Talk:English Defence League

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 ) 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: 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. . 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 [], 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)

'English & Jewish Defence League'

Are there secondary sources using this name? With nothing but a Companies House primary source, this seems entirely undue in the lede, and of questionable significance at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:48, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

I totally agree. This statement should not be re-added into the article unless reliable secondary sources make note of it and describe it as being significant. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:38, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

If that is how it is registered by Companies House, that surely this its legal full name; EDL can do as working shorthand.Cloptonson (talk) 06:36, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Biased and bullshit

"protecting it" you mean stopping people from changes biased lies? Based on what is the group far right? ~2025-43316-44 (talk) 03:32, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Based on the published reliable sources that Wikipedia bases it's content on. If you would prefer to read an online encyclopaedia that instead based its content on whatever some random bloke from the internet says, go start your own. Meanwhile Wikipedia seems to have no difficulty in attracting readers who seem to prefer our approach. Get over it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:46, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Read wp:or,and wp:soap. Slatersteven (talk) 11:26, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

"inebriated Somali women" - questionable statement (section Organisation and structure, subsection Mobilisation on local issues)

I found this sentence surprising and it is a pity that no news report was cited to support it:

After inebriated Somali women racially assaulted a white woman in Leicester in June 2010, the EDL organised a protest rally there, attributing the attack to the supremacist attitude that Islam supposedly cultivated among its followers.

"inebriated" indicates the women were drunk, however practising Muslims abstain from alchohol. Is there any news report of the incident that explicitly indicates they had consumed alcohol? Did the account in the cited book use this or similar adjectives?Cloptonson (talk) 14:40, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, and people never break the rules. Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 19 April 2026 (UTC)