Talk:Luton Town MIGs

The You tube video
I'm not sure whether this should remain on the article or not. I have left it for now, but it is from The Real Football Factories series on Bravo and so surely is copyrighted? Maybe someone else will know for sure. ♦Tangerines♦ · Talk 18:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Luton Town MIGs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110225155451/http://www.southwarknews.co.uk:80/00,news,9575,5256,00.htm to http://www.southwarknews.co.uk/00,news,9575,5256,00.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Deviation from article title
This article contains a lot of details of violent incidents at LTFC matches but does not show anything attributing them to the Luton Town MIGs. Material not directly related to the subject in question should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.32.223.126 (talk) 10:40, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm going to go with you on that (mostly) - the Bedford today article explicitly mentions MIG involvement, but many of the other sources don't. I'd hazard that many news sources purposefully (and rightly) avoid distinguishing one group of morons from another when their loutish behavior is distinguishable only by a self conferred moniker and/or some badly drawn tattoos. Its simpler to lump every such gang in Britain together under the umbrella terms; thugs and hooligans. Therefore many of the sources about violence at Luton matches probably are about crimes perpetrated by MIGs, but haven't been described as such to avoid giving them any credibility or notoriety. That being said, this is an encyclopedia, and its best for us to stick to the facts, where we can find them. The Bedford source which names them - and the associated article text can stay, whilst other passages about non-specific violence can probably safely be removed with consensus. Edaham (talk) 03:35, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a bit of a superfluous list anyway if each entry serves only to underscore the fact that they are violent on a regular basis. Edaham (talk) 03:40, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Concur, at least there should be suitable section headings. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:43, 29 July 2018 (UTC).


 * I've taken a few bits off today that were very thin - If we take off everything that doesn't mention MIGs we get a very small (but better) article. I'm happy to do that and I think that that's the consensus, but I'll give it a while first. Joe (talk) 09:54, 16 January 2019 (UTC)