Talk:2011 England riots/Archive 10
 | This is an archive of past discussions about 2011 England riots. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 |
Page move from London->England, may need England->UK
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The proposal fails for lack of consensus. If appropriate, in the changing circumstances of the series of events, a proposal may be renewed in a new section in these talk pages.
- Yellowdesk (talk) 21:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
The WP:RM for this page originally was for 2011 London riots -> 2011 UK riots. Someone pointed out the BBC called it the "England riots" which tilted the debate to that term. Now, however, the BBC is referring to it as the UK riots [1]. That means Sky, Guardian, BBC and AJ are using "UK riots." Need to keep an eye on this term in case another move is needed. -- Fuzheado | Talk 18:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Agree all main media organisations are now calling it the UK riots. A teenager was arrested in Scotland over inciting riots[1]. --Halma10 (talk) 18:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Agree I'm happy at least this page has been moved to "2011 England riots", but BBC News and The Guardian have referred it to "UK riots". Also, on TV, BBC is referring it to as "UK riots". I honestly think this page should be moved to "2011 UK riots". Nations United (talk) 18:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Comment The discussion above supported England more than UK (at least until and if the rioting spread outside England, which hasn't happened).Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
The word 'vigilante' is a non-neutral term
Calling these groups 'vigilantes' is politically loaded, and therefore, not neutral. They should be called, instead, self-defense groups. There are numerous references to the police having abandoned shops to their fate (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8692948/London-riots-Police-deserted-Zee-and-Co-shopkeeper-during-Bow-riots.html, and http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/8691918/Bristol-riots-victim-waits-more-than-18-hours-for-police-to-arrive.html, for instance) - references to these should balance the police statement that 'vigilantes' were hampering operations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.5.187.71 (talk) 20:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- Vigilante is the term being used by the media. Whether it's a positive or negative term is a matter of opinion. Nevard (talk) 05:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- The British press is hardly neutral in this matter. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral. Your dismissive tone suggests that you have made up your mind already and you don't care about neutrality. I am pointing out that the article is unbalanced, as people are supposed to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.5.187.71 (talk) 05:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Regardless of who uses it, "vigilante" is not a neutral term. I can think of no occasion where I have seen this word used to cast something in a positive light. In fact, when used as an adjective, "vigilante" is used to create a negative impression: "vigilante justice" would, I think, never be seen as a good thing. So, by using the word without any sort of qualification, Wikipedia runs the risk of being seen as taking sides. A simple change to make it clear that Wikipedia's use of the word is linked to / imitative of the media's use of the word would help, and avoiding it altogether would be better. In any absolute sense, of course, total neutrality of presentation is impossible, but we should strive to do as well as possible. Because of the social and political connotations of "vigilante", it is an ideal candidate for avoiding in a striving-for-neutrality environment like Wikipedia. Steveread999 (talk) 05:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- "I can think of no occasion where I have seen this word used to cast something in a positive light." Batman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.74.88 (talk) 10:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- It's not used positively even with Batman. Batman portrays, as is well known, the dark side of superheros. At times, he is more of an anti-hero. In the camp 60s comics, he was not referred to as a vigilante but as a caped crusader. Superheros are seen as defenders, something portrayed as different from, and much more positive than vigilantes.
- "I can think of no occasion where I have seen this word used to cast something in a positive light." Batman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.74.88 (talk) 10:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
WP:LABEL, lets be careful people... the media is not NPOV, we are. We are also WP:NOTNEWS. I like vigilante, and cannot come up with a term to refer to informal self-protection, but just because the media are a bunch of sensationalistic screamers doesn't mean we have to join the festivities.--Cerejota (talk) 10:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- A better term is, as I said at the beginning, 'self-defense groups'. It is as neutral a term as I can find. It implies nothing about the nature of the defenders or the things against which they are defending. 'Self-defense' is often used as a neutral description for martial arts courses. It seems to me that it is by far the most neutral term to use.
- I agree with Cerejota. Given their propensity for ratings-motivated sensationalism caution is necessary when adopting the language used by the media. The term "vigilante" is commonly loaded with negative baggage, including high degrees of unlawfulness and vengeance. Perhaps some more moderate language is appropriate for the main article, such as "organised resistance" or "people who have banded together for mutual protection". That said, www.thefreedictionary.com defines "vigilante" as: "One who takes or advocates the taking of law enforcement into one's own hands.", which does seem appropriate in the present context. Evidently, this issue is not clear-cut. Deterence Talk 12:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- 'One who takes or advocates the taking of law enforcement into one's own hands', is, in my opinion, not appropriate here, because, otherwise, it would mean that the term 'vigilante' could be used to describe someone who simply blocked a blow someone had aimed at his face. If, say, you are in a pub, and the chap next to you suddenly yells 'My girl says you looked at her funny' and starts to punch you, and you block the blow, would you then describe yourself as a vigilante? I don't think so. It is not, as far as I know, against the law in Britain, to defend yourself. You have to use reasonable force, but it is legal. If you think you are going to be attacked, or, at least, wish to be prepared for the possibility of attack it is also not illegal to take precautions, otherwise self-defense classes would be illegal in Britain, which they are not. In the end, it all comes down to what one means by 'taking the law into one's own hands'. If you believe that simply defending yourself and your property in the absence of any police presence is 'taking the law into your own hands', then I say you are using the term too widely. 'Vigilante' is, by and large, associated with 'unlawfulness' and 'vengeance', neither of which apply here.
- I agree with Cerejota. Given their propensity for ratings-motivated sensationalism caution is necessary when adopting the language used by the media. The term "vigilante" is commonly loaded with negative baggage, including high degrees of unlawfulness and vengeance. Perhaps some more moderate language is appropriate for the main article, such as "organised resistance" or "people who have banded together for mutual protection". That said, www.thefreedictionary.com defines "vigilante" as: "One who takes or advocates the taking of law enforcement into one's own hands.", which does seem appropriate in the present context. Evidently, this issue is not clear-cut. Deterence Talk 12:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- A better term is, as I said at the beginning, 'self-defense groups'. It is as neutral a term as I can find. It implies nothing about the nature of the defenders or the things against which they are defending. 'Self-defense' is often used as a neutral description for martial arts courses. It seems to me that it is by far the most neutral term to use.
"Self-defense groups" in the abstract is neutral, but as a long-time student of political violence I can assure you it isn't. For example, it is often connected, as term, with Death Squads Peasant_Self-Defense_Forces_of_Córdoba_and_Urabá. In the British context, it sounds like the English Defense League. Both tell us that "vigilante" is much less charged than "self-defense group". Nice try tho, we continue thinking hard we might get it. Has any RS used any other term? --Cerejota (talk) 12:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- No, the term 'self-defense group' does not sound like Death Squads or the English Defense League to anyone but you. You are just being childish. Stop pushing your left-wing views here. I'm talking about neutrality here, not your political analysis of the situation. 'People who have banded together for mutual protection' might also work, but I think it is a bit long-winded. 'Mutual protection groups' might also work. I still favour 'self-defense groups', though, for it clearly gives a feel of the nature of the group: one that is there to defend something. The idea is to be neutral and descriptive at the same time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.5.187.71 (talk) 12:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- I cannot agree that the term "Self-defense groups" conjures images of Death Squads. If anything, the term "self defence group" reminds me of the name chosen for Japan's military in the immediate aftermath of World War Two, where it was called the "Self Defence Force" at a time of extreme sensitivity. This suggests that the term is very neutral. Some may think I am stretching, here, which I would understand. Deterence Talk 12:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- As for death squads being a right-wing phenomena, that is clearly nonsense. Extremely authoritarian left-wing governments - Cuba, the Soviet Union, East Germany, Romania, Pol Pot's Cambodia, etc - were all infamous for their common use of "death squads". But, this is somewhat tangential to the matter at hand. Deterence Talk 12:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with you that death squads are not a right-wing phenomena. I was just a bit miffed that the English Defense League was brought into the discussion when it has no place here, as the debate is about the neutrality of the term 'vigilante' The only ones who ever seem to bring up the EDL as a pretext for not doing something seem to be those with left-wing views, so that's why I made the remark. You're right that it really hasn't anything to do with the discussion. So, how about either 'self-defense groups' or 'mutual protection groups'. Either, I think will work, although I still favour the first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.5.187.71 (talk) 12:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- I was about to suggest "organised Militia", but that's probably a bit strong given that the UK government banned 99.9% of the population from possessing guns as a knee-jerk reaction to the Dunblane Massacre. (I wonder how safe the gun-control advocates were feeling during the riots while the police abandoned entire neighbourhoods to burn and the civilians were left with no means to defend themselves against mobs of angry thugs roaming the streets outside their homes...) Regardless, while neither of your suggestions is perfect, they are both preferable to the emotive term "vigilante". Deterence Talk 13:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Organized militia is most certainly not neutral in the USA, where it is used by Militia movement and will immediately conjure in the readers images of the Oklahoma City bombing. So unless you want to smear the people defending their shops, it should be out of the question. In terms of death squads etc, I provided a link to a right-wing group from Colombia, it seems neither of you even bothered to read the name of the group. And my comparison to the EDL was on purpose, but not for the nefarious left-wing conspiracy dear anon has bought up, but because you do not want to imply similarity to the reader, or at least shouldn't - confusing the two is most definitive not NPOV.--Cerejota (talk) 13:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Speaking of smearing the people defending their shops, Cerejota, you do seem rather determined to smear them by the continued use of the term 'vigilante'. Two suggestions have been made here 'self-defense groups' and 'mutual protection groups'. If you favour the second, just say so. If you favour another term, just say so. Again, I think, though, you are overthinking the situation. No-one in Britain is going to associate 'self-defense groups' with the English Defense League simply because the word 'defense' is in both names. People are smarter than that. No-one outside of Britain would every associate the two because most likely hardly anyone outside of Britain even knows about the EDL, much less cares about them. And please, stop being so emotive. This is meant to be a simple discussion about the neutrality of a term. That's all. Let's keep this discussion neutral as well, shall we? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.5.187.71 (talk) 13:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- I am not seriously suggesting the use of the term "organised militia". Regardless, I was referring to the original militias of the United States from the time of the American Revolution, which were organised groups of armed civilians who banded together to protect their own communities. Remember, the first shots of the American Revolution were fired by the armed civilians of the organised militias of Lexington and Concord. Deterence Talk 13:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Funny, I'm British, and I knew exactly to which event you were referring. Perhaps I just don't think negatively enough for some here. At any rate, the term 'organised militia' isn't that bad, but I don't really it works here as most of the groups were of an informal nature. 'Ad hoc protection groups' might also work, thinking about it, as the term describes that informal nature. It's a neutral term, as far as I can tell. Or maybe even 'Ad hoc defense groups'. I don't think there's that much difference between the two. At any rate, we've spilled quite a few pixels here, let's make some sort of decision before the event gets too old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.5.187.71 (talk) 13:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'm a Kiwi (New Zealander) :-). I agree that the self defence groups that sprung-up during the UK riots are not sufficiently organised, nor sufficiently well-armed, to count as "organised militias". I also agree that the term "ad hoc" is appropriate. www.thefreedictionary.com defines "ad hoc" as, 1) "Formed for or concerned with one specific purpose", and 2) "Improvised and often impromptu". Deterence Talk 14:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- So has this been resolved? And in favour of which term? From one simple observation, a whole tree has grown, it seems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.5.187.71 (talk) 14:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Vigilante seems a fine term. When I saw it I thought citizens take the law in to their own hands. When I read the section that was what it was about. Using any other word will sound like Wikipedia is trying to be politically correct which equals censored. So what if the term is politcally charged. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 15:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'm so politically incorrect that I have a t-shirt. But, I don't see how suggesting changes to the words used in an article because their actual meaning might be literally misleading, as opposed to being merely insensitive or offensive, constitutes an exercise in political correctness. Deterence Talk 16:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Vigilante seems a fine term. When I saw it I thought citizens take the law in to their own hands. When I read the section that was what it was about. Using any other word will sound like Wikipedia is trying to be politically correct which equals censored. So what if the term is politcally charged. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 15:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- So has this been resolved? And in favour of which term? From one simple observation, a whole tree has grown, it seems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.5.187.71 (talk) 14:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'm a Kiwi (New Zealander) :-). I agree that the self defence groups that sprung-up during the UK riots are not sufficiently organised, nor sufficiently well-armed, to count as "organised militias". I also agree that the term "ad hoc" is appropriate. www.thefreedictionary.com defines "ad hoc" as, 1) "Formed for or concerned with one specific purpose", and 2) "Improvised and often impromptu". Deterence Talk 14:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Funny, I'm British, and I knew exactly to which event you were referring. Perhaps I just don't think negatively enough for some here. At any rate, the term 'organised militia' isn't that bad, but I don't really it works here as most of the groups were of an informal nature. 'Ad hoc protection groups' might also work, thinking about it, as the term describes that informal nature. It's a neutral term, as far as I can tell. Or maybe even 'Ad hoc defense groups'. I don't think there's that much difference between the two. At any rate, we've spilled quite a few pixels here, let's make some sort of decision before the event gets too old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.5.187.71 (talk) 13:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- I am not seriously suggesting the use of the term "organised militia". Regardless, I was referring to the original militias of the United States from the time of the American Revolution, which were organised groups of armed civilians who banded together to protect their own communities. Remember, the first shots of the American Revolution were fired by the armed civilians of the organised militias of Lexington and Concord. Deterence Talk 13:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Speaking of smearing the people defending their shops, Cerejota, you do seem rather determined to smear them by the continued use of the term 'vigilante'. Two suggestions have been made here 'self-defense groups' and 'mutual protection groups'. If you favour the second, just say so. If you favour another term, just say so. Again, I think, though, you are overthinking the situation. No-one in Britain is going to associate 'self-defense groups' with the English Defense League simply because the word 'defense' is in both names. People are smarter than that. No-one outside of Britain would every associate the two because most likely hardly anyone outside of Britain even knows about the EDL, much less cares about them. And please, stop being so emotive. This is meant to be a simple discussion about the neutrality of a term. That's all. Let's keep this discussion neutral as well, shall we? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.5.187.71 (talk) 13:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with you that death squads are not a right-wing phenomena. I was just a bit miffed that the English Defense League was brought into the discussion when it has no place here, as the debate is about the neutrality of the term 'vigilante' The only ones who ever seem to bring up the EDL as a pretext for not doing something seem to be those with left-wing views, so that's why I made the remark. You're right that it really hasn't anything to do with the discussion. So, how about either 'self-defense groups' or 'mutual protection groups'. Either, I think will work, although I still favour the first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.5.187.71 (talk) 12:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- No, the term 'self-defense group' does not sound like Death Squads or the English Defense League to anyone but you. You are just being childish. Stop pushing your left-wing views here. I'm talking about neutrality here, not your political analysis of the situation. 'People who have banded together for mutual protection' might also work, but I think it is a bit long-winded. 'Mutual protection groups' might also work. I still favour 'self-defense groups', though, for it clearly gives a feel of the nature of the group: one that is there to defend something. The idea is to be neutral and descriptive at the same time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.5.187.71 (talk) 12:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure why this debate is taking place. Is anyone here a lexicologist? Otherwise, vigilante as defined above would seem to be apt. Also, we're straying to a general discussion, I think. Pascal (talk) 17:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Indeed. I have not been able to find a single mention of self-defense (or even self-defence) groups in the media, in relation to these riots, whereas there are numerous references to vigilante groups. How did this discussion grow so large? Rubywine . talk 17:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- Speaking as an American, I find it very odd that anyone, especially the media, would refer to civilians defending themselves from looters and thugs as "vigilantes". That term has a very negative connotation here, and conjures up images of angry mobs breaking into jails and stringing up un-tried prisoners they thought must be guilty. I've seen more L.A. riots (up-close and personal) than I care to remember, and not once that I can recall were people defending their homes and businesses called "vigilantes" by the press. It would seem to me to be more like an insult than a neutral observation. Shirtwaist ☎ 03:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- Shirtwaist is right. The strong negative connotations of the term "vigilante" - vengeance, unlawfulness - are clear. The WP guidelines do not require Wikipedia to blindly embrace the sensationalist language of the media. Indeed, WP:NPOV demands that we exercise caution in this area. Deterence Talk 03:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- I think not. Firstly, police and politicians eg the Mayor of London have used the term (often 'vigilantism' rather than 'vigilante'); police language used during the course of these riots has not been sensationalist, and I don't think that Boris has been either. Media quotations of police and politicians that I have seen (often enclosed in quotation marks) has not been sensationalist either. e.g. [2][3]. It might indeed be better for us to use quotation marks ourselves. Some media are refraining from using any adjective to describe the communities who came out to defend their properties e.g [4] Adopting a strong, positive term like "self defence group" in the absence of any common usage whatsoever would be soapboxing. Rubywine . talk 16:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- One further comment. Police and politicians did not warn against 'reckless vigilantism' to cast stigma upon brave and innocent people, but to discourage any actions that could lead to the deaths of more brave and innocent people, like the three young men in Birmingham; and also because they were desparately trying to restore public faith that the police are in control of the situation. Looking at actual usages in the media, I think this is blindingly obvious. So I cannot see any basis for the allegations above that 'vigilantism' has been used in a sensationalist manner, or for the proposals that we should ignore RS, with the handwaving implication that "if I don't like this word then it must have been used in a sensationalist manner". I think it's a huge understatement to say that discussions of this type, which totally ignore RS, are unhelpful. Rubywine . talk 16:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- What I object to is the apparent POV being put across in the "Vigilantism" section by including groups of citizens - standing in front of their homes/businesses/places of worship in order to protect them - with mobs of "vigilantes" doing things such as roaming the streets looking for looters, and a "bottle-throwing crowd of about 200 vigilantes". There needs to be a distinction made in the article between these two different types of groups - one passive, one aggressive. Something similar to this incident happened in my father's small mid-western town when a large motorcycle gang was roaming the countryside wreaking havoc on every town they came to. The town's tiny "Mayberry-esque" police force got wind of this and put a man with a gun on every single corner of the town's main street. The motorcycle gang saw this and kept on going right out of town. Those men didn't think of themselves as "vigilantes", they were simply there to react to any trouble if it came, which is what all the people defending themselves by standing in front of their homes/businesses/places of worship were doing. Quoting sources that use the word "vigilante" to describe those people is one thing, but I don't think it would be NPOV to characterize them in the article prose as being "vigilantes", per se, as defined in the article here with "vigilantism" -"A vigilante is a private individual who legally or illegally punishes an alleged lawbreaker, or participates in a group which metes out extralegal punishment to an alleged lawbreaker." Nothing in that definition says anything about "defending in place". Shirtwaist ☎ 00:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- I've read the "Vigilantism" section and I think it's fine. It's sourced, balanced and accurate. There's a clear separation between the coverage of local residents defending their own, and the EDL men who went to Eltham and threw bottles at the riot police. Thanks for the interesting story about your father's local police force; but it's a very different situation, because the police organised the operation. Rubywine . talk 00:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- What I object to is the apparent POV being put across in the "Vigilantism" section by including groups of citizens - standing in front of their homes/businesses/places of worship in order to protect them - with mobs of "vigilantes" doing things such as roaming the streets looking for looters, and a "bottle-throwing crowd of about 200 vigilantes". There needs to be a distinction made in the article between these two different types of groups - one passive, one aggressive. Something similar to this incident happened in my father's small mid-western town when a large motorcycle gang was roaming the countryside wreaking havoc on every town they came to. The town's tiny "Mayberry-esque" police force got wind of this and put a man with a gun on every single corner of the town's main street. The motorcycle gang saw this and kept on going right out of town. Those men didn't think of themselves as "vigilantes", they were simply there to react to any trouble if it came, which is what all the people defending themselves by standing in front of their homes/businesses/places of worship were doing. Quoting sources that use the word "vigilante" to describe those people is one thing, but I don't think it would be NPOV to characterize them in the article prose as being "vigilantes", per se, as defined in the article here with "vigilantism" -"A vigilante is a private individual who legally or illegally punishes an alleged lawbreaker, or participates in a group which metes out extralegal punishment to an alleged lawbreaker." Nothing in that definition says anything about "defending in place". Shirtwaist ☎ 00:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- Shirtwaist is right. The strong negative connotations of the term "vigilante" - vengeance, unlawfulness - are clear. The WP guidelines do not require Wikipedia to blindly embrace the sensationalist language of the media. Indeed, WP:NPOV demands that we exercise caution in this area. Deterence Talk 03:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- Speaking as an American, I find it very odd that anyone, especially the media, would refer to civilians defending themselves from looters and thugs as "vigilantes". That term has a very negative connotation here, and conjures up images of angry mobs breaking into jails and stringing up un-tried prisoners they thought must be guilty. I've seen more L.A. riots (up-close and personal) than I care to remember, and not once that I can recall were people defending their homes and businesses called "vigilantes" by the press. It would seem to me to be more like an insult than a neutral observation. Shirtwaist ☎ 03:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Neighbourhood Defence Groups?
I immediately declare that I am a former Enfield resident and am moving back at the end of the month. I do support these groups for the following reasons:
- There is a long-standing and, in my experience, justified history of a poor relationship between the police and the local community going back over more than 20 years. A protest march in 2010 had no real effect. The east side of Enfield is similar to the Tottenham area immediately to the south, a predominantly working class neighbourhood, with the exception that it does not have the overwhelmingly immigrant population and is much more conservative, a major armaments factory having been a major employer in the neighbourhood for many years. The west side is more affluent, including a significant Jewish neighbourhood which also has a track record of defending itself.
- The Home Secretary (Minister for the Interior) had already asked for citizen support for the Police. The Enfield group then formed, but was "kettled" by the police, making such cooperation nigh on impossible.
- The group came together after two nights of complete and utter failure by the Metropolitan Police to do anything significant to defend the town. Amongst other things, when the Sony distribution centre caught fire, the police were unaware that a hotel was immediately next door and that the measures they were undertaking would have forced the hotel guests and staff to stay indoors exposed to the fire jumping to their building.
- The term vigilante innevitably has connotations with the Death Wish series of films, which postulate a ficticious victim moving into proactive aggression. None of the groups have done so, and I am afraid I do find the use of the term personally offensive given the failure of the police to defend the neighbourhood. A vigilante group so close to the Tottenham Broadwater Farm estate which started this would have gone onto the attack. The Enfield group did not.
- On the other hand, a number of EDF members joined the group. However objectionable that may or may not be to your personal taste, it is an infraction of NPOV to comment on an individual's political affiliation, as long as it is not directly illegal and he is not engaged in politics as a politician.
- There appears to be a reverse-racist element to the accusation, as the ethnic groups, including one formed by the Turkish residents of Green Lanes immediately south of Enfield, were not accused of vigilanteism.
- English Law recognises, and indeed encourages, the right of the individual to use proportionate force to protect himself and his property: proportionate is nowhere defined. The Tony Martin case established limits to the right of an individual to defend himself in the absence of realistic police support, and in many respects the legal precedents continuously weakened this right thereafter: many argue that anything beyond verbal respresentation is inviting charges against the person defending himself. However, the Prime Minister has recently indicated that the sense of proportion should lie in the favour of the defendant, allowing him to use such force as lies to hand, not necessarily less than that he faces, but not going so far, for instance, as allowing him to shoot a retreating attacker in the back. Part of the underlying logic to this is that an attacker normally has had the opportunity to plan in advance and select his weaponry, whereas the defender has to improvisse in the face of a surprise attack.
- Prior to the establishment of the Police in the nineteenth century, English towns elected reeves responsible for the appointment of constables, often one per parish (whence the contraction of Shire-reeve into Sheriff). Prior to that the responsibility lay with the seneschal of the local Lord. This establishes a precedent for policing in thee absence of a Police force. None of these groups, however, appear to have elected or delegated authority, and are ad-hoc bodies which haave hopefully disbanded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.129.147.52 (talk) 09:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- That's very nice and all, but this isn't the place to have a general discussion about the topic. This section is for discussing the use of the term vigilantes, and is not about the vigilantes themselves. I'm pretty sure a consensus was reached. Pascal (talk) 09:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- What does "'kettled' by the police" mean? Deterence Talk 11:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- Kettling refers to the practice by police of containing large groups of people in a small area, ostensibly to prevent violence and chaos by people within the group. Usually, this leads to an increase in tension within the confined group, hence the name. Hope this helps. Pascal (talk) 13:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- That helps a lot. Thank you. Deterence Talk 13:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- The tactic, known by the Police as containment, involves practices which are greatly questioned in Law, as the use of stress techniques on prisoners is generally considered a mild form of torture and therefore in breach of the ECHR and CFR, constitutional rights which the Police should be supporting, not denying. In this instance, a form of administrative arrest exists in that the body held are not free to go about their lawful business, and very often have been subjected to climactic exposure and an absence of toilet facilities.
- Kettling refers to the practice by police of containing large groups of people in a small area, ostensibly to prevent violence and chaos by people within the group. Usually, this leads to an increase in tension within the confined group, hence the name. Hope this helps. Pascal (talk) 13:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- What does "'kettled' by the police" mean? Deterence Talk 11:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- I presented a general case in support of my argument that the term is unfair, and you have not answered my case. If you cannot substantiate it, you should remove it in respect to Enfield: where was the concensus reached? In the Press? Was any argued defence of the Enfield counter-protest made? If not, my case rests that this does not respect NPOV by not representing both sides fairly.
- I additionally observe that the local Council has substantiated the action.[2]
Possible ramifications to British Law 2 - Possibility of tightening the law on the right to secure communications
right to secure communications Vs threat of people suspected of posting on-line messages that could inspire criminality http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/aug/11/david-cameron-rioters-social-media
Perhaps something on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chief Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 17:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Some pertinent information seems to be missing
Hey guys, I'm from America where from time to time we have racial riots. So I read through the intro to this article and didn't see anything about the ethnic makeup of the rioters, so I just assumed (wrongly it turns out) that this incident was in no way racially motivated and that the rioters were not predominantly of one specific racial group. So I keep reading, and then I see the theories section that the victim was black--although it looks like a politically correct Wiki editor added something about how the rioters were made up of all races. Interesting. Ok, but maybe the rioters were made up of a proportionate mix of white, Asian and black hoodlums. Then I got to the pictures and it seems to show at least 95% of the rioters were black. So what's up? Is there a move afoot with this article to censor relevant information from the public? Because let me tell you, censoring information is not what Wikipedia is all about. JettaMann (talk) 13:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- I believe you are mistaken. There are no reliable sources yet offering a breakdown of participants into ethnic groups. The vast majority of the violent disorder - pretty much all of it except the first riot in Tottenham - has been unconnected to the death of Mark Duggan. Regarding pictures you may have seen, I have seen many pictures, eg those from Manchester, which showed only white participants in the disorder. Pictures are not facts, they are mere snapshots of a moment in time, and can be used to create a false impression as well as capture the truth... There is no censorship going on here, and no "politically correct" editing. Keristrasza (talk) 14:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, a great deal of the looters - criminal thugs, really - were black. It's just a fact, a neutral piece of information, or that's what it should be, but you know and I know, that these days, one is only allowed to mention the colour of skin of criminals if the criminals in question are white. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral, but it does have a reputation for being full of left-wing revisionist propaganda, and, looking at some of the articles and discussions, I have to say that there is more than a little truth to this. Sad, isn't it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.5.187.71 (talk) 14:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- I should add, an interesting report in today's Sydney Morning Herald, titled Stereotype of the underclass does not apply, describing the defendants in Highbury Court: "Most were teenagers or in their 20s, but a noticeable minority were older. They were predominantly white, and many had jobs." Keristrasza (talk) 14:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- If you have a reliable source - eg not Little Richardjohn et al - for your theory, then feel free to add the information. Keristrasza (talk) 14:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- I should add, an interesting report in today's Sydney Morning Herald, titled Stereotype of the underclass does not apply, describing the defendants in Highbury Court: "Most were teenagers or in their 20s, but a noticeable minority were older. They were predominantly white, and many had jobs." Keristrasza (talk) 14:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, a great deal of the looters - criminal thugs, really - were black. It's just a fact, a neutral piece of information, or that's what it should be, but you know and I know, that these days, one is only allowed to mention the colour of skin of criminals if the criminals in question are white. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral, but it does have a reputation for being full of left-wing revisionist propaganda, and, looking at some of the articles and discussions, I have to say that there is more than a little truth to this. Sad, isn't it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.5.187.71 (talk) 14:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- You know damn well that the this information will be difficult to impossible to find. That's how those who don't want the truth known control the press: they make it impossible to find out the information and then scream 'you haven't presented the clear statistics so you're wrong and we, who also haven't presented the statistics, are right, because we say that we are morally superior'. The looters, by and large, were black. If black people are offended by that fact, then they really should ask themselves why so many black people were out there looting. Instead of trying to suppress the truth, they should examine it and learn from it. No, that will never catch on: it's far easier to scream 'racism' and get do-gooders to suppress information than actually to do anything about the situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.5.187.71 (talk) 14:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Wikipedia operates on RS. If the information is impossible to find because it is supressed by the powers that be, then it's not going to be in our article. Ergo there's no point discussing it further. If you want to WP:Soapbox feel free to do it somewhere else Nil Einne (talk) 15:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- A lot of the rioters in Tottenham were black, because there's a lot of black people in Tottenham. Race certainly plays a role [...] But this was not a race riot; it included people from a range of backgrounds and ethnicities, who were without any unified ideological cause. [5], Normally we can cite race, gender, politics, sex etc as riot drivers ... this one is explicable only in its confusion [6], Race woes? Court tells a different story / Predominantly white, some from well-placed families [7] - there's plenty more.
- Most of the illegal activity was not politically motivated, nor racially motivated. It was, purely, crime, without any shred of justification.
- The media likes to try and come up with reasons, something to pin this on, something to shout about; the "race" angle is an easy one for them. We're not a tabloid, though. Chzz ► 14:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- The rioters are not attacking each other based on their race. They are rioting alongside each other. QuentinUK (talk) 07:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
POV re. shooting
I object to the very start of this article saying, "The fatal shooting of a 29-year-old man, Mark Duggan..." etc.
I believe this gives inappropriate bias, indicating that all the riots are directly related to the shooting. I think it is apparent that, although the shooting incident is certainly relevant, whether or not it was the direct cause of the entire thing is highly debatable.
In particular, in the lede we need to start off explaining what this article is all about. And it is not about the shooting; it's about the riots. Chzz ► 14:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, for goodness sake. It's bloody obvious that the events surrounding the shooting of Mark Duggan provided the catalyst from which the riots were spawned. There are literally thousands of WP:RSs that show this. Deterence Talk 15:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- I never said it was unconnected; merely that the article shouldn't start with it. See WP:BEGINNING. Chzz ► 17:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- I think it is fine; for comparison, our article on the 1992 Los Angeles riots quite properly starts with a mention of Rodney King as it is accepted that this event catalyzed the riots. This is what most reliable sources are saying about the London riots so it is proper that we follow the precedent I think. --John (talk) 18:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- The comparison with the LA riots of 1992, and their connection to the beating of Rodney King, is very appropriate. Deterence Talk 02:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- I agree that it is fine. Although subsequent rioting and looting has been totally criminal and copycat, Duggan's shooting - and (something which should appear somewhere in the article if it does not already) the failure of police to respond to his family's requests for information for 48 hours afterwards - was the spark that started the Tottenham riot. Rubywine . talk 11:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- Object all you want Chzz, pretty much all the reliable sources agree that was the direct precedent to the riots, and agree they started as a peaceful march turned into a localized riot that then spread like wildfire. We should present this neutrally, but I do not see how we can make this fact less prominent in the lede without a serious breach of chronological logic.--Cerejota (talk) 17:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- I agree that it is fine. Although subsequent rioting and looting has been totally criminal and copycat, Duggan's shooting - and (something which should appear somewhere in the article if it does not already) the failure of police to respond to his family's requests for information for 48 hours afterwards - was the spark that started the Tottenham riot. Rubywine . talk 11:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- The comparison with the LA riots of 1992, and their connection to the beating of Rodney King, is very appropriate. Deterence Talk 02:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- I think it is fine; for comparison, our article on the 1992 Los Angeles riots quite properly starts with a mention of Rodney King as it is accepted that this event catalyzed the riots. This is what most reliable sources are saying about the London riots so it is proper that we follow the precedent I think. --John (talk) 18:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- I never said it was unconnected; merely that the article shouldn't start with it. See WP:BEGINNING. Chzz ► 17:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Lenient Sentencing
Stephen Kavanagh, Metropolitan Police's Deputy Assistant Commissioner, "some of his colleagues were disappointed with the punishments handed out so far to looters."
This should go under Police title of Reactions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chief Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 16:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Before we jump to commentary about the appropriateness of the punishments handed to the looters/rioters, we need some examination of how the police are distinguishing the looters/rioters from the innocent by-standers/home-owners/business-owners who happen to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. There are numerous reports of the police just charging in to trouble-spots and dealing to anyone they can grab. Deterence Talk 02:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Unprotected
This article has now been unprotected. If anyone here feels that it needs protecting again do let me know or discuss it here. Hopefully it'll all be fine. violet/riga [talk] 18:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Alternatively, you can file a request for protection at WP:RFP, where an WP:UNINVOLVED admin will take a look and act according to the Wikipedia Protection Policy. 62.50.199.254 (talk) 22:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Nick Clegg did predict a riot here is the proof
Sky News, April 11, 2010 Watch http://news.sky.com/home/politics/article/15599056 or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YItK1izQIwo
From 36 seconds in to 52 seconds
Nick Clegg: "There is a danger in having any government of whatever composition led by a party which doesn't have a proper mandate across the country try to push through really difficult decisions - I think a lot of people will react badly to that... [when asked about riots in the streets] I think there is a very serious risk."
In the same report 113 seconds in
David Cameron: "I think it's rather a silly thing to say, frankly."
This is not a WP:Syn violation I have not combined material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chief Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 18:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Does Nick Clegg think that the present coalition government doesn't "have a proper mandate"? Not that it matters really. Unless you can find WP:RS making the same link between what Clegg said then, and events now, it can't go into the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2833334.html. But I don't think it should go in. Fences&Windows 19:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Saw that too. I do not think we'll find him saying "i told you so" or any media organization saying "he told us so." Not yet anyway.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chief Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 19:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that counts as a prediction. Let's face it, just about every politician occasionally tries to grab a few headlines by predicting "popular resistance" and "rioting in the streets" if the policies they're passionately objecting to go ahead. Every left-wing politician in England has predicted rioting at one time or another - eventually, some of them are going to be proven "right". Deterence Talk 02:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that 'Nick Clegg' and 'left-wing' belong in the same sentence, but whatever... He may well have said this, but there is enough wiggle-room for it not being worth the media bringing up, so they won't, so we can't. A non-issue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- I wasn't trying to make the point that Nick Clegg is left-wing, but I can see how my comment could have been read that way. My point was that politicians and political activists using political rhetoric to predict that the people will rise up and riot in the streets is relatively common, especially among those left-wingers who feel that they represent the proletariat. So, perhaps a little caution is appropriate before we attribute the powers of prophecy to such "predictions" when riots do occur once in a generation. Deterence Talk 09:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that 'Nick Clegg' and 'left-wing' belong in the same sentence, but whatever... He may well have said this, but there is enough wiggle-room for it not being worth the media bringing up, so they won't, so we can't. A non-issue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that counts as a prediction. Let's face it, just about every politician occasionally tries to grab a few headlines by predicting "popular resistance" and "rioting in the streets" if the policies they're passionately objecting to go ahead. Every left-wing politician in England has predicted rioting at one time or another - eventually, some of them are going to be proven "right". Deterence Talk 02:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- Saw that too. I do not think we'll find him saying "i told you so" or any media organization saying "he told us so." Not yet anyway.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chief Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 19:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
What andy said.--Cerejota (talk) 09:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- Irrelevant. He was anticipating the 2011 London anti-cuts protest. This is something completely different. danno 21:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm the one who removed it (based on a request) and I stick by my conclusion in concurence with Andy et al. It's a clear WP:Syn violation as you are implying there is some connection between what he said and this event without a RS making that inference. If there is no connection it doesn't belong in this article (which is on the '2011 England riots' not 'random things Nick Clegg said') so you can't claim you aren't making a connection. The ABC article appears to be an op-ed (in other words, all it demonstrates is the author believes there's a connection) so I also agree it's not enough. Nil Einne (talk) 16:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
underage rich White kids charged with theft during riots.
This is clearly important.
These are white, rich, juveniles engaging in looting and theft, contrary to popular assertions that all the thieves are afro carribean blacks or poor people. the source is the daily telegraph, so its reliable. These incidents need to be added to the article, not just becasue of the race of the looters, but because they are underage and rich students so its notable.Maxi Craters (talk) 03:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, it is of note that there are non-africans rioting but that would be inferring that the majority are african which is expressly forbidden above. I can't say that the ethnicities of rioters has matched the national population (specifically ~1% african). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.22.241 (talk) 05:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- Most of the riotors are wearing hoods and/or masks and the video footage is of generally poor quality. I'm not sure how anyone can ascertain an accurate count of the racial mix of the rioters from the video footage alone. Perhaps an examination of the race of those being processed by the Courts would be more accurate. Deterence Talk 10:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Comment Outside of London it only affects a few localities in 3 or 4 cities. The BBC 6 pm evening national news only mentioned London and Birmingham. It is barely relevant outside of London, it certainly isn't England-wide, let alone UK-wide. I can't understand the clamour to exaggerate it so much out of all proportion to its reality. FactController (talk) 18:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Comment This article should be moved to 2011 UK riots or 2011 United Kingdom riots. GoodDay (talk) 18:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
In addition, CBC news is calling it the UK Riots. GoodDay (talk) 22:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Not sure about this Two other articles - 1981 England riots and 2001 England riots - use "England". Are they incorrectly named?--A bit iffy (talk) 18:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
:Agree, because news organisations are generally using "UK"--A bit iffy (talk) 20:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- Further to my comment above, I've done a quick trawl of major news organisations' usage, and I find:
- BBC, CNN, Sky, Al Jazeera, The Guardian, The Daily Mail, ITN, Sydney Morning Herald all use "UK"
- New York Times uses "Britain"
- France 24 (English) uses both "Britain" and "UK"
- The Times possibly uses "England" (can't be sure because of paywall)
- The Sun seems to use nothing in particular
- --A bit iffy (talk) 22:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- The story this morning from the BBC refers to it as 'England riots' again [8] - maybe Deacon of Pndapetzim is correct and there's different editors with different opinions! Either way, I still think a name hasn't really been settled on, so we should keep 'England riots' unless the situation changes --Richardeast (talk) 09:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- Here in France;
- TF1 (French) uses 'Engand' [9]
- France2 (French) Uses 'England' [10]
- France24 (French) uses 'UK' [11]
- I think England riot is correct as it's not effecting other countries in the UK, only England --84.99.15.246 (talk) 09:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- Further to my comment above, I've done a quick trawl of major news organisations' usage, and I find:
- Disagree - changing my mind again - BBC in particular are using 'England', as are some others, so leave it as '2011 England riots'.--A bit iffy (talk) 19:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Disagree Just because media organisations are using the term "UK Riots" does not make it correct. The media are prone to inflate headlines given the slightest opportunity. Inciting riots is not rioting. Have there actually been any riots in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland? Using the term "UK Riots" if there have been none in those countries seems, in itself, to be inciting people to riot in those locations. If/when there are verifiable sources for rioting in other parts of the UK then that would be the time to consider changing the name of the article. Stanley Oliver (talk) 19:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC) Agree as UK Riots seems to be the consensus - even if it is as accurate as calling the 1992 Los Angeles riots the 1992 North American Riots. Stanley Oliver (talk) 20:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC) Disagree "England Riots" seems to be the preferred term in the media today - although there have been some 'isolated incidents' in Wales: South Wales Police.Stanley Oliver (talk) 18:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Comment it is not up to Wiki authors to decide on the name (whether it is technically correct or not). If the media consensus is UK riots, than this is the term that should be used. --Halma10 (talk) 19:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Disagree If you run with your logic, we could call it '2011 EU riots' or '2011 Earth riots'. It's only affecting England, if things move to Scotland, Wales... or to France then we'll update at a later date but so far, this title fits the bill. --Richardeast (talk) 19:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- That's not the argument being made. The point is all major media outlets are using "UK riots" now, and if we were to apply the verifiability standard, it would be the "UK riots." -- Fuzheado | Talk 19:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- The daily mail is still calling it London riot [12] - The BBC page I'm on is calling it England riot. Different editors seem to be making different editorial decisions, but it's still an England only riot, in the same way 2011_Northern_Ireland_riots --Richardeast (talk) 19:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- Have you refreshed the BBC page recently? The live page is certainly calling it UK riots. violet/riga [talk] 19:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- Yes - it's still 'England riots' [13]
- read the top of the page, it says "Last updated at 17:00". The daily mail is also using UK riots [3]--Halma10 (talk) 20:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- This morning it's gone back to 'England riot' on the BBC [14]. I still think we should wait and see what happens on the ground rather than trying to follow decisions by different editors with different agenda. --Richardeast (talk) 09:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- read the top of the page, it says "Last updated at 17:00". The daily mail is also using UK riots [3]--Halma10 (talk) 20:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- Yes - it's still 'England riots' [13]
- Have you refreshed the BBC page recently? The live page is certainly calling it UK riots. violet/riga [talk] 19:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- Agree with Fuzheado, check out Wikipedia:Verifiability. It should be called UK riots, and trying to analyse the technicalities of it, is also a form of Original Research (against Wiki policy).--Halma10 (talk) 19:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, this policy is about article content and the thresholds for inclusion. It is almost irrelevant for article titles, for which see WP:NAME, most particularly WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- Almost irrelevant? Take a look at the page, as the first sentence after the intro says: "should be interpreted in conjunction with other policies, particularly the three core content policies: Verifiability, No original research and Neutral point of view." -- Fuzheado | Talk 01:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- If you can fathom any verifiability issue here, then go ahead and elaborate. No such issue has yet been raised. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- Almost irrelevant? Take a look at the page, as the first sentence after the intro says: "should be interpreted in conjunction with other policies, particularly the three core content policies: Verifiability, No original research and Neutral point of view." -- Fuzheado | Talk 01:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, this policy is about article content and the thresholds for inclusion. It is almost irrelevant for article titles, for which see WP:NAME, most particularly WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- The daily mail is still calling it London riot [12] - The BBC page I'm on is calling it England riot. Different editors seem to be making different editorial decisions, but it's still an England only riot, in the same way 2011_Northern_Ireland_riots --Richardeast (talk) 19:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
The recent reports overwhelmingly use UK riots, cannot find any recent use of the term England riots. I do understand that some authors (who might be Welsh, for example) do not want to be tarnished with this, but there is no reason (from the wiki policy perspective) why this is called England riots. Can I also add that a Scottish teenager was arrested today in Glasgow in relation to inciting riots.--Halma10 (talk) 19:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- Different editors seems to be making different editorial choices; The Scotsman and Daily Record are both still calling it 'the London riots', as is the Belfast telegraph & Ulster TV and the Daily post in Wales... I know some of the English news agencies (like Guardian and mirror) are calling it a 'UK riot' and I'm sure there's a variety of editorial/ political reasons why they've decided to do that, but I still think we should stick to 'England riot' unless the facts change on the ground since essentially, that's what it is! --Richardeast (talk) 20:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
We're getting a bit ahead of ourselves, talking about "recent" in relation to unfolding events. There is no one common name for these events (c/f Kristallnacht), and the current title is just a description. The BBC was running "England riots" at 4PM GMT but "UK Riots" at 6PM GMT on its red update bar on the right, for the same descriptive purposes. Maybe the guy on the evening shift was English, and the afternoon guy was Welsh, who knows. Some of the BBC text just now says they are in England, some that they are in the UK. All that matters just now is accuracy, and from that perspective it's a total non-issue. The riots are happening in and confined to England, and thus are happening in and confined to the UK. Both are accurate description and acceptable to Wikipedia. If a common name does emerge as a contender (like Mark Duggan riots, or indeed 2011 UK riots), then and only then can we can talk about usage and common names; if not the chief guidance is normally taken from standardization principles and style guidelines rather than usage (e.g. from how other riot articles are named). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Strong Agree: Although this hasn't spread to Scotland, Wales or NI, the media are now calling it the UK riots and WP policy usually suggests to go with the most common name. I'd also ignore what the Daily Mail says. They're about 15 years behind the rest of the country and think Diana is still alive. Welshleprechaun 20:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I'm not sure we can say all in the media are all using a common name - The BBC has gone from Tottenham->London->England->UK and this morning back to England again [15]. --Richardeast (talk) 09:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- Disagree 2011 England riots reflects the disorder at present. If there is major disorder in Wales/Scotland then we move; but its not there yet. Whilst we give good regard to media descriptions, the title should be helpful to readers and 2011 United Kingdom riots (certainly not 2011 UK riots) would mislead readers that the riots had spread beyond England. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Disagree Riots are so far confined to England, if and when they occur in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland then we can do a page move to 2011 UK (and Northern Ireland) riots. --wintonian talk 02:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Cardiff:Attempted burglary at JD Sports, 2 fires in Butetown and Canton and criminal damage at takeaway in Ely. Should make it UK riots! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.3.84 (talk) 07:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Disagree - it is not "UK" unless it spreads to Northern Ireland. England, Wales and Scotland comprise Britain, so "British riots" is accurate so far. So what if the media gets it wrong?86.42.206.248 (talk) 08:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Disagree since media is using various terms interchangeably. Heck, Sky is now calling it simply "Riots". If it has spread to Wales, then "2011 England and Wales riots" would be more appropriate, and so on and so forth. --Dorsal Axe 11:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Agree - The media is calling them "UK riots", not "England riots"; I wasn't really happy with the latter anyway to start with. As a side note, why can't the media use adjectives; it should be "English riots" or "British riots". VJ (talk) 14:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
BBC is back to England riots. The afternoon shift / evening shift theory might be correct. :D Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- No, the evening shift is sticking with "England Riots" (as at 19:56 BST), regardless of the minor incidents in Cardiff. Unless the day shift managed to swing some overtime. ;o) Stanley Oliver (talk) 18:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- Yes - looks like they're sticking with 'England riots'... as for the incidents in Wales and Scotland, things like this happen in cities most days and can't in all seriousness be considered a part of the riot! Here in the south of France a Tabac store was attacked and looted (http://www.ladepeche.fr/article/2011/08/10/1144099-l-agression-sauvage-du-bar-tabac-le-select-filmee-par-les-cameras-de-surveillance.html) but i'm not sure we should include that in this article! --Richardeast (talk) 20:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- Disagree; per the sources and geographical accuracy, we should stick with England riots for now. --John (talk) 22:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- It's been reported of trouble in Cardiff, Wales. http://www.south-wales.police.uk/en/content/cms/news/police-attend-small-/ The Guardian are reporting this in it's coverage of the riots. @ Richardeast This may be small but it is not ordinary and almost certainly connected. Also yes, the rest of the British Media (where this is happening) is using the term 'UK riots' --82.16.221.138 (talk) 22:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- Even if the events in Cardiff are connected, do they really qualify as riots? See the legal definition of a riot at point 1 on this page; 12 people or more, etc. | 1. Also, the BBC are using "England Riots". Google gives "England Riots 2011" = 20m results vs "UK Riots 2011" = 19.3m results. Not scientific but it does indicate a fairly even split. Stanley Oliver (talk) 23:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- Actually; the BBC News have been using 'England Riots' all day and Sky News simply use 'Riots'. See also [16][17] etc. Also see "Alex Salmond, Scotland's first minister, has complained about broadcasters headlining coverage of urban unrest as "UK riots"[18] Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Uh-oh - I might have spoken too soon: It's all kicking off in Scotland Rioters strike in Edinburgh. Stanley Oliver (talk) 00:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I saw this video of youths on the streets of Edinburgh, using social media to arrange a mass gathering at Conference Square. Looks like things could get be getting ugly north of the border! Youths gather in Conference Square, Edinburgh --Richardeast (talk) 10:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Uh-oh - I might have spoken too soon: It's all kicking off in Scotland Rioters strike in Edinburgh. Stanley Oliver (talk) 00:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Actually; the BBC News have been using 'England Riots' all day and Sky News simply use 'Riots'. See also [16][17] etc. Also see "Alex Salmond, Scotland's first minister, has complained about broadcasters headlining coverage of urban unrest as "UK riots"[18] Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Even if the events in Cardiff are connected, do they really qualify as riots? See the legal definition of a riot at point 1 on this page; 12 people or more, etc. | 1. Also, the BBC are using "England Riots". Google gives "England Riots 2011" = 20m results vs "UK Riots 2011" = 19.3m results. Not scientific but it does indicate a fairly even split. Stanley Oliver (talk) 23:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- It's been reported of trouble in Cardiff, Wales. http://www.south-wales.police.uk/en/content/cms/news/police-attend-small-/ The Guardian are reporting this in it's coverage of the riots. @ Richardeast This may be small but it is not ordinary and almost certainly connected. Also yes, the rest of the British Media (where this is happening) is using the term 'UK riots' --82.16.221.138 (talk) 22:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- Agree There was no rioting in Cambridge, so can we have a term that reflects it wasn't in Cambridge please? I'm joking of course - but my point is we can't easily come up with a term that easily combines the set of cities involved, so going with simply UK riots seems fine to me. As for Northern Ireland riots, those had political issues that were specifically related to Northern Ireland. It's unclear there are any reasons for rioting that are specific to England as a whole, but nowhere else in the UK? If there are political issues behind it, they would apply to the rest of the UK too. Mdwh (talk) 00:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sure you mentioned Cambridge only as an unlikely place to have a riot, and yet... [19] Fences&Windows 20:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'm aware of that - as I say, there was no rioting in Cambridge. If that minor disturbance counts, then the Cardiff incident certainly counts, so that's even more of an argument that it shouldn't be "England", but "UK". Mdwh (talk) 21:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Comment 'BBC News also said it had decided to refer to the unrest as "England riots", rather than "UK riots".' [20] --AndrewTindall (talk) 11:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose for now
Dear fellow editors of a category of articles hated by many precisely because they are full of these these discussions;
Not a single RS is calling this a UK-wide phenomenon, just England. They might eventually, we revisit then. If they never do, we look at them to see how they are treating any unrest in Scotland and work based on their formulations. This is a wiki, its VERY easy to update.
Sincerely,
--Cerejota (talk) 12:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Undecided Looking at the BBC and broadsheets, there is no clarity as yet.
Rubywine . talk 13:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Strongly Agree This was a United Kingdom event and a United Kingdom riot. This could not be seen as a EU riot because the trouble spots didn't cover 1/3 of the EU map and it wasn't the responsibility of the EU governance. If dozens of trouble hot spots covered 1/3 of Germany or the USA, and the federal government responded it would be called the Germany or USA riots. The United Kingdom is one nation-state, trouble hot spots covered at least 1/3[4]) of the country and the British government had to respond. In addition Police from Scotland and Wales was also sent to assist police in England. --Erzan (talk) 8:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- All that that map shows is that the troubles are centred around London, with a few hot-spots centred on a few major cities in the west-central region of England. You'll note there's nothing in the north, east, south or south-west of England and nothing in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. Not 1/3, but probably less than 1/1000 of the UK area is affected. FactController (talk) 08:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- The map clearly shows trouble spots, when mapped on the United Kingdom, Cover 1/3 of the British Isles. It does not require every square mile of a country to be effected to be considered a country wide event. In addition the Guardian editor responsible for the map admits it does not map every incident. Furthermore two trouble spots were reported in Wales. Thus officially crossing the English border. Erzan (talk) 09:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- Comment "United Kingdom" spelled out is preffered lest we scare the bejeezus out of those parents sending there kids off to University of Kentucky (UK) in a few weeks. Metal lunchbox (talk) 08:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- Or indeed the universities of Kansas, Karlova, Khartoum, Kerala, Kaapstad, etc. I assume your comment was a joke. Rubywine . talk 11:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, it is funny but no I do not intend my comment as a joke. UK is actually used quite frequently in English to refer to the University of Kentucky, though not as frequently as United Kingdom. Why not avoid ambiguity altogether. UK residents might be appalled, but nonetheless not everyone knows instantly what UK refers to. If the page is moved, I think "United Kingdom" would be preferable to "UK". Metal lunchbox (talk) 21:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, yes, I see the problem Metal lunchbox but can think of a very simple solution... lets dissolve the United Kingdom and let the member countries control their own affairs! --Richardeast (talk) 21:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, it is funny but no I do not intend my comment as a joke. UK is actually used quite frequently in English to refer to the University of Kentucky, though not as frequently as United Kingdom. Why not avoid ambiguity altogether. UK residents might be appalled, but nonetheless not everyone knows instantly what UK refers to. If the page is moved, I think "United Kingdom" would be preferable to "UK". Metal lunchbox (talk) 21:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- Or indeed the universities of Kansas, Karlova, Khartoum, Kerala, Kaapstad, etc. I assume your comment was a joke. Rubywine . talk 11:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Disagree. The BBC calls them England riots and that's what the title of the Wikipedia article should be as well. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 15:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- Disagree. The reason the BBC refers to them as "England Riots" is, contrary to those who claim it is down to carping on the part of the SNP, quite simply because it was pointed out to them that in the context of civil unrest within Northern Ireland, the BBC's policy had been to refer to such events specifically in relation to "Northern Ireland", and not in relation to the "United Kingdom" as a whole. The BBC could not therefore justify classing civil unrest taking place wholly within another part of the UK, in this case England, as being "United Kingdom" riots when a policy for specifying the relevant constituent country had already been established. I'm sure there would be plenty of BBC licence fee payers in the Home Counties who would be reaching for their 'phones if during next June/July's silly season across the North Channel, Aunty was to refer to these as "United Kingdom Riots". The distinction is clear and the precident in the wider media has been set; "England" is therefore the correct term. Endrick Shellycoat 09:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
- ^ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-14461393
- ^ http://www.enfield.gov.uk/news/article/338/enfield_reclaiming_the_streets
- ^ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2024159/UK-RIOTS-2011-Keep-away-Britain-Governments-world-warn-citizens.html
- ^ http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/interactive/2011/aug/09/uk-riots-incident-map