Talk:English Defence League

link redirects to a porn site

The article about the English Defense League

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

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

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

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

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

 Fixed by (& thanks to) Slatersteven. Peaceray (talk) 15:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I am dubious about using web archive for an official website. Slatersteven (talk) 17:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Why's that? I've otherwise clarified the link being an archive using the relevant template to avoid any confusion. [1]. @Peaceray Is Feb 2017 the latest archive available, or is there a later version we could link? CNC (talk) 18:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Well for a start, is it confirmed to be theirs? For second, why do we need an outdated site? Slatersteven (talk) 18:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

It does look like the right archive site. As to whether it should be in the article, there is precedent. Please see my post about Template:Official website#Handling dead links below. Peaceray (talk) 18:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Looks like the official website. [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] CNC (talk) 20:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

See Template:Official website#Handling dead links, which states:

It's possible that a URL no longer references hosted content, or ends up hosting different content than intended. In this case, the {{Official website}} should be replaced with an invocation of {{webarchive}} with a title= parameter of "Official website". For example: {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20051222144340/http://en.wikipedia.org/ |date=2005-12-22 |title=Official website}}.

Peaceray (talk) 18:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Looks like I did good then, didn't even realise that doc existed. CNC (talk) 19:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Resurgence?

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

So any RS say they have had a resurgence? Slatersteven (talk) 10:09, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Kinda unrelated but the stabbings were not done by a migrant and the word for what they did is a riot. 31.185.168.251 (talk) 17:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I made this comment on July 31, before information was let out about the perpetrator supposedly due to UK data laws concerning <18 Y.O. criminals. Yeah, he was born in Wales, but he was a second-generation migrant, (and he was not white) so that was what caused the riot.

About what it was, yes, it was a riot, good suggestion. that is a good term considering the fact that the people there were throwing stuff at the police's riot shield wall. 2A00:23C6:D603:8001:4D45:8070:384E:A276 (talk) 23:52, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

No, it was because he was (not) an illegal immigrant and a Muslim, which he was not). Slatersteven (talk) 10:22, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Biased article

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

In what way, you have to be specific. Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

The name calling is not needed. Hooligans? What does that imply? BeGB11 (talk) 16:56, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea, ask the sources that say that is where they drew some of their support from. Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

It was hard to get any further than the intro. The article’s intent is to persuade the reader. The sources mean nothing unless they are unbiased. Using inflammatory rhetoric is a huge red flag for this article and should be avoided if someone, like myself, wants to know more about the EDL. BeGB11 (talk) 17:25, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

That is not how WP works (read wp:rs), and no source is totally unbiased, but we can (for example) point out how many of its founding members are convicted hooligans. Slatersteven (talk) 17:33, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

"no source is totally unbiased" -Slatersteven, rationalising why his bias is justified. 2001:8003:E144:6F01:E2C3:CFF1:AECF:39BE (talk) 03:39, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

See wp:rs, we go by what RS say, not OUR (even mine) opinions. Slatersteven (talk) 09:50, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

See. WP:BIASED. “ Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.” And the rest including the link. Doug Weller talk 17:54, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Hooligan refers to football hooligans or 'ultras'. The EDL was founded by hooligan groups. 31.185.168.251 (talk) 17:29, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

We should not say it doesn’t exist

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.

---

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

See [12] The chief constable said “ Asked specifically about the presence of members of the English Defence League, she added: "Intelligence research we had, we understand there were people who identify as English Defence League attending here yesterday. I am aware that other factions would say they haven't existed for a number of years, but based on how people were defining themselves on our intelligence picture, that is what we understand." Other sources say it has a presence on social media. The government is talking about proscribing it. Doug Weller talk 19:06, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I suppose we need to find wording that says that officially they disbanded but unofficially they still exist, or that people still identify with them. Saying "was" is probably inaccurate, as for all intents and purposes, they're still active. — Czello ^(music) 19:31, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

It has a private Facebook group created last October with over 500 members. Doug Weller talk 19:34, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Also we have no official source saying they disbanded. We also have Membership and support of the English Defence League. Doug Weller talk 19:37, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

We clearly need to state that people describing themselves as EDL still active, given what sources say. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:49, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed there is no evidence they have disbanded. Slatersteven (talk) 10:23, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I think a note added to the first sentence could be useful here. There is a good article from BBC that could cover this, something along the lines of: "The EDL no longer formally exists, however its ideologies and supporters remain active". [13] Hope not Hate also recently stated "The EDL no longer exists" in resonse to the Southport riots, which should also be taken into consideration. [14] Let's not bury our head in the sand pretending like there aren't reliable sources stating the EDL has disbanded, in some form, as these are just two recent examples but there are plenty more. I also don't think this is a binary between "active" or "inactive" as suggested above. CNC (talk) 16:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Have implemented suggestion per this edit and WP:SILENCE. There are other sources that could be used, but the four currently being used as part of the note should be more than enough here with the need for ref bombing. CNC (talk) 14:20, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I see a few votes for "it's still (in effect) active, Maybe "The English Defence League (EDL) was a far-right, Islamophobic social movement in England. formally an organization and pressure group that employs street demonstrations as its main tactic, the EDL presented itself as a single-issue movement opposed to Islamism and Islamic extremism, although its rhetoric and actions target Islam and Muslims more widely. Founded in 2009, its heyday lasted until 2011, after which it entered a decline". Slatersteven (talk) 14:31, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Do you have sources to contradict the recent reporting from a wealth of RS on it's disbandment? The Liverpool Echo referenced above doesn't do this, it just confirms that EDL supporters still exist, which is what the note states. It should go without saying that previous reporting on it's existence (prior to August) have become outdated. I see ATG's comment above as being relevant, hence the note covers this (without an unnecessarily extended opening paragraph). CNC (talk) 14:43, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Also you might want to check your edit there, as I never changed the phrasing from "is" to "was" per your edit summary suggestion. Ie you probably want to revert from before me and change the wording back to past consensus. CNC (talk) 14:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Mersey side police? [[15]]. Slatersteven (talk) 14:48, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Aside from the obvious WP:PRIMARY sourcing for this, per source "Merseyside Police said they believed supporters of the English Defence League (EDL) were behind the disturbances." It's like saying supporters of the Nazi Party means that the party still exists, whereas it obviously doesn't. A few days later, The Indepedent then reported "The EDL has disbanded but its supporters remain active". [16] Regardless this one source from police doesn't contradict at least 6 reliable secondary sources saying otherwise. CNC (talk) 14:59, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I think what we have is not formal, but an informal continued existence [[17]] which has led the police to blames it. So we need to word in such a way (as I tried to above) to make it clear that as an official organization, it does not exist, but as a social media movement, it does. IN the lede not as a footnote, we can't say it does not exists, when it still exists in some form (and is being blamed for ongoing rioting, people will come here and be told the blaimed org does not exist?). Slatersteven (talk) 15:04, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Maybe something like "The English Defence League (EDL) is a far-right, Islamophobic decentralised network, after formally disbanding as an organisation." That's basically summarising what the note says. With the note, it should help to clarify wtf that means. I agree that saying "was" should be avoided, similar to "is an organisation", that is also no longer accurate. CNC (talk) 15:29, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

The other angle would be something like "The English Defence League (EDL) is a banner for far-right, Islamophobic supporters, after formally disbanding as an organisation." This is similar to wording to other leaderless movements, but to me is a worse first sentence. CNC (talk) 15:31, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I dislike the last part, it read wrong. I am unsure it was ever formally disbanded, rather it just ceased operation (it seems around 2017). Slatersteven (talk) 15:36, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

True, "formally" doesn't need to be in there. Putting a date on it doesn't seem wise as we don't really know when do we? Maybe in hindsight something like the second suggestion is better than the first. Not sure a name that is supported by a decentralised network is in itself a decentralised network, the latter usually implies more structure and organisation. At most, it remains a banner name for supporters of EDL ideologies. CNC (talk) 15:41, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

"The English Defence League (EDL) is a decentralized network of far-right, Islamophobic supporters, that coalesced from a now-defunct political movement". Slatersteven (talk) 15:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Maybe just "emerged" rather than " coalesced" for avoid SYNTH. I don't see any evidence of homogeneous coming together or uniting etc, which also contradicts the decentralised network structure. CNC (talk) 15:51, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Emergerd works. Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia please respect the fact that WP:CONSBUILD is currently underway, therefore there is no good justification for reverting. Please engage is consensus building, not reverting. You otherwise need reliable sources (from August 2024) to justify such edits, otherwise the suggestion above from Slatersteven above remains the current consensus per WP:SILENCE. CNC (talk) 22:04, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Is your reading comprehension lacking? I added references to the section and bothered to put effort into adding quotations explicitly saying that the EDL is defunct as a formal organisation that you apparently didn't bother to read. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:06, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

See also recent Sky News story [18] which states the organisation is now officially considered defunct Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Do you understand how WP:CONSENSUS works? Slatersteven has already reverted such edits, per WP:BRD if not obvious. I'm well aware the organisation is now defunct, I added the original note ffs! CNC (talk) 22:12, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

But your edits completely removed any mention of it being defunct from the lead, how exactly is this an improvement? My edits are basically the same gist as what you and Slatersteven were going for, and what reliable sources actually support. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:17, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Because of BRD, please understand what that means before continuing discussion. Your edits are not "basically the same" but considerably different, and the burden is on your to gain consensus for them. CNC (talk) 22:23, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:BRD is optional, as is said in its opening sentence. I don't care for the was/is dispute (I would prefer "was" because it's more accurate, but I don't feel strongly about it). I also didn't change "is" to "was", that was someone else. Again, what objections do you have to prominently describing the EDL as defunct as a formal organization in the lead section when we have plenty of RS stating as such? Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:27, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Per above, it's not a complete picture for the MOS:FIRST. Granted, neither is saying "is an organisation", as I've already stated. But consensus is key here rather than ram raid editiing. There's a moment where you have to realise that edit warring, especially when you think you're right, isn't the right approach to take. For now, all you've done is remove a highly relevant note to explain the status of EDL, prior to consensus being built. This is basically as WP:DISRUPTIVE as it get's, given you are aware of the current discussion, and haven't reverted yourself. CNC (talk) 22:32, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

All your "note" effectively was was tucking my sentence calling the EDL defunct in a footnote hardly anybody would read, rather than as part of the main lead text where people would read it (I originally placed the text at the end of the lead, but Slatersteven moved it up into the opening paragraph). Given the renewed public interest in the EDL due to the recent riots it makes sense to have text saying that it is defunct in the main body of the lede text. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:40, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

This is pointless justification of edit warring, have opened a new section. CNC (talk) 22:46, 5 August 2024 (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.

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2024

Grammar error: "elites ...whom it alleges control the country". This should be "who", not "whom": "elites WHO control the country, it alleges". You'd say "he controls", not "him controls"; thus "who" not "whom". 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:61F4:7202:FD22:8E5B (talk) 09:14, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

 Already done I can't find it in the article. M.Bitton (talk) 11:09, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: Still needs fixing. Someone rephrased it to "whom it alleged controlled Britain". But the "whom" is still wrong. Thanks. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:C8DF:42D9:F6E8:6DF1 (talk) 17:47, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done M.Bitton (talk) 19:15, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Call it what it is.

They are a terrorist organisation - their actions define terrorism. 2.31.50.164 (talk) 18:10, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

While this shouldn't be read as any apologism for what is going on at the moment (and was going on 10-15 years ago with this group), no government has declared them a terrorist group and doing so would be WP:ADVOCACY and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Compare this to the National Action (UK) which is per the law a terrorist group. Unknown Temptation (talk) 21:54, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Exaclty this is a wp:blp. Slatersteven (talk) 10:27, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Wrong 'purposes'/labels? Bad Sources Referenced Too Often?

I'm new to commenting, and breezed through the WP: areas; just wanted to bring this up:
That being said, I'm wondering if the EDL group itself is so broad/non-specific in what it supports (or condones) that the -isms applied to it are almost polar opposites at times..Either that or 'maybe' the editors aren't fully realizing the concepts of topics like Nativism vs. Nationalism, Nationalism vs Populism, or Fascism vs Nativism?

1st Point:
It appears that while the 'far right' label may be appropriate for the EDL, they don't appear strongly nationalistic; rather they appear to be a 'classic' Nativist (and Populist) group (Just like those in 1800s USA who opposed Chinese immigrants taking working class/menial jobs from Irish; or current USA groups that opposed Illegal Immigrants (again centered around competition for the same class of jobs).

WP itself describes Populism as 'cross spectrum' (IE it can be left/center/right): but that it is highlighted by a 'The People' or working-class vs. 'the elite'. As the 'elite' are strongly perceived (in context) of being higher corp execs, wealthy (I forget the British term for those who "don't work, but live off their wealth/investments"), and politicians.

Ergo, they are not supportive of current British politics (permissive of Muslim immigration, politicians ignoring poor/working classes/youth), so they aren't nationalistic (let alone ultranationalistic). The only 'nationalism' EDL has is not taking much of a stance on topics like Brexit or Scottish Independence (but not taking a stance <> for/against, so again, not nationalistic).

Patriotism, while often nationalistic, is not always so. Scottish people can very patriotic (in regards to 'Scottish culture, identity, society), but it doesn't mean they are necessarily 'nationalistic' (Scotland being a non-sovereign state within the UK (which can be described as a nation/country, but is in fact a Union (much like USA, and US States). As EDL is clearly nativist, and owing to membership being mostly low/working class teens/younger adults and British Football Hooligan groups ; it would seem the nuance here may be warranted.

GWOT era even many western governments or gov. agencies' activities would fall into 'Islamophobic'. While the viewpoint is big foundation of this group, outside of that it appears (based on their loose organization) that it isn't so 'cut and dry' as to the rest: yet the article paints them in a much stronger 'ultranational', quasi- neo-fascist/racist, group; which may not be very accurate.

So, it would seem sections covering this could use cleanup, or editing to better reflect where EDL lands in regards to this?

2nd Point:
Sourcing. As EDL is strongly opposed to Britain's current handling of Muslim immigration (and to lesser extent economic conditions of the low/working class Britain), how well is the WP:Bias being handled here? Looking upon the referenced material, most are research papers from British University professors receiving grants for anti-extremism research, Gov criminal study reports/commissions, or NGO-authored papers (presented to such gov commissions). While normally this would all sound like reliable sources (they themselves being objective/fairly unbiased), the UK gov has viewed EDL as an extremist group since its beginning and treated it as such, even before any of the protests where clashes w/ police or counter-protesters happened. The main idea being that UK gov or gov-funded sources should be seen as having mild-to-strong bias in regards to EDL.

• Copsey: This paper/article was commissioned by Faith Matters (which is either affiliated with or a parent of Tell MAMA/Community Security Trust (CST). Tell MAMA itself being identified as zionist and Islamophobic. Beyond the position of the group behind the paper, the paper has no references; and all links provided in it are broken: so it doesn't lead to a 'full report' with verifiable sources. Looking on web, there were no immediate links to the full paper, only references/links to FaithMatters website (and the unreferenced report there). it would appear to be purely an opinion piece w/o its own sources, and considering who commissioned it, also biased/unreliable on topic of EDL?
• Alessio/Meredith: references EDLs website itself, which may not be bad itself (although If the primary source for a WP particle had been the groups own website I understand that isn't good sourcing.) They also reference Facebook/Youtube (most reputable sources wouldn't this, since these are sources). They further reference Hope Not Hate (Strongly opposed to EDL, and thus quite biased to them), and Copsey several times as well; moreover, Treadwell, J. who's papers appear to be published/presented for British criminology conferences, or groups. While their sources appear to be decent papers, its the referencing of biased or none-reputable sources that would seem to make this a bad reference on the topic?
• Meadowcroft and Morrow: This paper seems better, but it references other articles multiple times from Copsey, Treadwell J., Jackson,L. , thus appearing to be a more biased/unreliable source on topic.
• Pilkington: Despite being a sociology professor, she has received gov grants multiple times for and is member to, or headed several gov commissions tied to law enforcement and fighting 'extremism' in youth groups, etc. (https://research.manchester.ac.uk/en/persons/hilary.pilkington) Since UK gov has always been against Football 'hooliganism' (of which EDL originated), and most organized groups coming from it (such as EDL), Pilkington appears to be biased/not-objective source on EDL. So the high number of references to her work(s) appears she is a base source (for many others referenced), when it should only be secondary or omitted
• Treadwell, J: very much like Pilkington appears to be solely focused on combatting crime, and his papers appear to be biased towards supporting UK anti-crime commissions/operations (and the groups they are against). again, like Pilkington he is referenced (or a co-author) many times, which make the article sound less neutral.
• Kassimeris and Jackson L: Both are sources that have well composed articles/papers, but heavily referencing EDL's website, Copsey, Treadwell, or each other (while co-authoring some).

So should these be viewed as 'reliable' sources on the topic? Take away this small group of authors (who's papers reference papers of others in the group frequently; making their papers' sources seem 'lengthy' to improve credibility, distract from this bias), and once you look at the remaining referenced papers/articles these sources use: the bias can be quite strong to their works: especially subsequent papers (after their initial relating to the topic).

I know that WP has an extensive list of Media sources (and whether they're reliable sources for political matters owing to politics always being heated ); trying to understand where 'the line' is for when sources like these go from 'very reliable'/'generally reliable' to lower tiers WHEN their articles/papers are only one-sided (and/or strongly reference one side) to a topic (in this case the EDL, and what kind of group they are). These are professors/NGOs but NOT media outlets, so it appears this is either overlooked or gets a 'pass' as acceptable despite being in the same strain of 'bias/unreliability' as those media outlets that don't rank high.

Note: do we need to provide links to WP articles/sections itself for talk area like this? All the information I got was on the main EDL page, its references, or related articles (and their references, like in case of Nativism, etc.). Being new to WP's edit/policies, I wasn't going to edit anything myself, anytime soon; just felt these points needed to be mentioned. 72.131.34.32 (talk) 19:29, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes they are RS. Slatersteven (talk) 20:01, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Slatersteven, these all constitute Reliable Sources and you would be hard-pressed to find better sources available. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

MOS:FIRST

So for now we have as the best proposal: "The English Defence League (EDL) is a decentralized network of far-right, Islamophobic supporters, that emerged from a now-defunct political movement" as suggested above by Slatersteven and myself. Any objections to this change? CNC (talk) 22:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

This is blatantly WP:original research and is supported by none of the recent reliable sources discussing the EDL, which say it is defunct. decentralized network refers to the British far-right generally, organising via social-media, Telegram, etc, and it is clearly inappropriate to label this diffuse grouping (as discussed in [19]) as the "English Defence League" when no reliable sources actually do this (even if some police groups have mistakenly done so), and it is highly different from the highly organised historical late 2000s-early 2010s organisation that this article is about. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:56, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for engaging in WP:CONSBUILD, welcome back. In order to provide a recent list of used/referenced sources regarding where the EDL disbandment, or lack of, please see: [20][21][22][23][24][25] CNC (talk) 23:06, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Joe Mulhall, the head of Head of Hope not Hate says in a recent article in The Guardian: Several incorrect narratives have emerged as these shocking events have unfolded across England. Some initially misattributed the disturbances to the English Defence League (EDL) – an outfit that ceased operating years ago – but this wave of demonstrations reflects the increasingly decentralised nature of the current far right. While activists affiliated with traditional far-right organisations have been involved, most of these protests were planned organically, often by local people, who are plugged into decentralised far-right networks online. [26]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:04, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Very first source there says Jacob Davey, director of policy and research at the Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD), said: “People have been naming the EDL [English Defence League] as key figures when the EDL actually has ceased to function as a movement.” BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:44, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @Midnightblueowl: who took this article to GA status. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:05, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I don't think that the proposed wording is a good idea in this particular case, as I don't think it is backed up by the reliable sources. I also think that the significant expansion of the opening paragraph of the lead has been a mistake; although fairly well worded, it is definitely WP:RECENTISM and does not improve the structure of the lead. It seems apparent from the sources that the EDL as an organisation is defunct. The article should make that clear. I would propose the following opening wording: "The English Defence League (EDL) was a far-right, Islamophobic organisation that operated in England between 2009 and the mid-to-late 2010s." Then, at an appropriate juncture at the end of the second paragraph (which offers a history of the group), we can mention, briefly, the ongoing influence on events like the 2024 rioting. That way we address current events without giving them undue levels of attention. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:13, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I think we need to put up front something relevant to what the readers are reading about elsewhere. Slatersteven (talk) 10:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I can appreciate that viewpoint, but it is still WP:RECENTISM. This is not a news website. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:35, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

True, but this is also not new, its just that recently there has been an upsurge [[27]], its clear that the EDL (as an online presence) has continued, and we need to say this in the first line, the orgnaisdati9on has gone the ideology and violence never went away. Slatersteven (talk) 10:44, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that a few small online groups who still use the EDL as some sort of self-identification really merit inclusion in the opening sentence. If their existence can be supported in RS then that would probably be worth mentioning in the main body of the article but I'm not sure it's even worth including in the lead, let alone the opening sentence. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:30, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

In the body we talk about it. One question, when did they officially disband? Slatersteven (talk) 11:38, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm struggling to find any source that gives a clear date. I think the problem is that it never officially disbanded; it just fizzled out as a result of declining members and general inactivity. Does anyone know of any high-quality RS that deal in more detail with its demise? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

And now seems to be back in action (well it's "SUPPORTERS"). As it never officially disbanded and (in some form) still seems to be active, we need to make it clear that it (in some form) is still active, in the first line of the lede. Slatersteven (talk) 10:03, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

If some people describe themselves on the internet as supporters of the Nazi Party, does this mean that the Nazi Party is still active? I would argue no. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I would support MBO's proposal to move the section down. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:46, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I object. The organization does not exist, regardless of if people still call themselves members or if people accuse the organization of being involved in the riots. There is no such as an English Defense League in 2024. Perhaps a separate article titled English Defense League remnants could be in order for this subject, in a similar vein to that of FARC dissidents. AmericanBaath (talk) 12:50, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

It doesn’t exist

The EDL disbanded back in 2014 and has not had a following since. So where you say about U.K. riots in 2024 is untrue.The EDL name was banded about by the government and mainstream media. 2A00:23EE:2288:2814:E084:A3DD:791A:B140 (talk) 23:11, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Defunct organisation

Reliable sources state that the EDL is defunct. Recent news coverage earlier this month in August 2024 about some rioters being supporters of the EDL does not confirm that the organisation still exists. Some rioters might support a defunct organisation but they are not members of a current functioning organisation, as BBC News Online and other sources state the organisation no longer exists. I feel that Boscaswell was correct regarding tenses in his edit on 28 August 2024, but Boscaswell's edit was reverted. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 23:31, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I've reverted the revert. It's clear that the early news coverage was in error and that the EDL no longer exists in any meaningful way. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Hemiauchenia. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 23:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

And thank you, both Kind Tennis Fan and Hemiauchenia. All the very best to the both of you. Boscaswell talk 00:03, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Just noting Boscastle community banned.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Propose_community_ban} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 16:51, 3 September 2024 (UTC)