Talk:English Democrats/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about English Democrats. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Stonehouse

Does the party Stonehouse joined have any link to the currently existing party? The article doesn't really clearly say one way or another, but implies not. If they are really just two different parties that happen to share the same name, article should be split. Morwen - Talk 14:23, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To my knowledge they are two separate parties. Some folk may have been members of both, but there is no continuation. Best to split off.

Further to this there is a currently-existing (well, at least according to the register), English National Party, which has different officers to this one. Morwen - Talk 16:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

{{Election box metadata}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrWeeble (talk • contribs) 14:49, 28 November 2005‎ (UTC)

Reportage

The following was removed from the article:

The English Democrats are reported to be the fastest growing political party in England, this may well be the case, as it is the biggest English Patriotic Nationalist Party in the United Kingdom.

A number of English Celebrities are reported to be supporting the English Democrats and will be standing as candidates at the next General Election.

Robert Kilroy-Silk has been linked to the English Democrats as a potential leader (currently vacant), follow his exit from the UKIP Party.

English National Party

The English National Party existed before Labour came to power. It was based in Old Gloucester St (a PO Box) and stood in the 1997 Election so I have changed the assertion to contrary. I think there was a split after 1997 between the English Democrats and the English Democratic Party, and I shall research this further. finnophile.

Can you give cites for these assertions, please? -- Karada 12:50, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't know if this has been fixed but the ENP based in Old Gloucester St evolved into the English Independence Party. It changed it's name for two reasons;

1. The party was forever getting confused with the BNP (something Tilbrook fount out and one of the reasons he renamed his party).

2. In 1999 when the Electoral Commission started up, Tilbrook, a lawyer, registered the name, so the EIP could not use it.

R johnson 18:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Robert Kilroy-Silk

The only source for the claim that Robert Kilroy-Silk wanted to be Leader of the English Democrats Party is the Guardian's "Diary" column, which is not a news report. Robert Kilroy-Silk was still a member of the UK Independence Party at the time. I wouldn't suggest it gets removed from the article, but should it not be phrased with a little less certainty until there is better confirmation? Sam Blacketer 18:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality

I've just read the opening paragraph and reads like an advertisent for the English Dempcrats, not a NPOV article about them. Yorkshire Phoenix (talk) 13:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Can the anon who keeps removing my {{npov}} please stop and discuss here or edit the article to conform to WP:NPOV. Yorkshire Phoenix (talk) 14:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

If the {{npov}} tag is removed again without the article being amended to conform to WP:NPOV I'm going to submit it for deletion. Yorkshire Phoenix (talk) 09:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. There is no consensus for the NPOV tag. Lancsalot 10:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

You don't need consensus for a NPOV tag: lack of consensus is a dispute and this tag says the neutrality is disputed. I am disputing it and will press for this article to be deleted if it isn't improved. Yorkshire Phoenix (talk) 10:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

You need more than one editor. And you haven't provided any evidence of POV problems. If you have a problem with the article then edit it. An AfD would be absurd. Lancsalot 10:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I have no interest in editing an article on English nationalism and if I did it would just reflect the opposite POV instead of a NPOV. However: I have removed the following from the intro and believe this brings it close enough to WP:NPOV to remove the tag:

It aims to create a just, caring and enterprising society

The whole article reads like an advertisment for them, more so than any other page on a political party. 77.99.233.169 00:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

UKIP Defections

There is no source to confirm the idea that a steady stream of UKIP supporters have defected. It is a common line used by the party to promote itself and is clearly biased. I would suggest that the party make an official publication regarding numbers of UKIP defectors if they wish to use that particular method of advertisement on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tito2502 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Monmouthshire

Please see page 18 of the Manifesto, where the statement regards Monmouthshire is made

http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:Oj9PakY6DscJ:www.englishdemocrats.org.uk/downloads/manifesto2007.pdf+english+democrats+manifesto&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=uk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.2.97.151 (talk) 02:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

English Democrats 2004 Council Election Results

3 10/06/2004 Council Essex Southend - Chalkwell MOSS Jeremy William Moreton EDP 2,558 211 8.2% 4 10/06/2004 Council Essex Southend - Kursaal KEY Adrian Ralph EDP 1,826 225 12.3% 5 10/06/2004 Council Hampshire West Heath - Farnborough Ward COWD, Gary EDP 1,679 270 16.1% 6 10/06/2004 Council Gloucester City Hucclecote Ward HOLT, Eric Ian EDP 3,050 150 4.9% 7 10/06/2004 Council Gloucestershire Stroud District HOWELLS, Robert EDP 2,083 64 3.1% 8 10/06/2004 Council East Sussex Weald, Wadhurst Ward WILLIAMS Courtney EDP 1,612 105 6.5% 9 10/06/2004 Council Essex Basildon - Crouch Ward GANDY, Kim EDP 2,074 420 20.3% 10 10/06/2004 Council Essex Epping Forest CRAWFORD, Claire EDP 3,722 247 6.6% 11 10/06/2004 Council Essex Epping Forest TILBROOK, Robin EDP 821 116 14.1% 12 10/06/2004 Council Newcastle Fawdon Ward THOMPSON, Martin EDP 9,661 240 2.5%

If you go to each Council Web Site you should be able to verify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.2.97.151 (talk) 02:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

How about you find the sources and then come back with the URL for verification? I have offered to help you verify content you are adding, the least you can do is find the source yourself instead of expecting others to do the work for you, especially when it is something you want adding.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 03:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Citation for the 2005 Greenwich and Woolwich Garry Bushell result

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/hoc/constituency/0,,-984,00.html

(Also see the BBC 2005 Elects Web Page (sorry if this is complicated !) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.2.97.151 (talk) 02:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Added. And not complicated in the slightest as you well know, and something you could easily have provided all along and save yourself all this hassle/♦Tangerines♦·Talk 03:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Vernon Coleman and Matt O'Connor

http://www.vernoncoleman.com/main.htm

I guess one of you guys can put this up as everything I put up get undone

http://www.englishdemocrats.org.uk//index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.2.97.151 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 20 January 2008

No, you keep deleting citation tags without providing sources as you have previously been asked to do. Also whilst you were leaving a ridiculous and frankly childish comment on my talk page (which was removed by another user) I was trying to help you by finding a third party reliable source for Matt O'Connor being the EDP London Mayor candidate which I have found and will be adding as soon as I can. However, leaving such comments on other users talk pages do yourself no good. Perhaps if you took on board the advice given to you and found third party sources then none of this need to have happened. In addition the EDPs own website as I have also told you before, is not a third party source.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 02:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

OK - So why don't you put English Democrats Matt O'Connor into Goggle and look at the the News

With respect, it is up to you to add a source. It is not up to other wikipedia users to find those sources for edits you make simply because you don't do so. Regarless and as I have said which you seem to have ignored, I already did find a source. If you want other users help then fair enough, but you are going about it the wrong way.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 02:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that you are trying to discredit the English Democrats for political reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.2.97.151 (talk) 02:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

And that is why I have offered to help you, why I have offered to add content with sources for you and why I have just now added back in with a third party source the information about Matt O'Connor that you didn't even bother to add with a source, which you could just as easily have done? And it is also why I have worked bloody hard to ensure this article is as NPOV as possible with no bias either way, despite my actually agreeing with some of the EDP manifesto? Though I would prefer to see an independent English parliament not just the UK one we have at present. And it is also why I have made sure there are 19 third party sources on the article, so that it doesn't ever come up for deletion again, and so that it is of a better standard. And so on and so on. And according to you I did all this to discredit the EDP? With respect your actions and comments on here are doing the EDP more harm than good. But well done, way to go mate getting help. If you bothered to read my profile you would see what utter rubbish you have just posted. I will though also bite further with your "you are trying to discredit the English Democrats" allegation. Would you mind pointing me to anything I have said or done that is even remotely discrediting the EDP? Adding content back in which you added before unsourced, now with a source and with it expanded is discredting the EDP is it now? Oh and to add for good measure, if you also bothered to check the edit history of this article you would also find a number of edits I have made removing vandalism of this article by users whp posted very clear anti-English insults and I have also spent time cleaning it up and adding sources to improve the article. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 02:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

In which case I apologise - if you wish to be a safe pair of hands to keep the English Democrats Wikapedia Entry up to date, and free from requests for citations then that's great. I personally have entered most of the updates on this entry over the past 3 years, and although I am a party official I try to keep it unbiased. I am happier to deal with queries by e-mail, indeed I am happy to e-mail you information for you to decided whether it is worth putting up or not - I'll be happy to give exact soruces for all the queries if you send an e-mail to Secretary@EngDem.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.2.97.151 (talk) 19:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you and hopefully we can move on and all this crap can stop now. I have no problem with helping you add sourced content. (After all I have offered to help you before now!) Just do as you have done below if you wish and leave the URLs in this talk page if you wish. It is much better to deal with it all on here than by email though. I've no problem at all with you adding content to the article just so long as you add a source. I can help you with how to add sources when you wish to do so.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 06:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Response to the various messages above

When I get the time in the next few days I will have a look through the websites given. However with regard to your comment about "time consuming" searching through a site for election results, unless you provide the links then you can't really expect others to spend their time trawling through something that you state is time consuming to add links for you. Find the links and so long as they are OK then I will try my best to add them for you. Some of the links unfortunately still can't be used though. But I will have a look as I said.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 06:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess it's your call, to remove everything that does not have a reference source - this I personally believe is better then having "citation" against almost every entry.

You also need to be consistent, for example there is no reference to confirm that Robin Tilbrook went to Wellington School, this is something I added as I know it for a fact, but if you want to follow your line, then it will have to be removed as there is not way that I can prove this as a link on the Web, I can however provide you with Robin Tilbrooks phone number if you'd like to phone him up and ask him ? 81.2.97.151 (talk) 00:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It isn't really my call I am just like you a user of this site. It isn't a matter of following "my line", it is adhering to wikipedia guidelines. I haven't as yet been able to work on this article but will do so ASAP. As for Robin Tilbrook and Wellington School, no idea why you think there aren't any sources as I found one straightaway. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 01:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Where the English Democrats Stood in 2006

Candidates Standing for May 2006 Council Elections Final Standings:-

North East Area Martin Thompson - Newcastle City Council - Fawdon Ward Total 4 Candidates Labour Party Conservative Party Liberal Democrats English Democrats

North West Area Stephen Gash - City of Carlisle Council - Belah Ward Total 4 Candidates Labour Party Conservative Party Independent English Democrats

Yorkshire Area Peter Davies - Doncaster Metropolitan Council - Finningley Ward Total 6 Candidates Labour Party Conservative Party Liberal Party Green Party Independent English Democrats

Stephen Elliott - Leeds City Council - Adel & Wharfdale Ward Total 4 Candidates Labour Party Conservative Party Liberal Democrats English Democrats

Paul McEnhill - Kirklees Metropolitan Borough - Denby Dale Ward Details not published on internet

East Midlands Area NONE

West Midlands Area NONE

East England - East Anglia Area Nick Capp - Three Rivers District Council - Rickmansworth Penn Ward, Total 4 Candidates Labour Party Conservative Party Liberal Democrats English Democrats

Kim Gandy - Basildon District Council - Crouch Vale Ward Total 5 Candidates Labour Party Conservative Party Liberal Democrats BNP English Democrats

Robin Tilbrook - Epping Forest District Council - Chipping Ongar, Greenstead & Marden Ash Ward Total 4 Candidates Labour Party Conservative Party Liberal Democrats English Democrats

Richard Aitkins - Stevenage Borough Council - Pin Green Ward Total 4 Candidates Labour Party Conservative Party Liberal Democrats English Democrats

London Area Janus Polencuse - London Borough of Lambeth - Oval Ward Total 13 Candidates 3 Labour Party 3 Conservative Party 3 Liberal Democrats 2 Green Party 1 Local Education Action by Parents 1 English Democrats

John Fitzpatrick - London Borough of Bexley - East Wickham Ward Total 14 Candidates 3 Labour Party 3 Conservative Party 3 Liberal Democrats 3 UKIP 1 BNP 1 English Democrats

South East Area George Herbert - Havant Borough Council - Bedhampton Ward Total 5 Candidates Labour Party Conservative Party Liberal Democrats Green Party English Democrats

David Knight - Portsmouth City Council - Copnor Ward Total 5 Candidates Labour Party Conservative Party Liberal Democrats Green Party English Democrats

Harold Green - Reigate & Banstead Borough Council - Tattenhams Ward Total 3 Candidates Conservative Party Tattenhams Residents Association English Democrats

Glenn Starling - Reigate & Bastead Borough Council - Kingswood with Burgh Heath Ward Total 4 Candidates Conservative Party Liberal Democrats UKIP English Democrats

South West Area Mike Blundell - Bristol City Council - Southmead Ward Total 5 Candidates Labour Party Conservative Party Liberal Party Green Party English Democrats —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.2.97.151 (talk) 22:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

- Chipping Ongar, Greenstead & Marden Ash Ward Total 4 Candidates North East Area Martin Thompson - Newcastle City Council - Fawdon Ward Total 4 Candidates Labour Party 926 30.1% Conservative Party 125 4.0% Liberal Democrats 1675 54.4% English Democrats 354 11.5% Labour Party 933 52.4% North West Area Stephen Gash - City of Carlisle Council - Belah Ward Total 4 Candidates Labour Party 435 24.2% Conservative Party 976 54.3% Independent 138 7.7% English Democrats 247 13.8% Labour Party 777 23.5% Yorkshire Area Peter Davies - Doncaster Metropolitan Council - Finningley Ward Total 6 Candidates Labour Party 657 14.3% Conservative Party 1832 40.0% Liberal Party 712 15.5% Green Party 279 6.1% Independent 128 2.8% English Democrats 973 21.2% Conservative Party 1312 21.7 % Stephen Elliott - Leeds City Council - Adel & Wharfdale Ward Total 4 Candidates Labour Party 941 12.2% Conservative Party 4128 53.3% Liberal Democrats 2085 27.0% English Democrats 563 7.3% George Herbert - Havant Borough Council - Bedhampton Ward Paul McEnhill - Kirklees Metropolitan Borough - Denby Dale Ward Total 6 Candidates Labour Party 1391 26.5% Conservative Party 2012 38.4% Liberal Democrats 558 10.6% Green Party 414 7.8% BNP 434 8.2% English Democrats 436 8.3 % Total 5 Candidates East Midlands Area NONE Liberal Democrats 537 17.0% West Midlands Area NONE

East England - East Anglia Area Nick Capp - Three Rivers - Penn Ward Total 4 Candidates Labour Party 68 7.0% Conservative Party 264 26.8% Liberal Democrats 550 56% English Democrats 101 10.2% Glenn Starling - Reigate & Bastead Borough Council - Kingswood with Burgh Heath Ward Kim Gandy - Basildon District Council - Crouch Vale Ward Total 5 Candidates Labour Party 240 10.5% Conservative Party 52 6.6% Liberal Democrats 1394 60.8% BNP 310 13.5% English Democrats 198 8.6% Mike Blundell - Bristol City Council - Southmead Ward Robin Tilbrook - Epping Forest District Council Labour Party 1039 45.81% Conservative Party 465 20.5% Liberal Party 414 18.2% Green Party 129 5.7% English Democrats 221 9.7% —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.2.97.151 (talk) 01:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Matt O'Connor quits Mayor race

According to the Beeb and the Eng Dems website, Matt O'C has quit the contest. I'll update the 2008 section to reflect this development.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Witanofnorfolk (talk • contribs) 16:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

And thank God for that. Though I notice there's no such information on the News page on the English Democrat website ; ) Racooon (talk) 09:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

2009 European Union Elections

English Democrats Named Lead Candidates - European Union Elections 2009

1 East England - 1 Robin Tilbrook 2 South East England - 1 Steve Uncles, 2 David Knight, 3 Mike Tibby 3 London - 1 Roger Cooper 4 South West - 1 Harry Barstow 5 East Midlands - 1 Derek Hilling 6 North West - 1 Ed Abrams 7 Yorkshire - 1 Michael Cassidy 8 West Midlands - 1 TBC 9 North East - 1 TBC

Source Face Boook - Political Profiles & Campaign Group "ENGLISH, NOT british & NOT EUropean - "I'm Voting English Democrats" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.2.97.151 (talk) 03:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

http://www.facebook.com/inbox/?ref=mb#/group.php?gid=32791059486 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.2.97.151 (talk) 03:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately Facebook is not a reliable source of information as it is far too easy to set up an account and post misleading information (as highlighted in several high profile cases like this one). I am reverting your edits for now, but feel free to restore the information if you can find a more reliable source. Road Wizard (talk) 09:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

federalist

the english democrats support a federal UK, so are English fereralist, not English Nationalist.

An example of an English Nationalist party is the Free England Party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slayer9747 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Other English Party

A detailed look at the Electoral Commission Web Site actually shows that there are already 12 Registered Parties with England or English in the name (or the Logo)

1 English Democrats Party - Registered to Robin Tilbrook & his gang

2 English National Party - Registered to Mike Blundell (South West Area Chairman English Democrats)

3 New England Party - Registered to Mike Tibby - (Dartford Chairman of the English Democrats)

4 English Parliamentary Party - Registered to Gerald Morgan - (Patron of the English Constituion Convention and PPC for the English Democrats)

5 English Progressive and Liberty Party [The] - Registered to Shaun Nelson - (producer of the English Demcorats Video - "The English Student")

Basically 1-5 have something to do with the English Democrats

Other English Nationalist Parties

England First Party - now led by Ex BNP Activist Steve Smith & gang

(activity concentrated in Burnley & Blackburn Lancashire) White Nationalist - English Nationalist Party http://www.efp.org.uk/

EnglishIndependenceParty.com - led by Chris Nickerson

(Not activice since May 2005) Harsh Immigration - English Nationalist Party http://www.englishindependenceparty.com/

True English (Poetry) Party [The] - led by Michael Gibson a romantic poet

(Not active) http://www.michaelgeorgegibson.org/archive/tepp1.html

Truly Independent English Party

(Not active) http://tieparty.org/

Council Tax Payers Party (England's Own)

Stood in Canterbury, Kent Council By-Election 2006 (No Web Site)

Middle England Party

Registered in December 2006, no know activity (No Web Site)

EPP - Englands Parliament Party - Paul Gilbert (ex UKIP, ex Veritas)

(Not active) http://www.eppweb.com/

The English Democrats have invested cira £ 100,000 in their party in lost deposits etc, and have delivered close to 16 Million leaflets in the past 5 years.

A NEW "English" Party, will only surpass the English Democrats if they have a big War Chest, and a network of politically able English Nationalist Activists up and down the country. - if that were the case they might as well merge with the English Democrats to form a credible political force.

Statements on Forums and Web Sites, don't create credible political parties, as the catalogue of failed English parties above demonstrates, as does Veritas, the New Party, and the Popular Alliance.

Some people have to learn the hard way ! 81.2.97.151 (talk) 00:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Green Party of England and Wales has England in its title. I don't see the use of this listing of parties with "England" or "English"; it is original research designed to back up the EDP as the "largest English political party". Well, they're not. That'd be the Tories or Lib Dems. Try "exclusively English", and find a reliable source that states this. Also, this is not a forum for recruiting to the EDP or analysing other nationalist parties. Fences and windows (talk) 02:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

2009 Candidates

Why has somebody yet again taken down the list of English Democrats EU Election Candidates. ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.2.97.151 (talk) 19:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

From the edit history, 'Removed cut and paste of ED candidate list' as Wikipedia doesn't not permit direct copying. It can be a fine between copying and using another website as a source. Bevo74 (talk) 19:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

What is a "major" party?

The "Howden and Haltemprice" section says: "Because of the issues raised by David Davis in the by-election, many major parties other than the Conservatives, such as Labour, Liberal Democrats, United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) and British National Party (BNP) chose not to stand." This seems to describe UKIP and BNP as "major" parties. By what criterion? Tonywalton ^Talk 23:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Good point. If that wasn't a sourced quote, feel free to delete "major". Fences and windows (talk) 03:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

1999 EDP

Hi all. Going through a list of election results from the 1999 European Parliament elections - the most thrilling thing I've done for months, I can tell you - I spotted a man called Michael Charles Gibbs who ran as an independent in the West Midlands constituency. His party affiliation - all independents in 1999 seem to have had named parties - was "EDP English Freedom Party".

So... what was this guy in relation to the English Democrats? "EDP" seems to certainly hint at the later party name, but our article doesn't mention an "English Freedom Party" anywhere. Shimgray | talk | 22:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

No - although invited to join the English Democrats party, when formed, he wish to keep to the name English Democratic Party - he is about 85 years old and still lives in the West Midlands.

Facebook

With the lack of British Media coverage (BBC, ITV, BSKYB, British National Papers), in 2008 the English Democrats began their Internet Campaign, using non-traditional media, such as Facebook & You Tube. By August 2009, the Engish Democrats were the 2nd Largest British Political Party on Facebook, with in excess of 14,000 members on their primary page "ENGLAND", (The Conservative & Unionist Party have 15,000+) with causes with members in excess of 600,000 members. The primary Facebook Page is www.Facebook.com/English.Democrats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.2.97.151 (talk) 09:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

This should go up on the English Democrats Wikapedia Page as it is relevant to their profile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.2.97.151 (talk) 18:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

No, it really should not. Not without some kind of reliable source reporting it. Fences&Windows 22:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Full Manifesto

My site has a full copy of the English Democrats manifesto. We're driving towards having all English-language political manifestos of every political party in the world on our site in the same/similar format. All the content is contained in PDF files on the English Democrats party website. As more and more manifestos are added over time, in my opinion, it could become a useful resource for Wikipedia. English Democrats Manifesto Declaration of Interest: I own the site so shouldn't add the link myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdfjurn (talk • contribs) 18:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Local Election Results

I notice that "citation required" has been added to many of the election results. I did a lot of the number crunching to get the average vote figures for local and general elections and can verify their accuracy and I'm not a English Democrats supporter. Just a bit of an elections anorak! The only way to provide citations for the local election results would be to add links to dozens of local authority sites.

When I get a chance I'm going to tidy up the whole elections section but the results as stated are accurate Whiteabbey

Sorry but it all sounds a bit like original research to me. But I take your point that to reference the information presented would be difficult. --SandyDancer 20:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The English Democrats have made a political alliance that included Black Christian groups and this has led to a massive split in the party with many of the right wing support leaving the party. The split was headed by Bill Baker, who was supported by many other members on his condemnation of the alliance and failing to stand in support of the Barking and Dagenham English community who have suffered a massive influx of 600 000 African immigrants in the last 8 years. The social networks formed by these African immigrants through church groups and their own political party, the Christian party has been contested by right wing English people and should show an interesting political contest in the coming elections. The English Democrats will fail to attract many English voters if this is how they treat English communities in real need of political support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.239.83 (talk) 19:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

A fascinating story, but unless you have reliable sources to verify it we can't include it in the article. Road Wizard (talk) 19:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

If the English Democrats the Largest English Political Party

Sources:-

http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/regulatory-issues/regpoliticalparties.cfm?ec=%7Bts%20%272008%2D01%2D20%2019%3A31%3A00%27%7D

Although there are 11 UK Registered Political Parties with the words English or England in their names as follows:-

English Democrats Party

English National Party

English Parliamentary Party

English Progressive and Liberty Party [The]

EnglishIndependenceParty.com

True English (Poetry) Party [The]

Truly Independent English Party

Council Tax Payers Party (England's Own)

England First Party

Middle England Party

New England Party

The reality is that only 2 of these political parties are actually active.

English Democrats has stood in elections in every year since 2003, it's biggest election to date has been the European 2004 Elections where it stood in 5 of the 9 English Euro-Regions, as well as a few Local Council Elections and some County Council Elections. In 2005 circa 25 English Nationalist Candidates stood - most badged as English Democrats http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/area/uk/ge05/cand/EDP.htm

English Democrats have also stood in most of the Parliamentary By-elections in the last two parliaments, and stood in a hand full District Council Elections in counties in 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 with a big effort in 2007 where 70 English Democrats candidates stood.

The other "English" party that does stand in election is the England First Party, that is based mainly in Blackburn and Burnley in Lancashire, but has also stood in Milton Keynes (Buckinghamshire).

The English Demcorats has a membership of between 1,000 and 1,500 according to the latest returns to the Electoral Commission, the England First Party has less then 100 members/supporters.

Explanation of the other party names

English National Party - registered to Mike Blundell the current South West Chairman of the English Democrats (Web Site directs to the English Democrats)

English Parliamentary Party - registed to Gerald Morgan, who has stood once for a UK General Election under this name, and has agreed to stand as an English Democrat as the next General Election. (No Web Site)

English Progressive and Liberty Party [The]- register to Shaun Nelson, who invested in the Political Film "The Student" featuring an Asian "English" Actor -Shaun Nelso has subsequently re-joined the Conservative Party as the best way to achieve an English Parliament (There is a web site)

EnglishIndependenceParty.com - run by Chris Nickerson, Chris stood in the 2005 General Election in Gravesend with the assistance of the English Democrats, one of his members also stood in Ipswich in 2002 however Chris has been unable to organise any other elections since (There is a web site)

True English (Poetry) Party [The] - No record of standing - registered to a romantic english poet - http://www.michaelgeorgegibson.org/archive/tepp1.html

Truly Independent English Party - No record of standing in elections - http://tieparty.org/ - not updated Web Site

Council Tax Payers Party (England's Own) - stood in Canterbury Kent By-Election in 2006 - no activity since.

Middle England Party - No Activity known, no Web site

New England Party - Now the Dartford Branch of the Englsh Democrats, Mike Tibby is the Dartford Chairman.

To conclude, the use of the word "Largest" is subjective, however based on activity, number of members, number of votes achieved since 2003, and the number of Elected English Democrats Councillors (4 Town and Parish) the English Democrats is the largest English political party in the UK.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.2.97.151 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

THE FREE ENGLAND PARTY —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slayer9747 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Hoorah!--English Bobby (talk) 18:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Correct Headquaters Address for the English Democrats

Ongar, Essex, England is the address of the Chairman Robin Tilbrook. The official English Democrats Postal Address is the PO Box 1066 Addrees in Norwich, Norfolk that appears on the English Demcorats Web Site - the Call Centre is based in Sittingbourne in Kent. 18:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

2005 General Election Results

These are of cours individually on the BBC 2005 Elections Web Site, however to get these results is time consuming.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/vote2005/flash_map/html/map05.stm

The easiest place on the web where they are in one place is here

http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/area/uk/ge05/cand/EDP.htm, however this needs to be used in conjunction with the BBC site to get the individual results

Most English Democrats Candidates achieve circa 600+ votes with about 1.5% of the poll, the result Garry Bushell achieve in Greenwich was 3.4%, circa 2% above the rest of the English Democrats results.

English Democrats 2006 Local Election Results

The Finningley Ward result is confirmed here > http://www.doncaster.gov.uk/living_in_doncaster/the_mayor_and_council/voting_elections_democracy/elections/local/local_elections_thursday_4th_may_2006.asp

Traditaion Counties Quote

This is confirmed in the English Democrats Manifesto - Page 18

http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:dfBIz4EH70kJ:www.englishdemocrats.org.uk/downloads/ManMar2002.pdf+English+Democrats+Manifesto&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=uk

Nationalist Connections

I can only give a link to the residue BBC page on the mater, Robin Tibrook was on BBC 2 Newsnight, with the SNP

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6264823.stm

Steve Uncles (English Democrats) was on 18 Doughty Street with SNP MP - Angus McNeil

http://doughty.gdbtv.com/player.php?h=74b8e3c51946961e44e24db7c7cf1d83

Opinion Polls

ICM Poll for the CEP 67% in Favour of English Parliament

http://www.thecep.org.uk/OmEnglishParliament.pdf

81.2.97.151 (talk) 20:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Left or right?

There is no indication to state that the English Democrats are right or left, are they right or left winged?

Wikipedia doesn't judge on matters like this; it reports. The article does report the party's 2004 election slogan as "Not left, not right, just English". Tonywalton ^Talk 23:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course it's not right-wing, it's just full of extreme right-wingers [1], obviously pure coincidence. Extreme English Nationalist would do, of course. Guy (Help!) 14:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

- Extreme English Nationlists? I disagree with that statement entirely. There is an English Democrat on that list in the link, but what is the link meant to suggest? Orphan Wiki 19:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Reliability of "academic paper"

Note: This is not the criticism I originally intended to put forth. While reading the paper for XYZth time, and still feeling disgusted by the low quality of it, I thought: "What a piece of shit. It doesn't feel like a real academic paper - it feels like a draft. I mean, WTF!? It doesn't even reference it sources. ALL academic papers must reference their sources. Come on! This is a fundamental requirement for reliability." So I put down the paper, and by happy chance I looked at the front page. And what did I see? The foot note at the front page - the very first foot note in the paper. And it says: "This paper presents some of the preliminary results of a larger study..." It feels like a draft/unfinished piece of work - because it is a draft/unfinished piece of work. Since this doesn't qualify as a reliable source per wikipedia policies (as I will show later) it effectively renders my original criticism moot, because one cannot expect a draft to meet academic standards.

In my attempt to establish reliability or lack thereof of said paper, I have relied heavily on WP:IRS - Scholarship.

Material that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable; this means published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.

This has not happened. The draft has never been vetted by the scholarly community - as is evident from the few hits in Google. Michael Bruter has zero (0) references to this publication, because it has never been published. It is merely a draft. It has never been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources (nor in any peer-reviewed source, or any other source, really.)

Finished Ph.D. dissertations, which are publicly available, are considered publications by scholars and are routinely cited in footnotes. They have been vetted by the scholarly community; most are available via interlibrary loan. UMI has published two million dissertations since 1940. Dissertations in progress are not vetted and are not regarded as published. They are not reliable sources as a rule.

The paper is a draft written by Michael Bruter and Sarah Harrison (apparently a Ph.D. student at the time of writing the paper). The paper appears to be a dissertation in progress which explains why it has not been vetted by the scholarly community. It also means the paper isn't a reliable source.

The scholarly acceptance of a source can be verified by confirming that the source has entered mainstream academic discourse, for example by checking the scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes. A corollary is that journals not included in a citation index, especially in fields well covered by such indexes, should be used with caution, though whether it is appropriate to use will depend on the context.

The paper does not appear to have entered the mainstream academic discourse. The only reference is to the pdf-file used here as a "reliable" source, but it has not been cited by any other work. Therefore we can conclude it has not entered mainstream academic discourse. This too undermines the reliability of the paper.

Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research. The reliability of a single study depends on the field. Studies relating to complex and abstruse fields, such as medicine, are less definitive. Avoid undue weight when using single studies in such fields. Meta-analyses, textbooks, and scholarly review articles are preferred when available, so as to provide proper context.

Do I need to say more? We are using an (as defined by wikipedia policies) single unpublished draft to claim EDP is far right (note: the actual term used by Michael Bruter and Sarah Harrison is "extreme right") and this in a very complex field. A single source which doesn't meet academic standard and that by using a very alternative definition of "extreme right" combined with an experimental methodology (spelling?).

Based on this I consider the source to be highly unreliable, and I suggest we leave the field blank for now. To those of you supporting the reliability of this source: Daddy is not angry. Daddy is disappointed ;) (just a poor attempt at some light-hearted humour to reduce possible tensions) - Dylansmrjones (talk) 13:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

"You're very well read, It's well known." I'm happy to leave it blank until more reliable independent sources are found. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's the only sensible course, now that Bruter/Harrison has been so thoroughly debunked. Irvine22 (talk) 15:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, it has not been "debunked", but its reliability as a source for WP has been questioned. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, the exggerated claims in, and on behalf of, the paper have been exposed. That's a working definition of debunked. Irvine22 (talk) 15:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

No, the claims have been questioned by a few editors but not "debunked". The paper's reliability as a source has, separately, been questioned for the reasons set out by Dylansmrjones - which have nothing to do with the content of the paper itself. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

"Debunked" is a bit unfair. I don't think the paper itself is making exaggerated claims - they're quite reasonable within its own context. But it's also quite clear that that context, for various reasons, isn't much use here; to take one comment from it and interpret it as gospel truth without hefty caveats is really quite optomistic cherry-picking. Shimgray | talk | 15:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay. First of all: I do not appreciate my comments being abused to support dishonest agendas. Understood, Irvine22? Second: I haven't "debunked" anything. Nor have I "exposed" anything. As Ghmyrtle so correctly writes I have "questioned" (or challenged or whatever word one may find suitable) the realibility of the source, on a strictly technical basis, with absolutely zero consideration for the claims in the paper. The claims have not been considered in my rejection of the reliability of said source. Nor am I in a position to "debunk" the claims. I have misgivings about the claims, but without source references I can neither prove, nor disprove any of the claims. I agree with some parts of the paper, and have severe misgivings about other parts. But I cannot and will not state anything conclusive about the claims in the paper. Dylansmrjones (talk) 17:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you questioned or challenged the reliabilty of the source. Others debunked the claims therein. Irvine22 (talk) 18:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Others claimed to have debunked the claims therein - but we await their evidence. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Right. And while we wait, we don't describe the party as "far-right" in the article. Irvine22 (talk) 23:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Right, Center-right, Center, Far-Right?

In a kind message in my Talk Page, User:Silvatici4 raises some questions about the source given for the political position of the EDP. He argues,

"The definition of 'Far Right' used by Michael Bruter and Sarah Harrison on the thesis does not agree with the Wikipedia definition of 'Far Right'"

which is true. However, might I say, Wikipedia is not a reliable source; and my experience in Wikipedia is that many articles contain completely mistaken material. The Far right article might be one of them; in fact, besides of a lead that essentially equates the far right with fascism - which is disputable - it contains only one section, on "Etymology", which seems totally unrelated to the lead (or to reality), equating the far right with ultramontanism.

So, both formally and materially, the Wikipedia article on the far right cannot be used as a criterium to evaluate the EDP's political position.

Silvatici4 further argues that

"I am curious as to how the EDP can be described as 'Far Right' when they are part of the 'Alliance for Democracy'".

I must say that I don't see the incompatibility. Of the three other members of Alliance for Democracy (UK), two (Christian Party (UK) and Veritas (political party)) are clearly right-wing parties (the later being even a split from the notoriously far-right party, UKIP). The fourth, Jury Team, promotes "politics without parties", so its affiliation is dubious (though the appeal to qualunquism is obvious). In short, the Alliance for Democracy looks like a front of right to far-right parties.

Then he asks,

"Do you think the citation is a good source?"

To which I must answer, yes, I think so. Quite informed, well structured, written by two recognised researchers. In the case of political parties, it is the kind of source that should be used when the self-description of the party conflicts with its perceptions by the mainstream press or other political parties. In this sence, it is certainly much superior to sources such as newspapers or politicians that oppose the EDP.

And, finally,

"To be a good source don't you think that you should use a source which is judging the EDP with the most recent manifesto?"

Which is fair. So, if such source exists, and reports something different from Michael Bruter and Sarah Harrison's, it should be added - provided it has equivalent, or superior, academic credentials. What I don't think should be done is to take the EDP's words on its most recent manifesto at face value; political parties should never be considered a reliable source about themselves - and their manifestoes are always primary sources. Ninguém (talk) 20:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The EDP consider themselves the equivalent of the SNP, so they say. And Wikipedia classes the SNP as centre-left. They both campaign for nationalism...although one being English nationalism, and the other Scottish. Reading about the EDP would actually give ME the view that they were not at all far-right, and certainly not left. Oh dear... Orphan Wiki 20:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The Bruter and Harrison report states (p.22): "The third face of the British extreme right is the English Democrats. In response to calls for the devolution of power to Scotland and Wales in 1997, Robin Tilbrook reformed the defunct English National Party. The party was re-launched as the English Democrats Party in September 2002." It also states (p.27): "..the BNP and the English Democrats qualify as xenophobic-repressive extreme right parties..." It seems to me that that report is a reliable source - the party's own website is certainly not, in terms of describing itself a certain way, and the individual views and analyses of individual editors are, I'm afraid, original research. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Nationalism is a right-wing impulse. The fact that the EDP compares itself/is compared to the SNP doesn't make the EDP centre-left. The SNP is right-wing on a number of issues relevant to ethnic nationalism. (They used to be known as the "Tartan Tories".) Plaid Cymru is in a similar position, while Sinn Fein has extreme-right antecedents. Irvine22 (talk) 22:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

That's one opinion, original research, and irrelevant to this article - so I hope other editors with different opinions don't take the bait you've helpfully laid out for them. As I said, the EDP's own opinion as to their political position is also pretty much irrelevant. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Irving22, bait people? How could you Ghmyrtle, shame --Snowded ^TALK 09:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:AAGF - with two As! Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

To be clear: I don't dispute that the EDP is a right-wing nationalist party like the SNP and Plaid Cymru. I'm not convinced it has the sort of far-right, anti-Semitic roots of a Sinn Fein. Irvine22 (talk) 14:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Ehh? Plaid Cymru and SNP are not centre-right. They are both centre-left. I've just read the EDP manifest and it doesn't look particularly right-wing to me. It has many left libertarian elements and several green ideology-elements and quite a few socialdemocratic elements. To make a comparison with Danish parties, it closely resembles the Centre Party, the Justice Party, the People's Movement for Justice and Welfare and Borgerligt Centrum. It is definitely a lot more left wing than the danish "Liberal Alliance". I consider EDP to be centrist with a national slant - very very similar to the danish Borgerligt Centrum and the Justice Party (Georgism). The "academic" paper claiming EDP to be extreme right is so flawed, that it is appalling. But I haven't finished writing a commentary on that one, so you'll have to wait. But the lack of sources and the flawed methology should make it clear that the academic paper is extremely unreliable (claiming Veritas is extreme right!? WTF???) Dylansmrjones (talk) 16:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree that Bruter & Harrison is flawed and unreliable. Irvine22 (talk) 16:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The 'far right' label is wrong and I find it quite offensive. Nationalist doesn't mean 'extreme far right'. The source seems very flawed and very biased. English Democrats are not 'xenophobic' at all. The label should be removed. Christian1985 (talk) 18:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the views expressed by Dylansmrjones, Irvine22 and Christian1985 appear to be personal opinions. The cited source comes from a respected academic source - [2] - and should be retained. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

And unfortunately, people's opinions are divided. This party is not your obvious far-right party. It just does not feel right. Maybe it's more complicated than fitting into just one assigned slot. Maybe the position should be removed because this is an unresolved conclusion. Ranking it far-right is putting it in the same league as the BNP, and the two are no-way the same kettle of fish. Readers will be swayed, and we're here to be neutral. If it's not set in stone, then say nothing in that info-box. (That exact section in the infobox is not compulsary anyway). Orphan Wiki 19:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

What reliable source do you have for: "It just does not feel right." ? The reliable source quoted above places it in precisely the same category as the BNP - a "xenophobic-repressive extreme right" party. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Well that comes from reading their website and looking at their manifesto. They don't go anywhere near calling themselves xenophobic and repressive and extreme right, and neither do their supporters on their support page on Facebook sound like BNP fascists. To have such a strong statement of opinion against the group themselves is evidence of two sides to this argument, and by having far-right emblazoned in the infobox, is basically taking one side of the argument. Orphan Wiki 20:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

If we took the views of every party at face value, there would be a lot of "centrist", middle of the road, common sense, anything but extreme parties. Of course we can't take the views of any party about itself, on its own website or in any of its published material, at face value. What we do is take expert opinion, like that in the cited source. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle seems to want to give undue weight to a minor academic paper. We need to see more.Irvine22 (talk) 00:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely, we should find more sources. So long as the sources are independent and reliable. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm a little bit unconvinced by this, too. The first half of the source seems to be given over to discussing how the existing academic literature can't agree on how to define "far right". Given this, why are we assuming that this particular paper is representative of all secondary discussion on the matter? They group the EDP, the BNP and UKIP together under that label, which doesn't seem to reflect the existing differences between the two parties; indeed, our article on UKIP happily calls it "right wing", footnoted to a different but equally reliable source, whilst by the interpretation we're using above we should define it as clearly "far right". One comment in the literature does not a scholarly consensus make, and I'd caution against leaping to conclusions here. Shimgray | talk | 22:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The authors (especially Bruter) are highly respected in the field and at the moment its the only reliable source around. If there are others lets consider them, but for the moment pending any other material it should stand.--Snowded ^TALK 06:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

"Update 2006: Expert warns of more chatroom libel awards | The Guardian, Wednesday March 22, 2006 |

A landmark legal ruling ordering a woman to pay £10,000 in damages for defamatory comments posted on an internet chatroom site could trigger a rush of similar lawsuits, a leading libel lawyer warned today......Although ISPs have paid out for hosting defamatory comments, this case is thought to be the first time an individual has been found to have committed libel on a internet chat site."[3] also note"Although the mail's already been sent and read by all, by repeating the allegation they too are committing the same libel. 'Repetition is no defence' say lawyers. Because it isn't." (Ref. ibid.) Firstly, I am not an English Democrat, or one of their supporters, but the inclusion of this link, striped of its context, appears to be defamatory. This is an experimental methodology and to cite its conclusions in part may leave individual users open to legal action. In the absence of several reliable sources on such a contentious issue, I would contend that the political ideology field ought justly to be left blank for the moment. Orthorhombic, 11:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

When there's only one scholarly source for a point, and when we have legitimate concerns about how we're interpreting that source and about whether it reflects common usage, we're not at all compelled to include the point. The fact that we only have one source should be a warning flag, not a spur to rush ourselves into quoting it! Shimgray | talk | 15:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there is any risk of legal problems by stating that the EDP is "far-right" - since when this is a defamatory term? It is a description of a political position, just like "center-left", "right", or "far-left". Also, under what jurisdiction would it be "defamation" to attribute, even falsely, political positions to a political party? Where I type from, "defamation" can only apply to acts committed against individuals, not to groups; a different definition seems to go against free-speech: can't we say anymore that Labour "abandoned its working class positions", that the SWP "is nothing more than a sectarian cult" or that the Tories "don't really care about the poor" without fear of those parties suing for libel? I very much doubt that. Ninguém (talk) 10:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

English Democrats - English Democratic Party

Ey up,

I'm a tad confused. English Democratic Party is a redirect to this article, but as best I can they are - or may be - two different groups.

English Democratic Party English Democrats

While separate, it does seem the former group has contested elections in the past, which could be cause for confusion. If they are two different groups, should we change the redirect, or at least explain the situation somewhere in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.4.49.46 (talk) 10:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

This makes it clear that the English Democratic Party is not the same as the English Democrats. They are not a registered party - as explained here. I doubt if they are notable enough for their own page. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Certainly not notable for their own page so the redirect should continue to come here, although a brief mention in a hatnote or the article that there is a separate separatist group with the same sort of name may be needed. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Given that they explicitly refer to their separate identity, might it be less confusing to redirect English Democratic Party to this list, where there could be a brief (one sentence) explanation of them, with reference? Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree English Democratic party should be redirected to list of political parties in the UK. I just read it as English democrats and English Democrats party before. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll do that and if it's less clear than now it can be changed back. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Although looking at how unknown this group is, i think there may be a case for it to continue to redirect here provided there is a clear hatnote explaining the difference. Not hard to see people saying democratic rather than democrats when looking for this group. This is certainly the most notable. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

English Democrats Election Results

There should be an English Democrats Results page in the same way as the UKIP Results Page

Here >>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Independence_Party_election_results

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.2.97.151 (talk) 21:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Recent addition by Nickswatman

User:Nickswatman has repeatedly introduced the following paragraph:

The English Democrats have recently seen something of a waxing in membership, These have been heightened by comments from senior British MPs such as Labour's John Prescott who remarked that: "There is no such nationality as English", ex-PM Gordon Brown who referred to: "the Nations & Regions of Britain", PM Dave Cameron who would: “take on the sour Little Englanders…[and] fight them all the way", whilst Foreign Secretary William Hague thought: "English Nationalism is the most dangerous of all forms of nationalism". These comments may indicate British political insecurities in a post imperial age.

referencing the English Democrats Party's own literature. Several editors, including myself, have reverted this, observing the non-neutral nature of the statments and the weakness of using a primary source to support it. Becuase of it's repeated re-introduction, I'm bringing it here to give Nickswat~~son~~man a chance to discuss it and form consensus. Yunshui 雲水 12:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Just commenting first. "The English Democrats have recently seen something of a waxing in membership" - no sources, contrary to WP:RS. "...largely as a result of political inequities within the United Kingdom" - original research, contrary to WP:NOR. "These have been heightened by comments from senior British MPs such as Labour's John Prescott..." etc. - apart from the fact that Prescott is not an MP, "heightened" is WP:SYNTH and it's not clear how that or the other comments are relevant to the EDP. Not encyclopedic, in other words. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Fair point, but the quotes are no more or less 'opinion' than 'Plaids' page which refers to the flooding of a valley in North Wales, or the postwar consensus which is said to have existed, following on from the Labour parties policies in the 1945-1951 governments. Therefore, my post is no less 'History' than anybody elses. The Welsh bias amongst those who have undone my additions perhaps says more about their own opinions than my own - which I have not shared by the way. Oh, and it would be nice if users (see above) could at least spell my id correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickswatman (talk • contribs) 13:36, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

My apologies for that, spelling fixed. I don't know where you get this idea of a "Welsh bias" from - I've never even viewed, much less edited the Plaids page (given the redlink, I'm not even sure which article you're referring to). The issue I have with the above paragraph is that it is unsourced, original research, contrary to the policies and guidelines which goven Wikipedia's content, not that it is "anti-Welsh" (I can't see how it is). Yunshui 雲水 13:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I notice that you have also added the paragraph back to the article, without establishing consensus on the talkpage per WP:BRD. I will not revert it myself (you've dragged me to the edge of 3RR already), although another editor probably will in the near future. I have, however, added it to the report filed against you at Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard/3RR. Yunshui 雲水 13:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) :::I'm pretty sure I've never edited at Plaid Cymru either. One of the first things new editors learn here is to comment on the edit, not the editor. But it would be nice if you could at least sign your messages correctly.Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

By election bias

The article is obviously edited by ED members, who only select a handful of council by elections where the English Democrats score very rarely 2nd or 3rd place, when usually they score last with very low vote figures. As a recent example: English Democrat Result in Dartford 27th September 2012: Dartford Borough Council Castle Ward. 27th September 2012. Frances Moore. 32 votes (last place) 7.21% English Democrat result in Yorkshire. 20 September 2012. SCARBOROUGH Borough Council. Esk Valley ward. Ed SCOTT. 18 votes (last place) 2.0% etc etc. There are hundreds more embarrassing typical lows like this, yet the article instead chooses the very exceptional by elections (only like 1 every 2 years) where the ED's scrape 2nd or 3rd. OrangeGremlin (talk) 20:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Political philosophy

This is a bit redundant as the party has grown steadily less relevant, but these seems to have been a bit of a campaign to take out the sources that mention the EDP as being generally viewed as right wing by the media and replace them with multiple instances of self-promotion where the party claims to be "not left, not right". This is a bit lacking in terms of NPOV.

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/british-pm-vows-to-fight-on-20090606-bz0z.html http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/around-yorkshire/local-stories/mayoral_sensation_as_town_picks_outsider_1_2352133 etc --94.195.129.125 (talk) 03:11, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I feel that since the English Democrats are a single issue Party, we should leave the position blank or change it to big tentBrendanww2 (talk) 20:16, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Except it's not a single issue party as anyone in Doncaster is able to testify! Emeraude (talk) 12:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Monmouthshire (again)

I've reverted the claim that the party can be described as "expansionist". I've seen no reliable sources that claim it to be so. The claim rests on a statement in the party's manifesto here, para.3.25.1, that "The English Democrats consider that the position of Monmouthshire in Wales is anomalous, as historically it had mostly been part of England until recent boundary re-organisation. Accordingly, we would wish to see a county referendum in Monmouthshire as to whether the people of Monmouthshire would wish to be treated as being part of Wales or part of England." I do not think that that call for a local referendum justifies the claim that the party is "expansionist", and certainly does not justify the prominence given to it in edits like this. For those interested, there is an explanation of the historical position of Monmouthshire at Monmouthshire (historic)#Ambiguity over Welsh status. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:42, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Emeraude (talk) 11:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

et moir ----Snowded ^TALK 15:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Are the English Democrats Right Wing?

Some background. When I first found this article it described the EDP as 'Centre'. I found this ridicules so I changed it to Right Wing. So I am guy whomb first described the EDP as 'Right Wing'. It is only later that I decided that this was subjective opinion and was not appropriete tor Wiki. So I left it blank. But someone keeps restoring my mistake, with very little ecidance. Consensus needs to be achived before it can become permanent. Fry2000

The reason why it keeps being restored is because you keep forgetting to include a reason in your edit summary, which makes your edits appear similar to vandalism. I am glad that you have now chosen to engage in conversation, but if you had explained yourself earlier the number of reversions would have been reduced.

I have taken a look at the "Right Wing" claim in the last couple of days and it does look to be an emotive issue. The ED claim on their website to be neither "left" nor "right" but a number of sources (often unreliable source bloggers or publications linked to traditional left-wing politics) refer to it as "right wing". I have to agree with you that the sources supporting the claim were inadequate (a description of the views of one member and the accusations of someone that has fallen out with the party are not the most reliable of sources). However, to resolve this we may need to put an explanation in the article along the lines of "The party is described by a number of sources as right wing, but they refer to themselves as supporting neither a left nor right wing position." Then reference the sentence with the most reliable sources that are available.

I am open to suggestions on alternative ways to resolve this issue. Road Wizard (talk) 20:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The sources are fine. First, if the Deputy leader of the party is described, in The Times, as right-wing, I think that must mean the party is right-wing, dont you? (Unless we are to suppose that the deputy leader of a party does not have the same political stance as the party they are deputy leader of. But isnt that far fetched?) Second, the person who has 'fallen out' with the party was the parties candidate for the 2008 London mayoral election - and not some aggrieved local councillor whos opinions might be considered by the by - I dont think we can discount his view do you? The view of the English democrats own candidate for Mayor of London is that the party is 'too right wing'. And I think he should know better than any of us, shouldnt he? 90.231.2.252 (talk) 21:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It does not necessarily follow that a party as a whole holds the same philosophy as the leader or deputy leader. Take the Labour Party for example, Tony Blair could be described as holding a centre-right philosophy, while his deputy, John Prescott, held a more left wing philosophy. The Labour party as a whole covers a broad spectrum of philosophies, but is generally regarded as left or centre-left.

As the English Democrats claim on their website that "Politically our policies are neither left nor right." the reasoning that because one member is right wing they are all right wing is flawed. If their claim is genuine then it would be possible to find people representing a broad spectrum within their membership. The issue appears to be clouded in that they try to avoid the left-right description while their opponents try to brand them as right wing. If you rely on their own website and say they aren't right wing then you are presenting their point of view and if you say they are right wing then you are presenting the point of view of their rivals. Wikipedia should represent all significant points of view so some acknowledgement of both sides is needed unless you can find a definitive, neutral, reliable source that can resolve the issue.

The problem with the Mayoral candidate source is that it is an opinion. It can support a paragraph in the article saying something like "the candidate for London Mayor withdrew from the election accusing the party of having a secret, right-wing agenda", but it cannot support a blanket claim to the party being right wing. Road Wizard (talk) 23:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

At present there are only 2 sources. Although the EDP deputy leader appears on a list of influential right wingers, the claim is compleatly unjustified, all it says is she supports an English Parliament. The other source is a baffoon. The Right Wing label smacks of attack editing If the sources are not improved upon I will remove it again. Fry2000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fry2000 (talk • contribs) 10:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Hang on, it says this in that Times article: "Although the English Democrats are relatively insignificant, like UKIP they have the ability to split the right of centre vote". So it actually states that they are right or, at least, right of centre does it not? It doesnt say 'strangely for a left wing party they have the ability to split the right of centre vote' does it? They are, clearly, to the right. What's more, here's a source http://www.inlogov.bham.ac.uk/seminars/minor_parties/pdfs/Deacon.pdf which categorizes them as 'Far Right': he's a university professor. Does he know what he's talking about? Or is Fry2000 the expert? 90.231.2.252 (talk) 13:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you both please stop the constant reversions? Let us continue this discussion here for a few days to attempt to find a resolution then edit the article with whatever compromise solution we can agree on. Jumping in and reverting each other all the time benefits nobody as your edits are only lasting a few hours and you are wasting Wikipedia's server resources.

The University source is an improvement on the others put forward so far, but the key problem I see is that the party claims one thing and the other sources claim another. Labeling the party as right wing only presents one point of view, when Wikipedia has a need to represent all relevant points of view.

As a compromise I would suggest we remove the ideology from the infobox and instead create a section about the right wing issue in the body of the article. That way the views of the party and the other sources are explained in a balanced way. Would you both be willing to accept this compromise? If not, can you think of any other way to resolve this dispute? Road Wizard (talk) 17:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Road Wizard. For the record I have not edited the page since this discussion began. Incedently the other guy is being rude, how dose he know wheather or not a university professor of not: I could be for all he knows! Fry2000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fry2000 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

No deal. Wikipedia requires reliable 3rd party sources. The University professor - a reader in Politics - is such a source. He states, quite clearly, that the ED are 'far right'. NOW, if anyone wants to dispute it, they need to provide an independent 3rd party source which states that the ED are NOT right wing. With such a source, we have a debate. Without it, we have none. The info box stays as it is. It is properly sourced. 90.231.2.252 (talk) 18:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and Fry2000, with your spelling and grammar? A university professor? God help that university then! 90.231.2.252 (talk) 18:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Please try to avoid commenting about the abilities and character of other editors. Editors are encouraged to follow the standards of good etiquette as alienating other editors will not help form a consensus. Also, continuing to make impolite comments may put you close to breaching WP:NPA.

Your comment about independent sources, while correct in the majority of cases, does not directly apply in this situation. Self published sources are generally accepted when used carefully on articles about the source itself (see WP:SELFPUB). The fact that the subject of the article disputes the description is sufficient enough to mention the dispute (while at the same time pointing out the viewpoint of the independent sources).

Can you please explain why the "Right Wing" claim must be included in the infobox? While you don't want to make a "deal" you must understand that Wikipedia operates on consensus. Discussion of the issues and finding an acceptable compromise is the only way to resolve this. Road Wizard (talk) 18:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that both editors have been impolite and it's not the best approach to single either of them out. Both have had numerous warnings over it and both should stop it. Also, both are guilty of reverting articles too often and without discussion. All of that said, in this particular case, it also seems to me that the sources are adequate and do indeed demonstrate that the party in question is considered to be right wing by several commentators. Furthermore the point has now been made that someone needs to demonstrate a source which comments that this party is not right wing - I am inclined to agree. I feel it is should be noted that, although consensus is the way Wikipedia operates, there is no need to reach a consensus where sources are found which substantiate only one side of an argument. In such a case, the sources proove the case. Setwisohi (talk) 20:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I refer you to my point above about WP:SELFPUB. Some acknowledgement needs to be made that the party itself disputes that it has a right wing stance. The usual way to handle this is to have a paragraph explaining the broad view that they are right wing (supported by the weight of sources) with a smaller part of the paragraph explaining that the party does not see itself that way (supported by the self published source). If more sources are found for either side then the balance of the section would change to conform with WP:UNDUE, though the dispute will always have to be acknowledged as long as the party itself disputes it. Road Wizard (talk) 20:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:SELFPUB should not be used where the issue is contentious. WP:RELIABLE also makes it explicit that a source must be third party. But I think you and I are both experienced enough editors to not digress into policy? For a resolution of the matter I do think it would be fine to have, in the introduction or in a similarily prominent place, that the party consider themselves to be neither left nor right. But in the infobox, now that sources have been given which support it, it is appropriate to have the label right-wing. If you care to put that into practice, I'll fully support it. Setwisohi (talk) 21:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

You may also wish to consider that I have just had to revert a straight-forward piece of Vandalism to this article by the user Fry2000. Some things are not worth arguing over. Setwisohi (talk) 21:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that it is not worth arguing over, however that does not appear to stop the constant reversions. My only interest in this article is an attempt to prevent this self destructive behaviour (in fact I hadn't even heard of this party until they registered for today's by-election). The only way to resolve a content dispute is to discuss all the issues and form a consensus. Once a consensus forms it is much easier to deal with a rogue editor (1 person reverting another person makes an edit war. 1 person editing against consensus and refusing to discuss the issues is a vandal).

I also agree with you that WP:SELFPUB should not be used for contentious issues. However the fact that they claim not to be right wing isn't contentious. What is contentious is the fact that they are not right wing. It is a subtle difference, but the word "claim" makes the statement an uncontentious fact (if you read back you will notice I have not suggested saying that they are not right wing, just that we should say they claim not to be right wing). If you are happy to include a statement about the claim then there isn't much more to say on the issue.

I am not going to argue the issue of the infobox any further right now, but it may be beneficial to understand where I am coming from. While a consensus cannot override the factual nature of a reliable source, editors do have leeway in how facts are presented in an article. If a compromise can be agreed that will present the facts in a way that is acceptable to all parties then you immediately stop the reversions and vandalism. Is one word in an infobox really that important that it is worth days of corrective editing just to maintain its existence when the issue is already discussed in more detail later in the article? From this discussion and the attitudes of both of the key editors here it appears so. Road Wizard (talk) 22:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I was not vandalising. I was joking, in responce to criticisms of my spelling and grammar. Fry2000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fry2000 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately the defence that "it was just a joke" is not appropriate. Please refrain from making further joke edits as they will only attract more warnings. Regards. Road Wizard (talk) 23:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Response. You spell it with an 's' not a 'c'. 90.231.2.252 (talk) 21:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

reely? Fry2000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fry2000 (talk • contribs) 00:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Another source given we have a edit warrior who seems not to have read this ----Snowded ^TALK 11:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

You certainly have another edit warrior, but it's not me. User:Emeraude's reversion to an unsourced statement with the edit summary “No question” (i.e., "no talk to be had") shows that. Assuming, per wp:agf, that you and User:Emeraude are two different users, you should be at least as concerned about that user. And I doubt that "Hope Not Hate" would count as wp:rs. The best thing is to insert "^{[citation needed]}" after the offending unsourced claim of "right-wing". FivePillarPurist (talk) 13:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Your suggestion that two editors may be one and the same person is unwarranted and a clear breach of Wikipedia protocol. Be that as it may, that the English Democrats are right wing is incontestable and demonstrated by everything they say and everything they do. The only question is how right wing. Obviously, right wing enough for ex-BNP members to join in their droves. Nowhere is there any comment to suggest they are not right wing. However, there are plenty to say they are. Apart from any mentioned previously, here is just a sample:

"Peter Davis’s election as mayor of Doncaster remains the far-right fringe party’s biggest achievement." (Daniel Trilling, "Whatever happened to the English Democrats?", New Statesman, 15 May 2014)

"...serious political commentators now suggest the door is open for the EDs to exploit the supposedly significant gap in the electoral market for an anti-immigration, radical right party." (Ben Quinn, "English Democrats could become 'electorally credible' as BNP decline", The Guardian, 26 September 2011). This article quotes Matthew Goodwin's view that EDs are trying to exploit the implosion of the BNP to create a force as "a radical rightwing party".

"The English Democrats is a rightwing English nationalist party. Its party election broadcast is pretty bizarre." (Robyn Wilder, "The English Democrats Launched A Party Election Broadcast So Terrible No One Believed It Was Real", Buzzfeed, 13 May 2014)

"...the English Democrats, a small rightwing party that has welcomed several former British National Party members who fell out with Nick Griffin." (Gerry Cable, "Workers of England gains trade union rights", Searchlight, 1 September 2013)

"Rival right-wing parties have split some of the traditional BNP vote, with the National Front and the English Democrats fielding candidates." (Jessica Elgot, "British National Party bucks far-right trend in Europe - by losing", Jewish Chronicle, 10 May 2012)

"The Right has nothing to be smug about of course, there's the National Front, The BNP, BDP, Britain First and The English Democrats." (Will Porter, "If You Want a Revolution Don't Listen to the Revolutionaries", Huffington Post, 19 April 2015)

Now, if you have anything that says they are not right wing, please post it and go through the accepted procedure. Emeraude (talk) 16:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The English Democrats are obviously a right wing party in all aspects except perhaps economics; their manifesto policies are comfortably to the right of UKIP. That said, most of the above sources wouldn't be admissible as a reliable source; the trouble with fringe political parties is that reliable sources seldom find them worth reporting on. Dtellett (talk) 17:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Libellous claims added

The English democrats are not "white nationalist". Its a multi-ethnic party. Its also not accurate to describe the ED's as far-right. The party opposes fascism, and has no connection to that.

"Although the English Democrats, founded in 2002 by Robin Tilbrook, a solicitor, is not fascist in origin and describes itself as “civic” (as opposed to ethnic) nationalist, its openness to former BNP members has led the anti-fascist campaign organisation Hope not Hate to list it as a “hate group”." http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/05/whatever-happened-english-democrats

It took on a few BNP members. Big deal? Did you know there are former BNP members that are now Labour councilors etc?EnglishAxe (talk) 13:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Got any third party sources? We don't work from statements from supporters or the organisation itself. ON the basic of what you have provided - the New Statesman being a reliable source - we can label it as a hate group. Talking about libel is a little near the edge as well ----Snowded ^TALK 13:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

It is libel, saying the ED's are "white nationalist". Also note the source provided for this claim does not say this, in fact it states the opposite: "avowedly civic nationalist EDP". What that article is discussing is the electoral alliance the ED's formerly had with the EFP - a completely different political party. EnglishAxe (talk) 13:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Can you explain why you think that is libel? I can think of no way that it could possibly be considered to fall under the law on libel. "Libel" doesn't just mean "saying something about someone that I don't think is justified". The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:10, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

What legitimate source is saying English Democrats are a 'hate group'? Please show. The New stateman just quotes "hope not hate" - this is a far-leftist org that formed from an offshoot of the communist Searchlight, is not a valid/reliable source now is it. Jeeze. ED's have an online manifesto -- what exactly is "hate" or "far-right" in there? No one serious is interested in "Hope not Hate" which just slanders anyone a hate group that isn't communist. Are you aware "Hope not Hate" even call UKIP as a "Hate group"? EnglishAxe (talk) 14:08, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, of course their manifesto doesn't say that it's a hate group: it wouldn't, would it? We work on what independent sources say. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk)

Where are your independent sources showing English Democrats are 'white nationalist'? Please show them. As I've shown above, the source for this claim is false - it actually says the English Dems are not a white nationalist party, but civic nationalist. Calling ED's white nationalist obviously is libelous since they are not. Also where are the valid sources saying ED's are a "hate group"? Hope not hate isn't a proper source, for starters they aren't apolitical -so they are biased.81.97.69.97 (talk) 14:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the label from the infobox. English Democrats' political relationships with extremist organizations deserve more prominent attention, probably in the lede, but the source does not support the claim that the party itself follows a "white nationalist" ideology Dtellett (talk) 09:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Gary Bushell

I wonder if it might be worth mentioning Gary Bushell the journalist, as I believe he is a member of the party? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Witanofnorfolk (talk • contribs) 13:27, 26 January 2007‎ (UTC)

BBC

I removed a sentence alleging that the BBC's coverage of George Galloway, which far exceeded its coverage of the English Democrats (perhaps because Galloway won a seat, and the ED's best result was something like 3.5% in Woolwich!!!) 'confirmed' an institutional left-wing bias in the BBC - this is blatant POV, not to mention a breach of Wikipedia:no original research— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.177.193 (talk • contribs) 14:36, 20 May 2005‎ (UTC)

Fake sources added

Clearly there is a troublemaker or troll here, none of the sources for the English Democrats being "far-right" actually say that, e.g.:

Katherine Tonkiss (2013). Migration and Identity in a Post-National World. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 12. ISBN 978-1-137-30908-2.

- There is no mention of the English Democrats on page 12, nor are the English Democrats described as far-right whatsoever. On the contrary, the ED's are contrasted to the BNP -

"While the BNP emphasized the existence of both an ethnic and a cultural basis of national identity, the English Democrats and UKIP sought to assert only a collective culture as the basis for their identity." page 126.

So who is adding these bogus sources? And why don't people bother to check them? I guess its down to me...EnglishAxe (talk) 22:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

It should be p. 120 and I have corrected the ref. Here is a link to the page in the source. TFD (talk) 13:30, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

In fairness, that's also not a good source for the label; the linked page 120 simply mentions that the book studies the nationalism of three parties, at least one of which (UKIP) is generally not considered far-right by political scientists Dtellett (talk) 14:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on English Democrats. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Far-rightness, and all that.

This issue came up at WP:AN/I because of a COI issue, and I took a look at it from a conflict of interest perspective.

This is a political issue. England has had a number of right-wing parties in recent years including the English Democrats, the British Democratic Party, Britain First, the British National Party, and the National Front (UK), all of which are to the right of the Conservative Party (UK), and none of which seem to have any current elected representatives above the local level.[4][5]. Which ones are considered "far right" seems to depend upon one's political perspective.[6] Several of the parties listed above are further to the right than the English Democrats. Sources seem to generally agree on who's to the right of whom, so the article might be adjusted on that basis to achieve a neutral point of view. Anyway, the POV fork has been deleted, the legal threat editor has been blocked, and normal editing will probably resolve the relative right-wing-ness of all concerned. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 19:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Its all down to references and as you can see there are multiple ones - that tends to be the pattern on majority parties as the supporters try and mitigate the labels. Unless we have some new evidence and citations there is no reason to make changes ----Snowded ^TALK 19:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

It's pretty telling that two of the three supposed book references for the "far right" label do not describe the English Democrats as far right, whilst the Goodwin article (the highest quality source by a mile) classifies them as "radical right" - the same label the author uses elsewhere for the non-far-right UKIP - and explicitly describes how the party faces a potential identity crisis between longstanding members without far right sympathies and ex-BNP entrants. So of four sources supposed to validate the claim that the English Democrats are far right, one supports it and two effectively contradict it, and the other one doesn't mention the party at all except as an index reference. It's also notable that two other reliable sources which described the English Democrats as far right subsequently published retractions [7][8] (though they may also have been subject to legal threats...) It's difficult to source commentary on the political position of the EDs due to them being generally too inconsequential for reliable sources to bother writing them, and some of the highest quality discussion of the party not bothering to classify them at all [9] but I think applying such a contentious classification via such weak sourcing is a violation of NPOV. Simply describing the party as "right wing" - the most longstanding description that was in place when this got locked down around election time - would resolve that. The prominence of ex-supporters of a far right party members is and should be mentioned in the article, but it's not for Wikipedia's voice to make the decision on whether that shifts the party line along the political spectrum or not. Dtellett (talk) 20:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I will point out that the editor (who claims to be an English Democrats party member) who issued legal threats against another editor did, in fact, claim that they took "legal action" against "the national newspapers", later listing those same two links that you gave as retractations. Bullied sources are not reliable sources. LjL (talk) 21:57, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

That was Ste.Morris who is Stephen Morris, Communications Director English Democrats, and who is now indefinitely banned from editing Wikipedia. Another editor pushing the same line is Mooregraham who must be Graham Moore, the ED's candidate at Erith & Thamesmead in the 2015 general election (188 votes, 0.4%) and a member of the ED's National Council. Emeraude (talk) 22:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Think I can see the problem here. Some political commentators like to keep things simple for their readers. They just talk about the left, center and right axis. If one looks at fig. 8 of this political spectrum, one can see that the English Democrats are Center Right but to the south of this axis. To some political journalist wanting to keep things simple, may well refer to the ED as Far Right to differentiate between any other Right (although Radical could serve just as well north or south of the line). This leave me feeling a little bemused as to why the Communications Director of the ED (if User:Ste.Morris is really the same person) has made such a faux pas as to omit any explanation and jump to a legal threat, not this time on a newspaper but an encyclopedia? The mind boggles.</rant> Anyway, we can only go by verifiability. Therefore, it looks like the ED needs a new Communications Director that encourages publications to get it right (no pun intended)-so we have some new (and reliable) verifiable sources. --Aspro (talk) 22:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Well you have multiple fringe parties on the right with a lot of the same membership. The collapse of the BNP meant that there have been numerous startups/takeovers/repurposing of the fragmented far right. Similarly with Trotskyite parties on the far left that have been similarly fractious. If anyone gets round to a formal study then I suspect the far right label would stand. However the latest use of 'fringe' is fine as long as we have material on its origins ----Snowded ^TALK 23:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

The problem with Eysenck's work is that he was a psychologist, not a political scientist. He very usefully pointed out that an individual's political position could be measured in several dimensions, and then proceeded to place political parties and ideologies within that framework. He usefully provided a survey that readers could use to find their own place on his graph - great fun it is too. But it was written in 1957 and it shows. However, the fact remains that Eysenck was not a political scientist, and his scheme does not relate directly to the left-right spectrum. There is a further problem with the use of the term "radical right", as used by Ford and Goodwin, for example in their excellent study of UKIP. This is less to do with political position per se, and more about methods and presentation. "Radical" does not mean "left" by any stretch of the imagination.

So we now have a situation where the Conservative Party is right wing, and the English Democrats who are further to the right are.....er, right wing. Some mistake, surely. Emeraude (talk) 06:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Eysenck's studies are as robust to day, as the day he published them. Politics is rooted and derives from human psychology. Political Science is more of an ideology. Therefore, I can't take your point (?) seriously. Not at all - in any way. The disagreements are mostly within the sphere of political scientists rather than those that study the spectrum of human and societal behavior. Human nature and the desire an' lust to lord over others does not change. Just read the works of Niccolò Machiavelli. --Aspro (talk) 23:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The Conservative Party is classed as centre right by Wikipedia, so the current label accurately positions them to the right of most Conservatives. As our current set of reliable third party sources seem to mostly argue that the extent to which EDs are influenced by far right politics is is open to debate, the most appropriate way is to describe relevant facts and attributed views somewhere in the body of the article. As I understand it the sources do generally agree that the party's platform is only moderately right wing, its membership includes a recent, entrist minority with significant far right links, and the party officially claims that it's strand of nationalism has nothing to do with the far right; nuanced arguments best discussed in further detail in the article rather than crammed into an infobox. Dtellett (talk) 17:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is nor a reliable source unfortunately! "Centre-right" is a misleading term: it does not mean in the cntre of the right wing; it means in the centre, but to the right of it. Emeraude (talk) 21:34, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I think we should not use the field "position in the political spectrum" since it is subjective. But I do not mind describing the party as "far right", since that is the term used for its political family. They are in the tradition of the BUF, NF, BNP and EDL, whereas the Tories and UKIP are not. TFD (talk) 07:12, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

So that means three of us in favour of the long standing 'far right' label? ----Snowded ^TALK 10:31, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Sure. Far right is the term most often used to describe the political tradition in the UK which stretches from the BUF to the NF, BNP, EDL and EDs. And it links them to similar traditions in other countries, such as Golden Dawn and Jobbik. It also distinguishes them from the traditions of other more moderate right-wing parties such as UKIP and the Conservatives. TFD (talk) 22:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Uhm, @Snowded: the "restoring" you did changed my "extreme right", which was taken verbatim from one of the given sources and would roughtly match the agreed-upon "far right" above, into a milder "right wing", and not only that, but you removed the verbatim quotation I had added from the source. I don't think that's useful, as verbatim quotations are often explicitly requested on Wikipedia for verification. LjL (talk) 22:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Happy for extreme if others agreed, ditto the quote. What I did was to take it back to the original stable version pending an agreement here ----Snowded ^TALK 23:01, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Either "extreme" or "far" would be alright with me, but the source does say "extreme" after all, so maybe it would be safer to stick to it. I didn't have a problem with sticking "nationalist" on it either, which the totally-not-COI editor insisted so much about, since after all I doubt they are not nationalists (and it's source, I think). The quote shouldn't really need agreement to be given... LjL (talk) 23:05, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

"Extreme" is a bit too extreme, if you pardon me. While I would accept such a description for the NF, BNP etc, the EDs are not that far from the centre, though its influx of ex-BNP members could see that change; there's insufficient evidenc for that as yet. "Far right", i.e. what we had on here for ages, seems right. Emeraude (talk) 11:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Then again, do we use sources or do we use gut feelings? Just to make sure, do we have a source that spells out "far right"? --LjL (talk) 12:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

If we're going by what sources say, then a single summary of tens of political parties that classifies EDs as "extreme right" probably isn't the source to use, when other high quality sources which actually analyse the party's policies and prospects suggest a more nuanced position. We have a source that says ED's is "sometimes considered far right but.... [its manifesto isn't]"[10], we have a source that classes EDs as "far right" in the headline [11] but also "not fascist in origin" with the general tone being that the party might be becoming far right and of course we have two reliable sources that preferred to publish a "correction" rather than stand behind their previous categorisation of EDs as "far right". Seems easier, and more constructive to leave the infobox with the not-contended-by-reliable-sources classification of the party as being somewhere on the right wing see also [12] and further elaborate the substantial far right links, non-far right policy stance and tendentious claims to being an English SNP in the article. Dtellett (talk) 14:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I won't address your valid points individually but I will only stress that I really do not think we should consider the fact that "two reliable sources" did not "stand behing their previous categorisation" as a sign it was incorrect. In fact, the evidence we have about that change in categorization makes those two sources' new categorization immediately unreliable (we can't rely on it because we have valid reasons to suspect it was extorted). LjL (talk) 15:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Here's a couple of RSs: New Statesman; Janice Turner, The Times; Bloody Nasty People: The Rise of Britain's Far Right, Daniel Trilling. I also note this PCC adjudication, after the Sunday Times described the English Democrats as extremist right-wing. The newspaper withdrew the description extremist. Consequently, the original piece could be used as an RS ref for “right-wing”. Daicaregos (talk) 14:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

We have some evidence that the Sunday Times (and The Economist) was made to retreat their characterizations through legal action, therefore, I believe we should at least mention their previous description and the fact they retreated it. LjL (talk) 14:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

a) The Guardian, 14 Jan 2015, "Support for British far-right groups hits 20-year low" includes EDs as a far right group, reporting on Hope not Hate's report.

b) The Guardian, 22 Oct 2012, "A boycott of the police commissioner elections could let in extremists" includes EDs and reports that "One English Democrats candidate – Steve Uncles, who is standing in Kent – has vowed to criminalise the supply of halal and kosher meat."

c) James Jupp, "Immigration and Race in the British General Election" in Australian Quarterly, Vol. 82, No. 2, (APRIL-JUNE 2010), pp. 32-37, published by Australian Institute of Policy and Science, discusses the EDs under the heading "The Extreme Fringes". Emeraude (talk) 17:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

See The EDL: "[The EDL] may be superseded by a more respectable 'new far right' party, such as the English Democrats (which is also currently accommodating former BNP supporters."[13] That's a current academic source that ties the EDs with the NF, BNP and EDL. The source explains "far right" on pp. 6-7. Re-branding and softening identification with fascism does not remove them from the far right. TFD (talk) 18:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

EDP Banned

Norwich Labour has banned the EDP, the Green Party (Ecology Party) that has several councillors also wants the EDP not to stand in the area. Even though there is PO BOX address there is no EDP members in Norfolk. Lib Dems (Allliance) are against rascism. Norwich Labour have run the city council for decades and control the community so if they ban something it is definately banned. The EDP are crap anyway as you seem to be named after the Eastern Daily Press (www.edp24.co.uk) Norfolks main newspaper. Several of the parties do not like being their vote split including not mentioned parties.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.79.206 (talk • contribs) 02:08, 14 September 2010‎ (UTC)

The English Democrats have not used the abbreviation E.D.P. for at least 10 years. The accepted abbreviations are EngDem or ED. The idea that a competitive political party does not want the English Democrats to "stand" and has "banned" them is a ludicrous statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EnglishPassport (talk • contribs) 00:42, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Removing sourced statements about party composition

@86.152.129.81: if you want to pursue your repeated attempts to remove sourced material, you must show that the sources currently given are not reliable and provide more reliable ones (which a party blog certainly isn't). You must do it here on this talk page, and you can bring the matter to WP:RSN for additional opinions, but you must not continue edit warring about it. LjL (talk) 19:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

The statement that there are "many" BNP members in the leadership of the English Democrats is misleading, and has been deliberately added to try to associate the English Democrats with the BNP (British National Party). The English Democrats is an English Nationalist Party, that has an inclusive membership policy, the BNP (British National Party) was/is a British National Party and at one time had a openly racist membership policy.

There is NO connection between the two political parties.

The 2015-2016 English Democrats National Council can be seen

Here >> https://plus.google.com/+SteveUnclesEnglishDemocrats/posts/fpxVJTjUezC and Here >> http://englishdemocrats.party/our-party/party-structure/

Out of the 17 people on the 2015-2016 National Council, the vast majority are ex-conservatives, only two members are ex-BNP, which in no way can be classed as "many"

Please do not change this back, as the statement that there are "many ex-bnp members" is wrong, and does not reflect the fact the biggest number of ex-members are ex-Conservatives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EnglishPassport (talk • contribs) 00:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Changed back, you have to get agreement to contested changes and you have to provide references to support statements ----Snowded ^TALK 05:42, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

You have Zero evidence to support the statement that "many members are ex-bnp members" - I have already provided links to the composition of the English Democrats 2015-2016 National Council ... please give evidence as to which of these National Council members are ex-BNP ... there are many ex-Conservatives, not ex-BNP, this is a FACT — Preceding unsigned comment added by EnglishPassport (talk • contribs) 09:23, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Guardian is a reliable source. Give us some clear THIRD PARTY references that say otherwise and we can look at a change. Otherwise stop edit warring or you will end up with a block ----Snowded ^TALK 09:34, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 10 December 2015

DENIED

Edit request denied as source is not reliable -- samtar ^whisper 15:48, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

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.

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

The English Democrats welcome defectors from all Political Parties ie Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrats, UKIP and Green - the implication that the English Democrats focus on BNP defectors is a gross and unfair representation of the English Democrats.

EnglishPassport (talk) 15:09, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Oppose inclusion without a reliable source corroborating the claim. LjL (talk) 15:11, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Source ^[1]

Would you like a letter for the National Party Secretary of the English Democrats to confirm the ex-Political make up of the English Democrats National Council ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EnglishPassport (talk • contribs) 15:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

That's not a reliable source, that's a party blog. You've been explained the difference before. Stop wasting everybody's time. LjL (talk) 15:44, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Edit request denied as source is not reliable -- samtar ^whisper 15:46, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Errors with this article

This article claims that the English National Party is "defunct", when this is misleading, as there is a registered political party, called the English National party, that is registered on the Electoral Commission Web site. It does not operate as the officers are current members of the English Democrats.

This article also claims that the "English Constituational Convention" is also defunct - this is also misleading. and untrue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EnglishPassport (talk • contribs) 00:50, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

references please ----Snowded ^TALK 05:41, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Snowded - it is not appropriate as a Welsh Nationalist for you to have anything to do with this Wiki Page - the "internet" is now fully aware of your activities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EnglishPassport (talk • contribs) 10:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

This is the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. An editor's race and politics are irrelevant. What is relevant is whether edits made are NPOV and referenced. Also, do not threaten other editors, whether veiled or not. Daicaregos (talk) 11:43, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Wow, the nerve you must have to say something like that... Don't say it again, though, because it's inane. LjL (talk) 14:18, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Wow, to not understand that an " encyclopaedia " should have some reflection of the truth rather then a politically biased, political slant is simply madness.EnglishPassport (talk) 15:11, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

See WP:TRUTH and feel free to make your own "true" encyclopedia. LjL (talk) 15:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

If possible, this article should be put under permanent semi-protection. GoodDay (talk) 18:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

no apology?

After slandering the English democrats as "far right"/white nationalist with other junk about racism, this stuff was finally removed. Why no apology? And if this site had any deceny it would ban the anti-fascist troll Snowded who has used this site to slander and harass his political opponents for years. If you look at the edit history you will see snowden involved in adding the slanders about English democrats being "far right" and "white nationalist".

A white nationalist party with Winston McKenzie in it, LOL. Pehaps Snowded is an actual parody.PlayingTOMBRAIDER (talk) 16:26, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Make a case supported by third party references and people will listen to you. Indulge in edit warring and creating sock puppets will just get you blocked and the article protected ----Snowded ^TALK 16:32, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on English Democrats. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive to http://www.eastlondonadvertiser.co.uk/raceformayor/mayorELA/story.aspx?brand=ELAOnline&category=voteforme&tBrand=elaonline&tCategory=voteforme&itemid=WeED25%20Apr%202008%2013%3A45%3A29%3A573

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

The changes were useless. I have put it right. Emeraude (talk) 10:19, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Party website as a source

Self-sourcing is OK for uncontroversial facts but most of the citations to the party's website used in this article are to support either contentious facts or spin. For example:

The party's manifesto states, "we need to change immigration policy so that it better reflects the needs and wishes of the English people." A points system for entry to the UK, based on the Canadian and Australian models, is advocated. The party's manifesto also suggests that the country should withdraw from international conventions on asylum and immigration.^[2]

References

^ http://steveunclesenglishdemocrats.org/2015/10/11/english-democrats-201516-national-council/
^ Immigration ("We support a points system for entry to the UK which is based on the Canadian and Australian model. Points should be awarded for, among other things: educational and professional qualification; family links with England; financial resources; the ability to speak English. In other words, entry should be determined by our needs as a society and the ability of newcomers to be absorbed into the prevailing public culture. High priority should be given to creating a peaceful society which is bound together by shared values and perceptions. The wishes, security and interests of the people of England should be the dominant factors in determining asylum and immigration policies for England.'")

This is problematic because it repeats a significant chunk of polemic from the site, and it does so with an appearance of WP:SYN. Text like this should be sourced form reliable independent sources. This is, after all, an extremist group on the political fringe, it's not like the anodyne policy statements of the major parties. Actually I think we should use third-party descriptions of their platform, per WP:RS.

I don't think we should cite anything to the party's website unless it is totally uncontroversial. And that's a high bar given their platform. The name of their leader, perhaps, would be OK (but we have better sources for that). If it's not mentioned other than on their website, then I would argue it should not be in at all. Guy (Help!) 11:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree. There are some cases however where we could cite the website, for example if the reliable secondary source we were using did so. The secondary source would establish the significance and trustworthiness of the passage. But obviously that is not the case here. I do not think that in practice immigration patterns to the UK under an English Democrat government would resemble that of Canada's. The intention is to make them appear moderate. TFD (talk) 12:33, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, yes, but in that case there's no need to because we already have the secondary source. I think it's important to avoid any appearance of legitimising bigots, and the best way to do that is to stick to what other people say about them. Guy (Help!) 12:59, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Your use of the term "bigots" is hardly neutral and I fear this is seriously clouding your judgement. Step back a bit. This party receives minimal coverage in the press and academic papers; you will search in vain for any significant detail of what the party stands for or says from those sources. And, quite possibly, any news coverage will be inaccurate and/or partial. Readers of Wikipedia are entitled to know what the EDP policies and views are and it is for them to decide if the party is a bunch of bigots, not us. So how do our readers get to know that the ED supports an immigration system that they think is like Australia's? (Even if they're wrong.) Frankly, the most reliable (or only) source for what ED says is what ED says, not what someone else says ED says, especially as no one else tells us what ED says. Condemned from their own mouths if you like.

This section begins: "Self-sourcing is OK for uncontroversial facts.... ". Yes indeed. What ED (or the BNP or Adolf Hitler) says is controversial, granted. It is frequently not factual. But what we are dealing with here is totally factual - that they said it. And the unimpeachable source for that is them actually saying it. It doesn't matter how odious or disgusting their views (and there are groups much, much worse than this bunch), the best source for the fact that they hold those views is themselves! Emeraude (talk) 10:50, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Anything the groups website says about themselves, is likely to be self-serving. So, if we want to talk about their policy on immigration, we should absolutely not cite their own statements, which will be spin at best, we should refer to what reliable independent sources say about them. This is not specific to this group, any fringe group will be exactly the same.

Similarly, there is no need to pussyfoot around. See WP:SPADE. And do please note that the only political party in the United Kingdom which I consider to be honest about its agenda and its people, is the Official Monster Raving Loony Party. All the rest can get in the sea, as far as I'm concerned. Guy (Help!) 10:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

You're still missing the point. As an example, the Goodorbad Party website, quoting its manifesto, says: "Our policy is to give every 5 year old a kick in the head." Not nice at all. It is not reported in the papers which concentrate on the party's other manifesto pledges; academics do not pursue research into the Goodorbad Party, it's too small. Nevertheless, that's the party policy. So, in Wikipedia we

a) mention the policy, unsourced

b) mention the policy, sourced to the website and/or manifesto

c) not mention it at all

If a), there will be challenges for sources to be cited and it will end up being deleted. If c) they get away with not even being mentioned, the same end result as a).

Incidentally, I do not share your trust that the Loonies are any more honest that the other parties, but that's another issue. Emeraude (talk) 12:52, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I think we may well be talking at cross purposes. When others describe a party as, say, xenophobic, we don't "balance" that by quoting chunks of self-serving text form the website saying how we're not xenophobic really, honest we aren't. Where there is a conflict between a party's claims and reliable sources' analysis of their validity, we should fall back, as always, on what secondary sources say. We should only use primary sources for uncontested facts. Guy (Help!) 09:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

If reliable sources do not mention something then there is no reason why we should. The policy of {{WP:NOR|no original research]] says that. If readers want to conduct their own original research, then they can go to their website and we even provide a link.

JzG has a point too. We cannot describe them as xenophobic then present the wording of their immigration policy to rebut the general consensus. We need to accept that the authors of reliable sources have read their platform, their constitution, their pamphlets and their leaders speeches, and are familiar with the people who become activists. Using their expert knowledge they can weigh evidence and draw informed conclusions. It may be that the experts are unfair to ED. If so, this article would be unfair too, but it would be consistent with policy.

TFD (talk) 11:03, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Ben Quinn article

The Ben Quinn article from The Guardian does not claim that the ED are "far right". It talks about the "potential" for ED to "exploit the supposedly significant gap in the electoral market for an anti-immigration, radical right party". To claim it describes them as "far right" (words which do not even appear in the article) is WP:SYN. Keri (talk) 12:16, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

The only reason I bothered to read the Quinn article was after Katherine Tonkiss contacted OTRS to "explicitly" refute that her book described the ED as "far right". It raises question marks about the referencing and verification of the whole article, which up until today I had no reason to doubt. Keri (talk) 12:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

@Emeraude:Edit warring as you did here is not helpful. Please explain where in the article Quinn calls the ED a "far right party". Keri (talk) 12:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

That's not edit warring. It's a justified response to being told "the article does not say what you think it does". If you want to set yourself up as the sole arbiter of what an article says you are displaying arrogance of an extreme sort. If you think your interpretation differs from other editors then it's right to set up a discussion, which you have now done, but that is belatedly after the event. Emeraude (talk) 12:48, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

The article simply does not say that which you claim it does. That isn't "setting myself up as the sole arbiter" - that's just being able to read English. When an editor - in this instance, you - has to "interpret" a text to produce a "fact" not otherwise explicit in the text, then that is WP:SYN. Also, repeatedly removing a maintenance tag placed by an editor to flag concerns - note, I did not remove the actual reference, or alter the desciption of the party as "far right" - is edit warring. Keri (talk) 14:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm removing the descriptor "far right" from the article and replacing it with "right wing". Reliable sources (even those selected by editors specifically trying to prove that ED's are far right) do not agree about where on the right wing spectrum EDs sit; ergo Wikipedia should not take a position on such a contentious issue. Especially not when the lede already contains the word "far right" twice to record well-substantiated facts showing the ED's are more willing to work with people on the far right than most. Reliable non primary sources are pretty consistent in suggesting they belong somewhere on the right wing, so we go back to the article as it stood at the 2015 GE.

This discussion has been going on for a long time now and agreement between all editors is unlikely to ever be reached. But continuing to maintain a controversial position based on two sources - neither of them the most detailed discussions of the ED's - having being advised that several others purporting to support that position suggest otherwise, is unambiguously a POV stance. Dtellett (talk) 14:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

~~I have no problem with the party being described as "far right"~~ - that's backed up by the Caramani reference, for example, which immediately preceded the Quinn reference. Following Katherine Tonkiss's complaint that she was being misrepresented, I merely flagged the Quinn reference to show that it doesn't at any point describe the ED as "far right". Keri (talk) 14:34, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I've changed my opinion about this, having now looked at the article history, the associated talk page history, and the sources used - and how they are being used. Keri (talk) 17:35, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

To date, I think my only dog in this fight has been reverting socks of blocked users who regularly return here, I'm not otherwise engaged with the article and have no real interest in the ED. But I know synthesis when I see it. Keri (talk) 14:44, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Caramani is not a bad source per se but it's hardly incontrovertible evidence whether there's a dispute. Trouble is that whilst you've got two reliable sources that describes the ED's as "far right" you've got two equally reliable sources that agreed to publish a correction stating that the ED's are not a far right party, and more detailed reliable sources that stick with calling them "right wing". Previously this dispute was resolved by editors proposing the "far right" classification introducing a whole host of additional sources like Quinn and Tonkiss to suggest the balance of evidence was in their favour. Which closer examination of them proved was actually not the case.

I'm suggesting that reverting to "right wing" is the only way we resolve this that is consistent with all the reliable sources. Dtellett (talk) 15:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I've stopped following this article's struggles for a while, but I hope you aren't claiming that sources conflict merely because the BBC source calls it "right wing" without specifying "far-right", since, surely, "far-right" is a type of "right wing", and I don't see the BBC article explicitly denying they are "far-right" (while other sources explicitly state that). LjL (talk) 16:44, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

The sources need to be checked. It would appear that POV warriors from both sides of the political spectrum have been playing fast and loose with references here. Little sirens should start going off when an author who is being used as a reference complains via OTRS that their work is being misrepresented. Having now read page 12 of Tonkiss's book, I can confirm that the words "far right" and "English Democrats" do not appear anywhere on it. Keri (talk) 17:47, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

@LjL Not really, I'm claiming there's a conflict of sources because the Economist [14] opted to "correct" an earlier statement it made classifying the party as "far right", in addition to the objection of the author of the cited work Keri mentioned. Other well-sourced statements in the article body note that some prominent members left English Democrats because they objected to far right activists joining the party, which is also clearly inconsistent with the party being unambiguously far right. Political classification is always a matter of multiple opinions (there are articles in generally reliable publications explicitly stating that Labour platforms have been variously "hard left" and "right wing" or that UKIP are "far right") so we'd really want reliable sources to show consistency before applying a label the party itself vigorously contests. As you point out, "far right" is a subset of "right wing" anyway so there's no conflict in using the latter term instead. Dtellett (talk) 21:51, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

@Dtellett: from, among other things, previous interactions with English Democrats members, we know pretty well that The Economist didn't "opt" to "correct" their previous statement, but simply covered their ass because they were being sued. I really believe a source stops being reliable for a given fact when their version of that fact changes due to legal threats. WP:Legal threats were also made to Wikipedia editors, but we don't react to them by "opting" to "correct" the article: we react by blocking the ones threatening, and still striving to report facts from sources that aren't coerced into eating their own words. LjL (talk) 23:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

We can speculate as to whether the Economist responded to a polite request or an unconvincing legal threat all we like (and whether they or the Sunday Times would have agreed to publish the same "correction" if the BNP, for example, had objected to being described as "far right" or "extreme"). But I don't think we've got enough sources to make an authoritative judgement on whether it's a right wing populist party with a far right faction or a party characterised by far right ideology. Even the NS article which calls them far right in the subhead describes a more nuanced picture in the article body. Bearing in mind the words "far right" appear twice in other contexts in the opening paragraph, I don't think the article misses anything for erring on the side of the less contentious classifier. Dtellett (talk) 09:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

You might be right, I have no strong opinion; what I do have a strong opinion about is that a source like The Economist can no longer be considered reliable for our purposes after an incident like that. We should, as you say, err on the side of caution, so it's not a matter of "speculation", but a matter of having valid indications that the source may be tainted. Other sources exist, so please let's just discount sources that probably received and heeded legal threats entirely, and use what's left, instead. LjL (talk) 16:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

The Economist is always going to be considered a reliable source and if you would like to run the fools errand of saying it isn't reliable, take it to the RS board and have them review your request. Lipsquid (talk) 18:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I need to point out that the above editor has never edited this talk page or article before, and has recently been reported by me for WP:HOUNDING my contributions in likely retaliation for reverts I made (despite the report becoming stale while other "fans" of mine piled on it). Please take this into consideration when evaluating the situation. LjL (talk) 19:05, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I was only speaking to the reliability of The Economist. I am glad you took this to the reliable sources board. ^[1] It would seem I actually had something substantive to add to the discussion since you heeded my advice. Lipsquid (talk) 19:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

It is a good rule of thumb that if you have to go around telling everybody that you are not far-right, you're probably far-right. A bit like UKIP having to tell the world they are not bigots after each successive story of someone in UKIP exhibiting bigotry. Guy (Help!) 14:37, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

On the Economist retraction

Both the article and the correction were published before the Defamation Act 2013 became law. In the climate of the time, it was easier and vastly less expensive to issue a retraction than to defend a defamation case, because the law was notoriously favourable to plaintiffs and because the legal costs were likely to be enormous. As such, coerced retractions cannot be taken as an indication of anything - and that is pretty much why the law was changed. If the original story had been published after Jan 1 2014, then this might mean something, but it wasn't, so it doesn't. Guy (Help!) 14:44, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_a_retractation_likely_due_to_legal_threats_a_reliable_source.3F

[1] ttp://steveunclesenglishdemocrats.org/2015/10/11/english-democrats-201516-national-council/

[2] Immigration ("We support a points system for entry to the UK which is based on the Canadian and Australian model. Points should be awarded for, among other things: educational and professional qualification; family links with England; financial resources; the ability to speak English. In other words, entry should be determined by our needs as a society and the ability of newcomers to be absorbed into the prevailing public culture. High priority should be given to creating a peaceful society which is bound together by shared values and perceptions. The wishes, security and interests of the people of England should be the dominant factors in determining asylum and immigration policies for England.'")

[3] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_a_retractation_likely_due_to_legal_threats_a_reliable_source.3F

[1]

[2]

[1]