't fix it myself. So can somebody who can bypass the lock delete the link or at least make it unclickable.

Thank you 172.56.200.55 ( talk) 10:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC) reply

 Fixed by (& thanks to) Slatersteven. Peaceray ( talk) 15:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I am dubious about using web archive for an official website. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Why's that? I've otherwise clarified the link being an archive using the relevant template to avoid any confusion. [4]. @ Peaceray Is Feb 2017 the latest archive available, or is there a later version we could link? CNC ( talk) 18:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Well for a start, is it confirmed to be theirs? For second, why do we need an outdated site? Slatersteven ( talk) 18:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC) reply
It does look like the right archive site. As to whether it should be in the article, there is precedent. Please see my post about Template:Official website#Handling dead links below. Peaceray ( talk) 18:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Looks like the official website. [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] CNC ( talk) 20:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC) reply
See Template:Official website#Handling dead links, which states:
It's possible that a URL no longer references hosted content, or ends up hosting different content than intended. In this case, the {{ Official website}} should be replaced with an invocation of {{ webarchive}} with a title= parameter of "Official website". For example: {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20051222144340/http://en.wikipedia.org/ |date=2005-12-22 |title=Official website}}.
Peaceray ( talk) 18:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Looks like I did good then, didn't even realise that doc existed. CNC ( talk) 19:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Resurgence?

Recently the EDL and by extension Tommy Robinson (its former leader) have been relevant (there was a rally in London which it pretty much organised led by T.R., and just today a… protest thing (idk what else to call it) in Southport following a vigil for a crime committed by a migrant));; publications such as the BBC have mentioned the group’s name. It seems decentralised and more of a football hooligan micropseudo-ideology especially in its current form. I’m not trying to make any perceptions. I’m just wondering if a reform to the history section/the adding of a “resurgence” “2024: regaining of popularity” subsection would be appropriate considering the contemporary activism of T.R. as a kind of de facto leader of EDL affiliates. 2A00:23C6:D603:8001:DCB8:E273:CE6A:E952 ( talk) 01:26, 31 July 2024 (UTC) reply

So any RS say they have had a resurgence? Slatersteven ( talk) 10:09, 31 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Kinda unrelated but the stabbings were not done by a migrant and the word for what they did is a riot. 31.185.168.251 ( talk) 17:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC) reply
I made this comment on July 31, before information was let out about the perpetrator supposedly due to UK data laws concerning <18 Y.O. criminals. Yeah, he was born in Wales, but he was a second-generation migrant, (and he was not white) so that was what caused the riot.
About what it was, yes, it was a riot, good suggestion. that is a good term considering the fact that the people there were throwing stuff at the police's riot shield wall. 2A00:23C6:D603:8001:4D45:8070:384E:A276 ( talk) 23:52, 1 August 2024 (UTC) reply

Biased article

The entire wiki article) 16:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

In what way, you have to be specific. Slatersteven ( talk) 16:49, 31 July 2024 (UTC) reply
The name calling is not needed. Hooligans? What does that imply? BeGB11 ( talk) 16:56, 31 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I have no idea, ask the sources that say that is where they drew some of their support from. Slatersteven ( talk) 16:59, 31 July 2024 (UTC) reply
It was hard to get any further than the intro. The article’s intent is to persuade the reader. The sources mean nothing unless they are unbiased. Using inflammatory rhetoric is a huge red flag for this article and should be avoided if someone, like myself, wants to know more about the EDL. BeGB11 ( talk) 17:25, 31 July 2024 (UTC) reply
That is not how WP works (read wp:rs), and no source is totally unbiased, but we can (for example) point out how many of its founding members are convicted hooligans. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:33, 31 July 2024 (UTC) reply
See. WP:BIASED. “ Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.” And the rest including the link. Doug Weller talk 17:54, 31 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Hooligan refers to football hooligans or 'ultras'. The EDL was founded by hooligan groups. 31.185.168.251 ( talk) 17:29, 1 August 2024 (UTC) reply

We should not say it doesn’t exist

As there is no evidence for that or that it really disbanded.

See [15] The chief constable said “ Asked specifically about the presence of members of the English Defence League, she added: "Intelligence research we had, we understand there were people who identify as English Defence League attending here yesterday. I am aware that other factions would say they haven't existed for a number of years, but based on how people were defining themselves on our intelligence picture, that is what we understand." Other sources say it has a presence on social media. The government is talking about proscribing it. Doug Weller talk 19:06, 1 August 2024 (UTC) reply

I suppose we need to find wording that says that officially they disbanded but unofficially they still exist, or that people still identify with them. Saying "was" is probably inaccurate, as for all intents and purposes, they're still active. — Czello ( music) 19:31, 1 August 2024 (UTC) reply
It has a private Facebook group created last October with over 500 members. Doug Weller talk 19:34, 1 August 2024 (UTC) reply
Also we have no official source saying they disbanded. We also have Membership and support of the English Defence League. Doug Weller talk 19:37, 1 August 2024 (UTC) reply
We clearly need to state that people describing themselves as EDL still active, given what sources say. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 19:49, 1 August 2024 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:English_Defence_League&oldid=1238073070"

Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE