Talk:English Defence League

Decided to stop the exercise
Hi. I have decided not to continue with this exercise. The main reason is that, although I am responding to the suggestion of another editor in going about it this way, it gives the impression that it is I who am demanding this level of time and attention, and it's affecting the neutrality with which other edits are being addressed. Essentially, this discussion is making it hard for my other edits to be taken at face value. I also don't like arguing but love grammatical discourse. Sadly, the former has become regular and the latter is not occurring at all (or at least not in grammatical language). I believe that I was mistaken as having an agenda which I didn't have, but also accept that I didn't handle that as well as I could have, and demonstrated behaviours which I hadn't done prior to this and don't want to after it.

I do think there are a few issues with the tone of this article, and there are certainly grammatical improvements to be made. The nature of Wikipedia, however, and perhaps rightly, makes it difficult for a single editor to accomplish both of these tasks. And I shouldn't have attempted both, as it resulted in neither being as simple as it should have been. And that's my fault.

I would ask that this whole discussion be archived.

Thanks to Midnightblueowl, particularly, for being very reasonable. I'll scuttle off to less controversial articles. Peace.

NEDOCHAN (talk) 09:38, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Links to Zionism
The EDL has taken a very strong Zionist position with flags of Israel present at EDL marches and slogans such as "we support Israel". The EDL has also been backed by prominent Zionist figures such as Shillberg, Horowitz and Rosenwald. Tommy Robinson has made inaccurate revisionist history videos and statements on the situation of Palestinians, blaming their situation solely on Arabs and removing any blame from Israel or Zionism. A general hatred of immigrants, Muslims and Arabs, Zionist backing, or a combination of both, seems to be culturing a strong Zionist and anti-Palestinian position within the EDL. Strong backing from Zionist sponsors may explain the EDLs support for Jews and links to far right Zionist political groups - typically unusual among far right white nationalist groups, it may also partially explain support for Islamophobia.

I believe that Zionism should be added under the purpose of the EDL and a section on this and on Zionist backers could be added to the information.

"Tommy Robinson visits Palestinian Arab 'refugee' camp" (Leah Rosenberg, March 2019. https://israelunwired.com/tommy-robinson-visits-palestinian-arab-refugee-camp/ )

5.69.67.194 (talk) 06:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree, the enemy of my enemy mentality does not mean (and I think there is some evidence they are not) they are Zionist. Also (at least in the UK, many of our far right parties have (in the last 10 years or so) started to make common cause with Zionists.Slatersteven (talk) 08:47, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Slatersteven, we don't need a whole section on the EDL's links with Zionism in the article. We already mention that the EDL have flown Israeli flags and sought to cultivate links with Jewish groups in the article. However, this is not an issue that the WP:Reliable Sources written by political scientists and other academics stress in any depth, and the claim that Zionism is a strong part of the EDL's ideology probably constitutes WP:Original Research on the part of the IP. Moreover, I'm not convinced that such a claim is actually true; at the very least, it's debatable. Professing support for Israel and the Jewish community may be more a reflection of the EDL's desire to shake off the accusations of anti-Semitism which dog the entire British far-right than anything else. In this sense, it might be more tactical than ideological. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:00, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Well it's not just about "the enemy of my enemy must be my friend" speculation, but the EDL has openly declared that it is Zionist and Tommy Robinson openly declared he is fiercely Zionist. Stating that if a war broke out he'd go to fight for Israel and stating "f**k Palestine". Which is a very clear political position, making Zionism one of the main declared ideologies of the party's leadership: https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20190215-far-right-tommy-robinson-declares-himself-a-zionist-in-leaked-video/

He in this video is wearing an "I am a Zionist" button and he said he is a Zionist https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6liK7-3DGk&bpctr=1562792249

He has made his Zionist position 100% clear.

Here the EDL openly confront pro-Palestinian protesters, making their political stance clear and going out of their way to be on the streets demonstrating against Palestine https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/sep/13/english-defence-league-protest-palestinian

The EDL is/was aggressively funded by Zionist lobbyists. So it may be the case that the EDL wasn't meant to be Zionist starting off but took on that spin due to heavy Zionist funding, or it may be that the EDL started off pro-Zionist and therefore was backed by Zionists. Either way the EDL presents a fiercely pro-Israel, pro-Zionist (which is different to pro-jewish and may be different to pro-Israel) and anti-Palestinian view and has since its conception.

So it's more than just a minor thing, it's a huge defining aspect of the EDL, especially given how politically important a stance on Zionism is in the current political climate: It can influence amount of financial backing and media support and where the two come from, it can influence number of votes received. Can you imagine Labour or Conservative confronting a pro-Palestinian demonstration in a counter demonstration? It's a very politically significant stance to display. http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_dEMVONHYexw/TQE9CpDnAVI/AAAAAAAAArk/2iPmFmk0n1M/s1600/EDLplacard.jpg http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-v7dPmI0JGxQ/T5hRz-QbKgI/AAAAAAAAZmo/dE1oHuLJ8us/s1600/EDL+true+English+will+never+abandon+Israel.jpg 5.69.67.194 (talk) 20:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * None of which changes the basic point, we know they say they are Zionist. What we need is independent third party sources saying it is a significant part of their ideology, and not just Islamophobia in different clothes. Also My Yaxley-Lennon is not longer part of the EDL.Slatersteven (talk) 09:20, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

"Islamophobic" vs. "Counter-jihad"
Last year, at Talk:English Defence League/Archive 8, the consensus was to use the term "Islamophobic" and the term "counter-jihad" was rejected. Several months ago, at Talk:English Defence League/GA1, User:Midnightblueowl proposed changing "Islamophobic" to "counter-jihad" and went through with the change without consensus. The only other user involved in that discussion, User:David Fuchs, suggested that it was "better off leaving it out of that sentence" (i.e. neither "counter-jihad" or "Islamophobic"). Earlier this year, at Talk:English Defence League/Archive 9, Midnightblueowl had also proposed "counter-jihad", which was rejected by other users at the time, such as User:NEDOCHAN who explained why the term "counter-jihad" is WP:POV (for example, the term is clearly biased towards EDL's own position). The term "Islamophobic" is what most reliable sources describe the EDL as, and the term most casual readers would be familiar with, so "Islamophobic" would be the most appropriate term. But for now, I think it would be better to remove both "counter-jihad" and "Islamophobic" until more users provide input on this matter and a clear consensus is established. Maestro2016 (talk) 02:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I prefer "counter-jihad." Removing it leaves the first sentence of the article stating, "The English Defence League (EDL) is a far-right organisation in the United Kingdom", which is vague and completely unhelpful to readers. Obviously there are different types of "far-right organisation", so that sentence leaves the reader with no idea exactly what sort of organisation the EDL is. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 02:08, 3 December 2019 (UTC)


 * "Counter-jihad" is a WP:POV term. It's a term EDL uses to describe themselves, not what most reliable sources describe them as (i.e. "Islamophobic"). That would be like using the term "socialist" to describe Nazism. Please see previous discussions on this matter at Talk:English Defence League/Archive 8 and Talk:English Defence League/Archive 9. The general consensus was "Islamophobic", not "counter-jihad". You do not have consensus to use the term "counter-jihad". Please seek consensus before adding back the term "counter-jihad". Maestro2016 (talk) 02:11, 3 December 2019 (UTC)


 * BTW, the second sentence already explains to the user what the group's ideology is: "A social movement and pressure group that employs street demonstrations as its main tactic, the EDL presents itself as a single-issue movement opposed to Islamism and Islamic extremism, although its rhetoric and actions target Islam and Muslims more widely." Like user User:David Fuchs said at Talk:English Defence League/GA1: "I think you're better off leaving it out of that sentence and letting the much clearer second sentence clarify the nature of their activism." Maestro2016 (talk) 02:14, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * An incorrect comparison. The Nazis never identified themselves simply as "socialist" without qualification. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 02:15, 3 December 2019 (UTC)


 * "Nazism" literally means "National Socialism". The Nazism article doesn't open with "Nazism is a far-right, national socialist group" in the lead sentence. That's the equivalent of opening this article by describing EDL using its own self-designation ("counter-jihad") in the lead sentence. It shouldn't open with what they describe themselves as, but what most reliable sources describe them as (i.e. "Islamophobic"). Maestro2016 (talk) 02:22, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, please stop trying to shift the burden of proof. I already showed you previous discussions from 2018 (Talk:English Defence League/Archive 8) and early 2019 (Talk:English Defence League/Archive 9) where the general consensus was "Islamophobic" and where "counter-jihad" was rejected. If you want to use "counter-jihad", a term that has no consensus behind it, then I'm afraid the burden of proof is on you to cancel out the previous consensus with a new consensus. Maestro2016 (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I am aware of the derivation of the term "Nazism". The term's derivation does not contradict my point, it supports it. Nazism obviously doesn't begin with "Nazism is a far-right, national socialist group", because, as the article explains, "Nazism" is not a "group", it is an ideology and set of practices. The description of the EDL as a counter-jihad group is accurate, much more specific than "Islamophobic", and should be restored. The comparison you make with your hypothetical wording at Nazism is flawed. As I said when I first reverted your change, old discussions do not establish present consensus. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 02:28, 3 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Here is another analogy mentioned at Talk:English Defence League/Archive 9 in early 2019, by : "The Democratic republic of North Korea is not Democratic, Most (all?) racists never say they are racist, they do not hate people who are Jewish or black according to them. We go with what third party RS say, and they say it is Islamophobic." And like I said, there is no present consensus favouring "counter-jihad". The change was made entirely without consensus. Again, the point still stands that the consensus is "Islamophobic", not "counter-jihad". If you disagree with the previous consensus, then the burden lies with you to establish a new consensus. Maestro2016 (talk) 02:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No but Nazi Party does, in the same way, we are describing an organisation here, not a political philosophy.Slatersteven (talk) 10:04, 3 December 2019 (UTC)


 * TBH what does "counter-Jihad" mean? Like what is the Jihad that they are countering? The immigrants? It doesnt make much sense to me. I would say that Islamophobia is the most accurate term here and most sources use Islamophobia. I only know this group from this video which shows that this group is anti-immigrants.--SharabSalam (talk) 02:29, 3 December 2019 (UTC)


 * We tend to go with what RS say, and that is the EDL is Islamophobic.Slatersteven (talk) 10:04, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That point was already noted in the lead prior to the recent edits ("Political scientists and other commentators have characterised this Islamophobic stance as culturally racist"). Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 10:12, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * So? Do nay say it is not Islamophobic?Slatersteven (talk) 10:20, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Since the lead already noted clearly that the organisations stance is "Islamophobic" adding the word "Islamophobic" to the first sentence of the lead serves little purpose. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 10:22, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No more then saying the Nazi party was far right. We can remove the caveat about "Political scientists and other commentators have characterized this Islamophobic stance as culturally racist" as we do not need it. It is only there because of this kind of question "Ahh but are they Islamophobic?". RS say they are, so we can without the need to justify it in the lede.Slatersteven (talk) 10:37, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The "caveat" obviously does more than simply describe the EDL as "Islamophobic", and there is no reason to remove it. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 22:28, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

"Counter-jihad" refers to a specific (international) ideological movement, one which the EDL belongs to. The counter-jihad movement is, by most reckonings, Islamophobic. So it isn't wrong to say that the EDL is Islamophobic in the opening sentence. But is it actually the best way of accurately presenting what the EDL is? The Nazi Party, for example, were committed to the ideology of Nazism, and Nazism was anti-Semitic, but we would not open the article on the Nazi Party by saying "was a far-right, anti-Semitic group". We would be more specific than that. If you look at the GA-rated National Front (UK) article, you will see that we refer to it as "a far-right, fascist" group; not "a far-right, anti-Semitic" group, even though it is undeniably anti-Semitic. For the purposes of actually keeping things really clear and accurate, I think it is very important that we open this article with "far-right, counter-jihad". However, I would not be averse to then using the term "Islamophobic" in one of the subsequent sentences within the opening paragraph. That, I think, would ensure that we retain the sort of precision accuracy that this article needs while at the same time not hiding away from the term "Islamophobic". Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the difference is it is possible to be anti Jihadist (well Islamic terrorism) and not be Islamophobic. It is hard to see how you could be Nazi and not antisemitic.Slatersteven (talk) 16:36, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that there is some confusion here, Slatersteven. Despite its name, the "counter-jihad" movement is not simply opposed to Salafi jihadism, it's pretty much against Islam full stop, or at least Islam's presence in the West. Unfortunately the counter-jihad article is not presently in a very good state but hopefully it can be improved in the near future so that such misconceptions do not continue. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:20, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , yea I noticed that misleading term. Although counter-Jihad is described as a movement in reliable sources, a movement that it is anti-Muslim. It is not an ideology/thought like anti-Muslim so I think anti-Muslim is better as a description.--SharabSalam (talk) SharabSalam (talk) 21:24, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No there is no confusion, I was not saying they were not anti-Muslim, I was just responding to the specific claim its like Nazism.Slatersteven (talk) 10:11, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , Jihad is not terrorism and Jihadists are not terrorists.--SharabSalam (talk) 21:27, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * True, but it is extremist Islamism that groups like the EDL portray themselves as opposing (whilst kicking in anyone who is brown skinned and wears a turban). The point is that their "counter-jihadism" is so unfocused and ignorant that it crosses over and them firmly puts its foot down into Islamophobia and beyond into general racism.Slatersteven (talk) 10:11, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Jihad is the Arabic word for struggle. Counter-jihad would therefore mean opposition to a struggle. It would be more accurate to describe the EDL as a jihad group where their jihad is against Islam. Maybe anti-islamist would be a better description. I note that en editor said the term far right is unhelpful, but it is in fact helpful in placing the EDL within a specific British political tradition that includes the BUF, NF, BNP, EDL and BF. TFD (talk) 16:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)


 * "Counter-jihad" is a confusing ambiguous term. It could easily be confused with actual counter-terrorism against "Jihadist" terrorist groups, which the EDL has nothing to do with. The National Front analogy also doesn't make sense, as they were not exclusively anti-Jewish, but were against all non-white migrants, particularly Asians (i.e. "Paki-bashing") and blacks. The EDL, in contrast, is almost exclusively anti-Muslim. So describing them as "Islamophobic" (or "anti-Muslim") makes a lot more sense than "counter-jihad". Maestro2016 (talk) 18:29, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

"Islamophobia" is flame rhetoric, as Jihad, or counter Jihad.
Despite consensus or what have you so called "controversy", there is absolutely nothing wrong with protesting islamism. The Article had accusatory rhetoric, and not encyclopedic, or academic. I invited myself to reword the accusatory, flaming rhetoric, to a more neutral one. The of the article also needs fixing, it sounds like it was written by an angry editor Biomax20 (talk) 06:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Freeknowledgecreator Please explain why i should undergo any process or "Consensus" by anyone else regarding an edit that removed words such as "islamophobic" and obvious rhetoric that was politically motivated to demonize, and flame the subject, rather than be academic about the subject, following factual principles, even though it is the "EDL" or any other group. How can anyone brand a large number of people within or without the EDL as "islamophobic", a modern term, and a very political one. Biomax20 (talk) 06:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , reliable sources call this group "far-right" "anti-Muslim". We rely on what reliable sources say. You might find this essay (WP:YESBIAS) helpful.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 07:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@SharabSalam Do those sources also mention the words "islamophobia" ? Is this source Aljazeera news network perhaps? :) - I see you reverted the edit again. I see our brothers have little shame nowadays. The muslim brotherhood seems very proactive in the UK. Im sure your "sources" would agree. Biomax20 (talk) 07:39, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@SharabSalam Perhaps your reliable sources is Zakir Naik. :)) and his gulf sponsors. Biomax20 (talk) 07:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , you can find all the sources in English_Defence_League. Aljazeera is considered a reliable source in Wikipedia. I dont know who is Zakir Naik and I am assuming you are making fun of me. I don't have much patience, if you continue making such comments e.g "I see our brothers have little shame nowadays", you will find yourself reported.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 07:57, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You can be all of them at once, and we go with what RS say, and they say "islamophobic", as they beat you up for just looking Muslim.Slatersteven (talk) 08:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Islamophobic https://www.hopenothate.org.uk/research/investigations/tommy-robinson-far-right-islamophobic-extremist/ https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/articles/news/british-far-right-activist-tommy-robinson-stand-eu-elections https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/dec/07/tommy-robinson-global-support-brexit-march https://www.dw.com/en/british-anti-islam-activist-tommy-robinson-freed-from-prison/a-44916274

@SharabSalam @Slatersteven Source 1: speaks of 1 man. Source 2, speaks of 1 man. Source 3, Speaks of 1 man. Source 4, Also speaks of 1 man. Generalizing and demonizing as "islamophobic" sure sounds academic and fitting under encyclopedic. I dare say, it echoes politically motivated edits. I heard Tommy Robinsons arguments, and they were all based on resisting a politically motivated growth of a islamic community within the UK. whats wrong with that? Biomax20 (talk) 08:14, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You are not an RS (read wp:or) we go with what RS say, not what we know to be true.Slatersteven (talk) 08:20, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Edit about terrorism
This edit was reverted and the comment was, "reverting well-meaning addition; this is not necessarily the sort of material we need in the lead." So I put it back well away from the lead. Please explain why it was reverted a second time. Proxima Centauri (talk) 15:44, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Well (for a start} read wp:lede, it is a summary of the article, and this does not appear to be a summary of anything in the article. Secondly, its one poll so may fail, wp:undue. Thirdly, it may fail wp:rs (especially given its origin is the Daily Mail). I can see a number of issues with this, but the lede is not the place for it anyway.Slatersteven (talk) 16:30, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree with Steven, this clearly isn't lead material. In fact for the reasons he listed, I'm not sure it has any place in the article at all. — Czello 17:04, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I concur. Emeraude (talk) 07:54, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the source (Counter Extremism Project, a neo-conservative NGO) fails rs. If so, even if we can reliably source the statement, we have to establish its weight in reliable sources. Also, when we quote raw data, we need explanation. Could it be for example that there was a particular reason for the poll results or has it subsequently changed. TFD (talk) 12:00, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Why is this article locked?!
This article makes serious accusations about violence without citations. 2604:3D08:5B80:B70:4FAE:C089:E195:43E7 (talk) 14:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Give one example, ohh and to answer your question, to prevent vandalism. Slatersteven (talk) 14:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The entire section on violence is well sourced. — Czello (music) 14:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Why don't you give me at least one quote?! The "section on violence" is basically the main introductory section at the very top. There is not ONE source in that section.
 * Here's a quote: "Both online and at its events, EDL members have incited violence against Muslims, with supporters carrying out violent acts both at demonstrations and independently."
 * No citation for that whatsoever! No citation whatsoever in the entire (very long) section where that quote is located. How is that possible?! How can anybody lock an article like this?!! 2604:3D08:5B80:B70:4FAE:C089:E195:43E7 (talk) 19:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That is the lede, (read wp:lede), the cites are in the body. Slatersteven (talk) 19:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected and I apologize.
 * Look, violence is a serious charge. The (sub)section on violence shouldn't be under "organization and structure"; it's probably best to arrange it differently.
 * Now, here's a quote from that section:
 * "...EDL members stormed and ransacked an Ahmadiyya Islamic bookstore in Sandwell,[120][258] and in August 2011 an EDL member was convicted for vandalising a mosque.[259] Demonstrations also led to physical attacks on Asians themselves.[260]".
 * These are really serious charges.
 * The first citation in that quote is a paper that I don't have access to right now.
 * The second citation is from a (small?) town news source that I haven't heard of before and could find very little information on it.
 * I must wonder, why isn't a serious charge like this linked to some of the more prominent, internationally recognizable news sources?
 * The third citation is an article on the Independent which talks about graffiti "attack" on a mosque. I don't want to downplay the seriousness of a graffiti offence. I recognize that historically this sort of thing might have evolved into more violent acts. But the article doesn't even tell me what the graffiti damage or message was. Under what conditions did she admit to "conspiracy to commit racially aggravated criminal damage," which is very serious. Did they have proper representation? Those details aren't clear to me at this point. It's a very short article apparently.
 * The fourth citation, again, is a book by a journalist that I don't have access to right now. The charge is very serious, and again, I must wonder why more references from recognizable news sources haven't been provided?
 * So, this (Wikipedia) article is important and has citations, but appears to have shortcomings for general consumption on the web. 2604:3D08:5B80:B70:4FAE:C089:E195:43E7 (talk) 21:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. Have added the 2013 Centenary Square riot sentencing to the violence section as another example. I think you'll find the BBC to be a prominent, internationally recognised news source. I also just assume contributors got bored of providing examples of EDL violence after 2011, as there are many more to be found with a little research.
 * I wasn't sure about the following sources though . It describes July 2023, Centenary Square, but no specific date. Also reports of 30 officers injured, rather than one for July 20. I assume it's the same event, which is already covered anyway.
 * FYI there's also the 2012 Walsall protest CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 22:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I must wonder, why isn't a serious charge like this linked to some of the more prominent, internationally recognizable news sources?
 * The third citation is an article on the Independent which talks about graffiti "attack" on a mosque. I don't want to downplay the seriousness of a graffiti offence. I recognize that historically this sort of thing might have evolved into more violent acts. But the article doesn't even tell me what the graffiti damage or message was. Under what conditions did she admit to "conspiracy to commit racially aggravated criminal damage," which is very serious. Did they have proper representation? Those details aren't clear to me at this point. It's a very short article apparently.
 * The fourth citation, again, is a book by a journalist that I don't have access to right now. The charge is very serious, and again, I must wonder why more references from recognizable news sources haven't been provided?
 * So, this (Wikipedia) article is important and has citations, but appears to have shortcomings for general consumption on the web. 2604:3D08:5B80:B70:4FAE:C089:E195:43E7 (talk) 21:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. Have added the 2013 Centenary Square riot sentencing to the violence section as another example. I think you'll find the BBC to be a prominent, internationally recognised news source. I also just assume contributors got bored of providing examples of EDL violence after 2011, as there are many more to be found with a little research.
 * I wasn't sure about the following sources though . It describes July 2023, Centenary Square, but no specific date. Also reports of 30 officers injured, rather than one for July 20. I assume it's the same event, which is already covered anyway.
 * FYI there's also the 2012 Walsall protest CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 22:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. Have added the 2013 Centenary Square riot sentencing to the violence section as another example. I think you'll find the BBC to be a prominent, internationally recognised news source. I also just assume contributors got bored of providing examples of EDL violence after 2011, as there are many more to be found with a little research.
 * I wasn't sure about the following sources though . It describes July 2023, Centenary Square, but no specific date. Also reports of 30 officers injured, rather than one for July 20. I assume it's the same event, which is already covered anyway.
 * FYI there's also the 2012 Walsall protest CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 22:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)