" 

 == The need for the tags and more work by other editors == 

 This article is unbalanced and is being driven by editors who possess specific viewpoints (on either side). There is little tolerance of a neutral perspective (on either side) with quoted material from generally reliable sources being quoted as a fact instead of the opinion that they actually contain. 

 The point that is being ignored is that everything that has been published about this group is based on POV. The Times, The BBC, The Guardian have each attempted to unscramble this group. Now because someone shouts Right Wing it is being characterised as such, even when it is clear that they are nothing more than a poorly organised bunch of thugs with a single issue, born out of an appalling incident in Luton and which is now acting as a touchstone for all sorts of other agendas. The article needs to confine itself to what is KNOWN and in this case, just because The Times describes it as such, doesn’t make it true.  

 If you want a glaring, although admittedly trivial example of normally reputable sources containing utter garbage, take a look at this. . Almost any “reputable” can be duped.  

 In this article the epithets “political” and “right wing” are not currently justified by the available evidence about this crowd of thugs. At best they deserve a “reported as being” rather than being documented as fact. The obvious manner in which such as rag tag bunch may be infiltrated and high jacked needs to be reported but don’t confuse that with the original ethos of this mob.  

 Prof. Matthew Goodwin, a Government advisor on the far right on BBC Newsnight on 12 October, described EDL as a street based, single issue, grass roots social protest movement opposed to violent, militant Islam. It is not currently political but tensions exist within the organisation and a debate is underway about whether it should stay as a street based protest movement or something more organised and political.  

 This is the only reliable description and needs to be incorporated as a WP:RS. 

 For these reasons I have restored the tags and would really welcome some impartial editors of experience to look at this entire article.   

 :You have not raised any new issue which has not already been discussed.  You should not use tags when you have lost an argument.      

 ::Can you point out where in the article the opinion of the government adviser detailed above, and sourced in the BBC article, has been incorporated? Can you highlight where it has been discussed on the talk page? Can you amplify your concern about not including it and why new material is excluded and discussion prevented because you arrived at a consensus before the new material was presented? What is the issue with leaving the boxes until other editors can join the discussion as I suggested?   

 :::Calm down.  Firstly we have a set of major UK newspapers who describe it as right wing, and that has been the basis of the discussion and resolution. You have countered tht with the BBC iPlayer reference which I cannot access to validate as I am out of the UK at the moment - and the same will be true of many other editors.   New evidence must be capable of validation A groups political nature or status is not related to the ease with which they can be infiltrated, the degree to which they are thugs or their level of rag-tagliness.  If your report of Goodwin's view is correct (and I will listen to it at the weekend) and if it is picked up and reported then the content of this article may need to change.  However at the moment the weight of evidence is that is it is right-wing.      

 ::::I don’t need to calm down as I am neither anxious nor intimidated by you, so please don’t be condescending. I asked you 4 straightforward questions in order to contest your statement that I had not rai