User talk:LutherBlissetts/Archives/2012

WikiProject Romania
--Codrin.B (talk) 06:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

February 2012
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article English Defence League, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. The two sources given at the end of the sentence did not support the view that Ray was a co-founder of the English Defence League. ISTB351 (talk) 02:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Tommy Robinson (English Defence League), you may be blocked from editing. ''Same problem again. The sources refer to Robinson as the founder. Please do not make changes without reference to a reliable source.'' ISTB351 (talk) 03:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You have given me a vandalism warning for an act of good-faith editing which can in no-way be deemed as vandalism: Vandal. You have also characterised my continued attempts to provide a reference that you would accept as 'refusal to BRD'. Suggest you refine your approach it in future. Luther Blissetts 00:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Apologies and thanks for the rather abrupt warning twice in 2 minutes, neither of which I noticed as I was re-reading the article for factual errors at the time. I appreciate the guidance, but you need to give some time for the user to read your guidance and respond appropriately. Both Tommy Robinson and The English Defence League articles are riddled with factual errors, lack of citations for claims, and is, in my opinion and that of other researchers into the European New Right such as myself, in need of a clean-up. Please note, there was never a citation for the pre-edit claim that he was sole-founder.

The addition of the 'co-founder' re. Paul Ray was not meant to be a disruptive edit. I can and will provide reliable sources. Ray is known to be a co-founder of the English Defence League (http://www.radicalism-new-media.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/The_EDL_Britains_New_Far_Right_Social_Movement.pdf, p18; http://barthsnotes.com/2011/12/12/paul-ray-reveals-details-of-2009-edl-planning-meetings/ ), who was later ousted. He was initially given support by the US-based Center for Vigilant Freedom, the co-directors of which include Christine Brim, Chris knowles (aka Aeneas Lavinium), Edward S May (aka Baron Bodissey)(source: The Sunday Times (behind a paywall, reproduction here: http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/news/article/2051/unmasked-wealthy-backers-behind-far-right-league). If none of these sources are acceptable, please let me know and I'll link to the Times (which is behind a paywall, does not cite it's own sources, and is not open for all to view).  LutherBlissetts 03:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I am having trouble asserting that "Tommy Robinson" aka Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, is only a co-founder of EDL and not THE founder. The sources I've provided are as reliable as any other of the sources given re. EDL, and so it must be asked, why is it not acceptable to change his status from founder to co-founder, when that is the truth?
 * Agree, it was slightly abrupt. But I have had to revert your edits again. Pressure groups and blogs do not constitute reliable sources I'm afraid. ISTB351 (talk) 05:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You also appear to be edit warring on Tommy Robinson. Please follow BRD and take it to talk. ISTB351 (talk) 05:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * This is not an edit war on my part. Tommy Robinson is only a co-founder. The original founder is Paul Ray, whose extensive links with the American New Right stretch back to 2006. I have now provided a University research paper which also states that (source: http://www.radicalism-new-media.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/The_EDL_Britains_New_Far_Right_Social_Movement.pdf, p.18). Please note - as one of the independent UK researchers on English Defence League, there's no choice but to use contemporary blogs and online forum articles as reference sources. I also note that the entire article is built using journalism based on those same sources. The sources I initially provided are same sources cited in the academic research. Although I provided the exact same reference as cited by the university researchers in my initial edit, you declared that source unacceptable. After you declared the initial source unacceptable, I added the Bartholomew reference and the Copsey reference, but you still reverted the edit. These citations were good enough for the academic researchers (given the nature of those being studied and the means of their communication with the wider world). Removing the facts of the matter (that Robinson is only a co-founder, rather than THE founder) creates a misleading aura surrounding him and those involved in the emergence of the EDL. Simply, "Robinson" wasn't the driving force initially, and that needs to be reflected in wikipedia's articles.  Lastly, and most importantly, there was absolutely no citation provided in the article as it stood (before my edits) to prove that Robinson was sole-founder. At the very least your reverts ought to have added a 'citation required' to the original claim that Robinson was sole-founder. LutherBlissetts 05:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Can you clarify this - I can't see anything on P.18 of this document that supports your edit. Could you please give us a clear quote from the document cited regarding this issue, so we can settle this once and for all? It seems to me that this somewhat peripheral issue is a distraction from what is actually significant anyway - the links between the ideology of EDL and that of previous far-right groups. Nit-picking over individuals and their affiliations is rather beside the point.... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course. May I remind you that the edit was from "founder" to "co-founder". There is absolutely no "nit-picking over individuals and their affiliations" and I resent (somewhat) the characterisation of this edit as such. To summarise, there has been a change from the implication that "Tommy Robinson" was sole-founder to the fact that he was a co-founder. To that end, please see page 18 of the peer-reviewed academic research from Uni Northants previously referenced, where it clearly discusses other people involved in the co-founding of the EDL. With that knowledge, it's clear that any further insistence that "Tommy Robinson" is the sole-founder of the EDL is wholly inaccurate. Luther Blissetts 07:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you point out where on P. 18 of the document cited it says that anyone either 'founded' or 'co-founded' the EDL? I can't see it. Instead, the article seems to be describing how the EDL emerged out of earlier far-right movements, and out of the 'football hooligan' scene that had for long been associated with it. Whether Yaxley‐Lennon/Robinson was the 'founder' or not is a rather meaningless bit of trivia, as far as I can see, given that fascists were attempting (sometimes successfully) to recruit on football terraces long before he was capable of walking on two feet... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Read from p.15-24. If you're still having trouble with the edit from sole-founder to co-founder, please get back to me. Additionally the edit was NOT from 'founder' to 'not founder' - it was from founder to co-founder (i.e. others involved in founding, not one singular founder). Luther Blissetts 07:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * At this point, I'm rather inclined to say 'so what?', and walk away from this discussion. You seem to have produced evidence that Yaxley‐Lennon/Robinson didn't create the EDL out of thin air. We know that. Why does it matter? Yaxley‐Lennon doesn't seem to think it matters, his opponents don't seem to think it matters, and the vast majority of the population of this benighted planet have the small consolation of never having heard of Yaxley‐Lennon in the first place... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If it doesn't matter to you, then why are you wasting yours and my time. I edited the article in good faith to improve it's factuality. There is nothing more to the edit than that. Luther Blissetts 00:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Formatting articles
As a rather experienced editor here who frequently works with challenged articles, I am devoting considerable time to formatting the May article, which I hope will make it more likely to survive. Please do not revert my edits. Our practice is to link to individuals and organizations only once, at their first mention. (When unambiguous, we use the word "he" instead of the name--but in this particular article because of the many names, some repetition is needed for clarity.) The links to articles that do not yet exist should probably be removed for now unless it is obvious that articles on them can be written; when they have been written, it will easily be possible to link just the first mention. WP uses a minimum of bold face and italics. In particular, we do not bold-face the subject of the article after the first mention, nor do we link back to the same article. We usually do not set off the quotations by indenting, except for one or two key ones in an article. Normally we try not the write the article as a string of quotations, but you did well to use them here: for a subject like this, it is important to have the exact words rather than one's own summary. The format of an investigative report is somewhat different, and does tend to emphasize names, but we're an encyclopedia. I'm also going to try to condense the references. The general principle is to make sure the article looks ordinarily informative, not trying to guide the reader to conclusions by the emphasis. When you come to write articles on the others, as I hope you will, remember  all this.

And I remind you that arguments at Wikipedia are best conducted in a totally dispassionate spirit. Those who see over-involved, generally lose the argument. If I can help you further, just ask at my talk page.  DGG ( talk ) 19:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thankyou for your timely and kind advice regarding how to set out an article. I am not an experienced editor and appreciate your guidance and offer of future help. I have not attempted to guide the reader to any conclusions in the wording. The over-emphasis was because I was unsure how to proceed. The article looks better after your removal of further in-wiki links. I will apply what you have passed on in this and any future articles which relate to my sphere(s) of interest. LutherBlissetts 20:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)