Jump to content

Talk:2011 England riots/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13

Judging from TV footage and press photos

Judging from TV footage and press photos-

  • Tottenham and Brixton were Blacks against Whites and Asians.
  • West Bromwich and Harmsworth were Whites against Asians.
  • Croydon was Whites and Blacks against Whites and Orientals.
  • Barking was Whites against Orientals.
  • Nottingham was White against White.

whilst all the rest was multi-ethnic chaos and anarchy.Wipsenade (talk) 09:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Who are these "Orientals" you mention? Ericoides (talk) 12:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Malayasians?81.100.118.140 (talk) 08:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's not "judge from footage and photos", eh? Individual Wikipedian's shaky interpretations of a selection of images is not a good way to go about writing this article. Please use secondary reliable sources for any statements about the ethnic mix of any rioters, looters, vigilantes or police. Fences&Windows 14:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if Iran is trolling...

"Commander of Iran's Basij Force says it is ready to deploy peacekeeper forces in London as the unrest in the British capital drags on despite tightened security measures. .. “Unfortunately the crimes and violence of the autocratic British kingdom continues against the country's deprived [population] and not only the advice of well-wishers has no effect on the conduct of the regime's repressive police force but we witness the deprived people of this country are being called a bunch of thieves and looters,” he regretted... “If the UN General Assembly approves, the Basij Organization is ready to send a number of Ashura and al-Zahra brigades to Liverpool and Birmingham as peacekeepers to monitor observation of human rights laws and deter use of force,” he added. "

Unsure of whether this is notable enough, but it certainly seems to be Iran rubbing it in the UK's face. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Notable or not, that was bloody funny. With more than a hint of poignancy Deterence Talk 09:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Iran is undoubtedly trolling and rubbing it in the UK's face. It is darkly amusing at the UK's expense, and it is notable, but since these self-styled comedians are also perpetrators of all manner of human rights violations, tortures, stonings to death, etc, then if it is included in the article, it needs some RS commentary to preserve NPOV. Rubywine . talk 11:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, but there's more!

  • 11 August 2011, Libya says Irish, Scottish mercenaries tame UK riots, Reuters UK
    • "The rebels of Britain approach Liverpool in hit-and-run battles with Cameron's brigades and mercenaries from Ireland and Scotland. God is Greatest," said a breaking news caption on Libyan TV's morning program.
  • 10 August 2011, UK riots: Cameron must go, says Libya, news24
    • "Cameron and his government must leave after the popular uprising against them and the violent repression of peaceful demonstrations by police," official news agency Jana quoted Deputy Foreign Minister Khaled Kaaim as saying... "These demonstrations show that the British people reject this government which is trying to impose itself through force."

I guess right now would be the perfect time for Libya and Iran to make their PR strikes. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Classic cases of the pot calling the kettle black in both instances.

And THIS from someone who acknowledges Operation Ajax and hates that it happened.Wzrd1 (talk) 06:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Convictions

We should probably trim down the arrests sections and talk about charges. A good article here detailing the greater than normal sentences being handed out for minor crimes including six months in jail for a first offence of stealing £3.50 of water.--Pontificalibus (talk) 07:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The "offence of stealing £3.50 of water" was aggravated to a large extent by the fact that the water was stolen while the defendant was rampaging through the streets as part of a violent and destructive mob that wantonly attacked innocent people and damaged private property. The Courts are obliged, under sentencing guidelines, to take aggravating and mitigating circumstances into consideration when sentencing. Deterence Talk 09:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Deterence, this comment and pretty much of all your recent comments are what we call soapboxing (please click to see what I mean). While it is certainly valid to challenge other editor's views, the only goal in an article's talk page is to improve the encyclopedia. Pontificalibus offered an opinion that is backed by what reliable sources are saying. I remind you that we deal in verifiability, not truth and push aside original research, which means that regardless of the reality is, or what an editor's view (no matter how learned, correct or true they are) is irrelevant when it comes to including or excluding content.
While your observations might be accurate, it would be more correct is you provided us with a reliable source that backed your view on the greater sentences - which would be an interesting addition to the article and an alternative framework to what Pontificalibus suggests. Otherwise, all we have to go on is what Pontificalibus provided, which suggests we should follow Pontificalibus proposal of reworking the arrests section and focusing on the charges.--Cerejota (talk) 09:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Seriously? Are you the ONLY person on the planet who hasn't figured out that the "greater than normal sentences being handed out for minor crimes" are the result of the aggravating circumstances provided by the worst rioting in England in the last 30 years? Do you REALLY need a WP:RS for that? Time for you to step away form the keyboard. Regardless, I wasn't challenging Pontificalibus's comment. I was helping him/her out by providing a little insight into the legal mechanics of the point he raised. Deterence Talk 10:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Pontificalibus' comment implies to me that he/she did not consider it worth stating the obvious (the aggravating circumstances) within the context of this talk page, and reasonably so. Since we cannot assume that every reader is a reasonably well-informed adult, I think Cerejota is correct - there's a need to supply a reliable source to support the viewpoint. I doubt there'll be any shortage of such sources in the days and weeks to come. Also, try to be a little more courteous. Remember that not everyone is a native English speaker. Rubywine . talk 12:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
We need an WP:RS for anything that might be questioned or not understood by our readers - for example in the United States, mitigating and aggravating circumstances are significantly different in jurisprudence and law of the land than in England - in many jurisdictions crimes committed during a riot are not subject to aggravating circumstances. Likewise in many countries. Again, "While your observations might be accurate, it would be more correct is you provided us with a reliable source". Its about what you know or I know, its about verifiability, not truth. Those are the rules of the house.
We are writing an encyclopedia article, not a news item, and we are not a paper encyclopedia; we neither make assumptions on the knowledge of our readers on any topic, nor are limited in terms of the actual space we can devote to increasing their knowledge. As this history get written - and much ado is made about people going to jail for 6 months for stealing a water bottle - it is important for our readers to have trustworthy information so they can make their own minds up. Trustworthy information is only provided by reliable sources, not the genius, or lack thereof, of random wikipedia editors such as yourself or myself. --Cerejota (talk) 16:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I stopped reading when you said Wikipedia is not about the "truth". Deterence Talk 22:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Why? wikipedia is not about what you think is the truth and this is a long-established policy. If you do not like that then perhaps you should consider a better forum. Reliable sources aren't hard to find. Metal lunchbox (talk) 23:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
The moment that people start to rally behind impassioned soapboxing about how the truth has no place in Wikipedia, you know something is seriously broken around here. Deterence Talk 03:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
The critical distinction that you're missing here is the one between "the truth" and "what you think is the truth". If it were so clear and simple, we would not have policy like WP:V. If this debate floats your boat you might get some joy from reading its talk page, and recent archive pages thereof. There's been a bit of a ding dong about this treasured, long standing principle going on there for quite a while now. Rubywine . talk 04:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm an epistemological subjectivist. I should probably steer clear of discussions about the nature of truth ;-) Regardless, while WP:RSs are clearly necessary for content added to the main article, we are not required to be quite so precious about the contributions in the talk pages where helpful editors are merely giving advice and information for the sake of consensus building. Productive discussions would soon wallow in stagnation if every snippet of insight required a thesis of references. Deterence Talk 04:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

How many arrested

The intro says 1100+ people have been arrested in total. The infobox says 1500+ arrested in total. Both statements quote the same source http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/10/london-riots-spark-copycat-birmingham a Guardian article which mentions 1100 but not 1500. I know the number may increase with time but both figures suggest it's the total so far and use the same source, this is incorrect. Surely it should state it was 1100 at a given date, and the 1500 if true should have a correct source and also be in the intro. Or the 1500 should be changed if not true. Carlwev (talk) 13:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


Grosvenor Square

Does 1968 Grosvenor Square count? BBC Article on Grosvenor Square--Kitchen Knife (talk) 14:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Circular Causation

In "Causes", criminal behaviour is is cited as the primary reason for criminal behaviour. This is circular and contributes nothing to the section. I would expect the underlying causes to largely be the barriers to social advancement or personal betterment that these young people are faced with. They're acting like people with nothing to lose and that should be explored. 68.145.117.39 (talk) 16:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

While circular, this seems to be about right. Agathoclea (talk) 17:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Agathoclea, by definition, circular arguments are right. They're tautologies. But, that doesn't mean they're informative. Deterence Talk 04:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Lede edit war

I highly recommend people stop edit warring on the lede. That already has caused the article to be protected once already. Please discuss the different versions and develop consensus for your changes. This edit war is silly, and is almost amounts to vandalism if no discussion happens. Lets focus on quality, please. --Cerejota (talk) 18:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Press comments summary: Fri 12 Aug 2011

What looks like a useful summary by The Independent may be of interest if anyone has time. Unfortunately links to the pieces aren't given. --Trevj (talk) 22:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of See also

AndyTheGrump, you've just deleted the See Also section on the grounds that it is being used to push POV articles. Examining it, I found the articles listed in it immediately before your reversion/deletion edit combo were

Obviously people will take different views. There's only one of those I'd consider to be POV (Race riots) and even that one is much less problematic placed in the "See also" section than it would have been if the text had asserted that the 2011 England riots were race riots. Also for an article of this size I think a "See also" section is helpful in guiding people to other major related articles - not all of which were listed, but they could have been added later. What exactly was your problem with this section, or more particularly, with each of these links? Rubywine . talk 02:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that some people may also see the 'List of people killed by law enforcement officers in the United Kingdom' link as problematic - the article isn't about the death of Mark Duggan as such. But no, the real problem with a 'see also' section in articles like this is that you can put almost anything into it - I removed it earlier after someone began it with the French 2005 riots article - because you could equally have included almost any other British riot in the last 50 years, along with many riots elsewhere. As our MoS notes, 'a good article might not require a "See also" section at all' - if something is obviously relevant, it should be included in the article text, as an online wikilink, and if it isn't obviously relevant, then including it in an open-ended list achieves little. It is possible that a limited 'see also' section might be justified as and when the article reaches a more mature state, but for now it will just encourage linking to topics of questionable relevance - in my opinion. We have a real problem with maintaining a NPOV in the article text as it is, without adding a push-your-POV-here section - and one, it should be noted, where one needs not make any claim to notability, relevance, or anything else to add links. In a rapidly-evolving article, anything added needs to be subject to proper scrutiny, and weighed against sources - not left open to the whims of editors. I think most of our readers are capable of typing 'riots' into a search box in any case. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
According to WP:SEEALSO, "Links included in the "See also" section may be useful for readers seeking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question." This article is primarily about rioting and looting. While Race riots, Riots and Urban riots clearly belong in the See Also section of the main article, the link to List of people killed by law enforcement officers in the United Kingdom is more appropriate for the See Also section of the article on the Death of Mark Duggan. Deterence Talk 03:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Andy, I would agree with Deterence, although not on Race riots. It took me a while to locate the relevant article in the Manual of Style, since my search kept running into humongous "See also" sections in the MoS. Then I finally found WP:SEEALSO and discovered that you've cherry picked your quote, to say the least. The guidance is distinctly different to what you've said. Basically, I have a very different take on this. There are articles about other urban riots in recent history, and previous British riots, that don't fit naturally into the article text but do belong in a See also section. These include 2005 civil unrest in France for the very reason that it provides such a sharp contrast; which is probably why the editors of "See also" in that article saw fit to link to this one. This is a question of editorial judgement, and yes the decision about each link should be subject to scrutiny, but that's far better done on this talk page than by unilateral deletion of the entire "See also" section. It's not a matter of urgency, but I think the section should be restored. Rubywine . talk 04:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Given that the 2011 England riots were not race riots, I agree that the link to Race riots could probably be left out of the See Also section. As for me cherry-picking my quote, I provided only the most relevant sentence from the section (for the sake of brevity) along with a link to WP:SEEALSO so editors could read it all for themselves. Deterence Talk 04:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
My entire comment was addressed to Andy, I merely mentioned that I agreed with you. I've just amended it to make that a bit clearer. Obviously I was expecting too much from my carefully selected indentation! :) Rubywine . talk
I stand corrected and apologise for the misunderstanding. Deterence Talk 04:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
No problems at all. It's pleasant to find myself in agreement with a fellow editor. Rubywine . talk 04:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
The David Starkey quotes? This comes to mind ;-) Deterence Talk 05:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Andy, you are serious in your edit summary? It seems like you need to recharge your AGF battery, because launching into accusations of POV pushing without evidence is surely a failure to AGF. That said, I disagree strongly with your assessment of the situation - there was no attempt on my part to push any POV. I just found it weird that unlike the bulk of the articles in wikipedia, this lacks a see also and dropped some stuff into it, including a List article I recently created.

I think that see also's, and WP:SEEALSO backs me completely, are very good ways to separate this article from a news article, in that it provides encyclopedic depth and contextualizes events in the wider world, and goes into our wealth of encyclopedic knowledge to enrich the knowledge of our readers. They should be present whenever possible and needed, which I have found to be nearly always. Your argument "ad absurdum" that we would have to include every British riot in the last 50 years is put to rest by the existence of a conveniently placed navbox that highlights the most notable events regarding riots in the United Kingdom - I think you might have missed it, but its right there in the bottom of the article. So there is no possibility of the see also becoming a problem in this sense. The other arguments seem more like a philosophical opposition to See Also's in general, rather than an specific criticism of any particular one -even when you mention particular ones. I am sure that if you have a philosophical opposition to See Alsos in general, the place to vent it is not here - but in the talk page of the appropriate MOS.

What would a "see also" include in this article? For starters, to reflect notable and reliably sourced views that compare this event to others, Such as this piece by Dominique Moïsi in the Financial Times, without giving these views undue weight in the article - precisely address issues of neutrality in a way that is encyclopedic, rather than journalistic, which is what your proposal of complete deletion of the section feels like. That said, I see the point on the inclusion of the list, but the cause of the Tottenham riot is directly related to the police killing a man - that is an issue of *this* event to, as the Tottenham riot was the riot that sparked all the other. That is information that provides historic context that has no other space to go in this article than a See Also. And any other addition we can discuss, as well as removals.

I see many problems with the article, in particular the lack conscientiousness of not discussing edits, the incredible amount of redundant sources, the lede and its utter lack of any making of sense and looking more like a tabloid lede rather than an encyclopedia lede, and of course, the NPOV battle, etc. The See also has neither been a source of problems, nor the "problems" it might create cannot be solved by discussion and consensus.

That said, I am restoring the section, and restoring the links, and will revert to my limit as per 3RR, unless substantial, non-philosophical opposition to each item is given. --Cerejota (talk) 05:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

This is the navbox:

I hope it illustrates why we do not have to include all the riots pretty well.--Cerejota (talk) 05:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Or WHY *EARLY* reports should be tempered by HISTORIC data, rather than initial, potentially incorrect reports. Else, the US would be depopulated by initial race riot reports in the 1970's. FACTS trump initial reports with incorrect data, due to the initial confusion.Wzrd1 (talk) 06:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

David Starkey comments: "the whites have become black"

This contribution from historian David Starkey has received significant media coverage, eg:

--Mais oui! (talk) 04:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

So, current cultural single source should be considered an authority, in spite of POV conflicts on racial issues?! Or is it a few odd sources that are now authorities, not waiting for the dust to settle to find the REALITY?
Sorry, but until a far amount of fact collecting time has elapsed after an emergent condition has occurred, one cannot derive ANY real facts about a situation. Or would you prefer the FIRST reports about New Orleans after the hurricane disaster rule over FINAL FACTS FOUND TRUE?Wzrd1 (talk) 06:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Err... please cut putting words in my mouth. If you look carefully at my edit you will note that I did not advocate anything whatsoever. I simply thought it important that editors of this article were aware of this news item, which is being heavily covered in serious media today. (Incidentally, using BLOCK CAPITALS is highly unlikely to assist you arguments. Rather the contrary.) --Mais oui! (talk) 07:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
This will get a lot more media coverage in days to come, I suggest we wait and see what happens. I'm sure a lot of liberals at the guardian are going to want to try and burn him, so wait for his defence. Alexandre8 (talk) 00:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Archive

Would someone please archive some of this talk page. Thank you. Deterence Talk 09:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. I have archived eleven topics including all marked "Resolved", and all which have not been touched for two days (except a couple which appear to require resolution). It's still a big page but it can't be helped. Rubywine . talk 15:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Request correction re shooting in Croydon

Police were not responsible for the shooting of a man in Croydon on 8 August, as stated in the 2nd para. of the Introduction.

Two men have now been arrested in connection with this death.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-14513340 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinvs (talk • contribs) 11:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Seems to have been corrected - probably vandalism of the article? AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Request Semi protected edit.

The recent edit here includes information not relevant to the article and I believe it should be removed. Add Hominy (talk) 22:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

 DoneAgreed - Manchester Police using Twitter days after the riots to talk amongst themselves isn't exactly on-topic. I've removed it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. Tagged as done.--Cerejota (talk) 22:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Was the original protest/demonstration peaceful?

We need to form a consensus on whether we include the word "peaceful" when describing the initial protest/demonstration that followed the death of Mark Duggan. It is repeatedly being inserted, and then removed, from the description in the (currently) second sentence of the lead, and we need to have authority to revert-on-sight, one way or the other.

My current opinion, based on the fact that the word is used when referring to it in several reliable sources, is that it should be in the lead of this article. Reliable sources using it include: The Guardian 7th Aug, BBC News 7th Aug, BBC News 8th Aug, BBC News 9th Aug, The Independent 13th Aug, The Telegraph 7th Aug, The Scotsman 9th Aug, Irish Times 9th Aug, USA Today 9th Aug, AlJazeera 10th Aug, The Wall Street Journal 10th Aug, Sydney Morning Herald 13th Aug. Are there any sources which say it wasn't peaceful?

FactController (talk) 22:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree on the relevancy of this fact (ie peaceful nature), but no one has the "authority to revert on sight" unless defending a clear WP:OFFICE action regarding legal liability, or when reverting obvious vandalism. Not even the BLP protection allows a regular editor to edit war without consequences such as 3RR. Other than that, all we have is to adhere to the rules of editing and content insertion that apply to all of us equally. We don't call it edit warring for nothing...--Cerejota (talk) 22:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
So what is the point in having a consensus then if it can't be "protected"? Do you think the word "peaceful" should be used in the description? FactController (talk) 22:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
That's an impressive collection of RS saying the original march was peaceful. The only people I have seen alleging otherwise were frothy-mouthed, highly agitated and not from Tottenham; not exactly RS. The distress expressed by the family to the press about the riots is consistent with their protest having been peaceful. So short answer: it was peaceful. Rubywine . talk 22:55, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
The press reports say it was "initially peaceful", so let's just use that. It wasn't "entirely" peaceful, obviously. -- Avanu (talk) 22:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
None of the ones I cite above say that about the original march. Can you produce a list of ones that do please to help us weigh up the evidence? FactController (talk) 23:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Sure, your very first link above says "Tottenham riots: a peaceful protest, then suddenly all hell broke loose".
"What began as a gathering of around 200 protesters demanding answers ... culminated 12 hours later in a full-scale riot...."
"What happened over the next four hours is subject to debate, but what is clear is that tensions gradually escalated, as police made only limited attempts to talk to the demonstrators."
That's just the first source, and pretty much a LOT of the article talks about how it escalated, "When no one came (to speak), organisers said some younger men turned their anger to two police cars", "Others present said the spark for the rioting was a specific incident involving a 16-year-old woman" -- Avanu (talk) 23:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Exactly. Obviously something kicked off, didn't it. According to onlookers in Tottenham, everything kicked off after a 16 year old girl who approached a group of police to demand answers about Duggan's shooting was physically attacked and beaten. Rubywine . talk 23:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
So the original march was peaceful then. Can you (Avanu) cite any references which say "initially peaceful", as you claimed above, or which don't say it was a peaceful march? FactController (talk) 23:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
You do understand what the word "initially" means, right? We don't have to quote things verbatim, and in fact plagiarism is discouraged. It was initially peaceful, then after several hours, it wasn't peaceful. You can call it a march, a protest, whatever, but the sources are all clear that it was peaceful at first and then not. There's original research (which this is not), and then there is being stubbornly semantic (which this discussion is beginning to sound like). Do you think it was literally like an agenda? Peaceful Protest - 3pm to 8pm, followed by Mindless Mayhem from 8pm to Midnight? -- Avanu (talk) 00:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Mainstream media reports have consistently reported the protest as being initially "peaceful" for the first few hours, (see links helpfully supplied by User:FactController above). At this stage, anyone who suggests otherwise is testing our WP:AGF to its limits. Deterence Talk 01:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Tagging

A small number of editors persist in adding "cleanup" tags to the head of this article. This is currently a high traffic page, read by more than 50,000 people each day. They did not come here to read about editors prodding each other. You don't see editor's notes to each other in a reputable encyclopaedia. This article is very much a work in progress, and so it will not yet be perfect. We know it needs ongoing cleanup. Adding a gaudy distracting tag in no way helps that process. WWGB (talk) 01:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. It's distracting and unhelpful. The multiple issues tag told us that someone thinks the article needs attention in several areas. The tag really tells us nothing very useful; please don't put it back. Instead of edit-warring it back into the article, please explain and discuss the issues on this page. Rubywine . talk 02:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
No, not "unhelpful". They provide necessary information for anyone who might have come to the article with the mistaken belief that the article might be an NPOV account of the actuality of the situation. FactController (talk) 07:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
WWGB, the tags are there for a very good reason - the article is not currently worthy. Do you think it's fair to let the 50,000 think that this article represents anything like an encycoepedic analysis of the troubles? Better to make it clear to anyone who reads it that, currently, it is anything but. You could help by looking at some of its issues. FactController (talk) 07:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Just because you believe that to be the case does not represent consensus. The fact remains that there is little or no agreement to detract from the appearance of a high traffic article by tagging it. Seems like a very good way to destroy public confidence in Wikipedia. I guess it will only be "worthy" when you decide? WWGB (talk) 09:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Please focus on the content, not the editor. It is clear that all the issues that I tagged are being discussed by the editors here, which means these issues remain - in fact, I tagged as a result of other editors raising the points, and the edit war conditions of editing that have made constructive editing near impossible. The fact that you are the only one removing the tags, tells me that there is consensus for the tags, but perhaps I am wrong. Further more, to argue aesthetic value over the increased attention to content issues that might get resolved faster via tagging is a first in more than seven years around here... There is not a single policy that requires an article to be pretty, yet there is plenty of policy violations (rapes, even) these tags point to. To put aesthetic quality over content quality... damn I can't still get over how over the top that argument is. --Cerejota (talk) 14:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Didn't see above, so I am crossing it out--Cerejota (talk) 14:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


These are the tags in question. You can put them back if removed to show you support a consensus to keep them. You can also discuss why not or why to include them. You can also edit the article to eliminate the basis for the tagging. But by g-d! Do not harm the template's feelings by calling them ugly...

{{multiple issues|lead rewrite=August 2011|original research=August 2011|synthesis=August 2011|update=August 2011|weasel=August 2011}}
{{Too few opinions|date=August 2011}}

--Cerejota (talk) 14:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

  • The tags can only remain if there are specific suggestions for improvement here on talk. As I don't see that, I will remove the tags. Please only restore them with specific reasoning. --John (talk) 19:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
There are plenty in #Cleanup required above that you can get stuck into if you like. FactController (talk) 20:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Request correction - number of deaths

The second paragraph of the article lists 6 deaths, but the "Deaths and Injuries" section and the info box still say 5. Raevn (talk) 01:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

"Rioters threw bottles at car"

Please, do not get him killed!!!
Do not include news, rather than encyclopedic, information in Wikipedia articles. However, at Wikinews, they might welcome this contribution and would even give their server kittehs some old serial cables to play with.

An editor has reinstated this story sourced only by The Sun, here with the edit summary "(disprove it if you have a problem)". This misses the point; The Sun is not a reliable source and we shouldn't add contentious material that is not reliable sourced. I don't edit war so perhaps another editor would remove this, if it is considered my view is correct? Bridgeplayer (talk) 02:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. We shouldn't base contentious material on tabloids with a poor reputation. It seems to have been reverted already. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:49, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
"News sources often contain both reporting content and editorial content. Mainstream news reporting is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact, though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors." The burden is on you if you feel that the reputations of criminals are being brought into disrepute as the result of the use of sources you feel are unreliable. Nevard (talk) 02:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
I see you have reinserted this again in spite of objections - per policy, you should discuss this on the talk page, and or ask at the reliable sources noticeboard, rather than edit-warring the disputed content back into the article. I am going to remove it again, and if you reinsert it, consider taking other action. (You should be aware that the reliability of this particular episode has already been debated, and the source deemed unreliable) AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Excuse me, you should not have reverted while the discussion is still going on [1]. —Yk Yk Yk  talk ~ contrib 03:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
I'd suggest either finding a better source for this story or accepting that it isn't suitable for our article, lest this become a behavioral issue. --John (talk) 03:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Yeah WP:RS says that, but WP:BURDEN says it is up to the person including an item to show something is reliable via discussion and editing.--Cerejota (talk) 03:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
It meets the reliable source criteria. Prove it's not reliable.. if you can. Nevard (talk) 06:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Since when do tabloids meet the criteria for WP:RS? Deterence Talk 06:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, someone here needs to read WP:SENSATION and WP:V. Also, this unimportant core policy called WP:UNDUE. It is not me who needs to do that, I already read them. They tell me to ignore everything The Sun says unless The Telegraph, The Independent, The Times, AND The Guardian say it, in which case I should source from them, not a soft-porn (both literally and figuratively) periodical which is what The Sun is. They also tell that baby killing (and I do not mean abortion, I mean literal born baby killing) is tragically and unfortunately rather massive on the world-scale, and in a riot by definition people do all kinds of atrocious things (because that is what makes them a riot, otherwise we would call them picnics or lovefests) so there is nothing in an incident of baby killing that ALMOST happened that is notable enough to increase encyclopedic understanding of the 2011 England riots. A hundred years from now, if we include this, some historian writing a book on the riots would read it and go "Fuck you, Wikipedians from the early 21st century, fuck you". Also every time you include a non-notable news item in an article, a server kitteh dies. Please think of the server kittehs. --Cerejota (talk) 07:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Improvements in article

Someone could improve the article? Here is the English Wikipedia. The best wikipedia. What a shame! Many articles featured here and many with problems. What a paradox! Eduardo P (talk) 15:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed! What a paradox. Thanks for those encouraging and helpful words, Eduardo. :) Rubywine . talk 22:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup required

As I see it, there are several problems with this article.

  1. Single cherry-picked opinions are being interpretted and stated as fact. Instead they should be attributed (whose opinion are they) and put into the context in which they were made. The 'Causes' section is almost nothing but this, but I've found and tackled some others too - see a claim, and, certainly, there are many others.
  2. Cherry-picked factoids are being strung together and synthesised into a scenario supporting one POV, or another. POVs need to be reliably sourced as a whole, and compared and contrasted with alternative POV to arrive at a NPOV summary for the article. The 'historical context' section is an example of this and it needs sorting out.
  3. Facts and opinions are being misrepresented. Almost each time I compare a statement in the article with the references that supposedly support that statement, I find that what is written is either a gross exaggeration or a complete misrepresentaion of the reference. See these edits for examples so far uncovered: exaggeration, not true and not in the ref, not true and not in the ref, disobedience at a YOI written as "Fires and disturbances", nowhere in the ref and exaggeration.

I have tried to fix some of the problems that I've come across, however, in many cases my edits have been reverted soon afterwards. See: reverted to untrue state for example. For those reasons I believe the article seriously needs cleaning-up to compy with Wiki policies andd guidelines, so the cleanup template is appropriate. FactController (talk) 19:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with a lot of what you are saying, but cleanup in general means in terms of the WP:MOS. I have further tagged to address some of the points you make, and make some of my own:
  1. It needs to be updated - there is out-of-date information, and a lot of the sources in use have been updated to say things that are not what they are being used for. See FactController's comments, some of it is due not to bad editing, just that the sources in the same URL have changed, typical of many reliable sources during fast-developing events.
  2. It may contain original research or unverifiable claims - cherry picking and lack of sourcing as per FactController's comments
  3. It may contain previously unpublished synthesis of published material that conveys ideas not attributable to the original sources. - a more specific elaboration of above, in particular I see a tendency to join many sources together, each providing one bit, to advance statements that none of them are making. It is okay to use one source that says X, and then support it with other sources that don't say X but support part of X, but it is not okay to say X without a source, and then use sources than support part of X.
  4. Its neutrality or factuality may be compromised by weasel words - major issues with this through
  5. Its introduction may need to be rewritten to comply with Wikipedia's lead section guidelines - the lede is an unmitigated disaster, that makes me blush is embarrassment at its lack of encyclopedic coherence and quality.
  6. The examples and perspective in this article may not include all significant viewpoints - heavily skewed towards criticism of the rioters from a set of perspectives that can be described as "law and order", but ignores criticism of the riots from other perspectives (such as "self-harm") and even views that either support the riots, or don't support the violence but have other views. All of these views can be reliably sourced, trivially, so their absence is willful on the part of editors not understanding NPOV.
  7. This article documents a current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses. - we soon have to remove this, but this is important in terms of attribution - right now almost all facts should be attributed "according to X" etc, because there is the fog-of-news, and as such few facts exist that can be considered encyclopedic.
  8. This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. (Consider using more specific clean up instructions.) - just very ugly, over-sourced, too long in parts that don't matter, to short in parts that do. In general just a low-quality effort.--Cerejota (talk) 20:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


I futher tagged the incident section, which is basically a collection of every incident in the news around the riots. This is a prime example on how not to write an article on a notable event. We do not need to know every specific incident's nature - it is understood that a riot is a riot, nor do we need to have intricate details of the circumstances. Furthermore notability is not inherited, just because it happened during a notable event, it doesn't mean it is notable in itself. A lot of the examples that currently take several sentences could all be combined into one sentence, to wit: "Rioting also happened at W, X, Y, and Z, with arrests of X amount of peoplesources". That's it. Even a timeline of the events wouldn't need to be so detailed, as only the most relevant events (such as the simultaneous spread of the riots through england, or deaths) should be noted. Everything else can be abbreviated. I suggests that those interest in building a blow-by-blow account of the riots go over to our sister project WikiNews and contribute there.--Cerejota (talk) 22:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
The incidents need to be turned into prose. That will solve some of those problems. I've been tempted to re-write the lists into prose but was originally waiting for the riots to come to a finish. Brad78 (talk) 22:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Yeah we can discuss that once everything is no longer a current event, however we should warn readers that we are aware of issues.--Cerejota (talk) 00:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Which is why we have a current event tag. WWGB (talk) 01:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Yep, but just because its a current event, we do not remove issue tags placed by two different editors, and thoroughly explained in the talk page, until the issues have at least been discussed in some reasonable fashion. I have restored them. If you disagree, please explain why? --Cerejota (talk) 03:49, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree with WWGB. The multiple issues tag is horrendous - it is not a service to readers, it is an annoyance - and the behaviour around it has become edit warring. The current event tag is adequate. The issues that you wish to raise should be discussed on this page productively. I suggest those with strong views on a given section should collaborate and write a draft (or if you can't, different drafts) of what you propose so other people can comment and make suggestions. Rubywine . talk 04:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
It only became edit warring because WWGB made misleading edits, and engages in borderline WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior by not answering questions directed at him, and opening a new thread while this one was still on going, ignoring the care to explain and not addressing a single point of substance. I ask you to reconsider, not your views on the tags, which are legitimate, but were you are laying the blame for the edit warring.--Cerejota (talk) 14:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
I am not attributing blame, Cerejota. There has been an edit war over this multiple issues tag between several people. I haven't seen anything approaching WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behaviour on the part of WWGB, but perhaps that's because I happen to agree with him over this tag, and I understand his position on it perfectly. Beyond that, the whole atmosphere on this talk page has become very tiresome. There's been friction, soapboxing, ignoring of consensus, and endless nitpicking over trivia. Let's stop bickering, and making speeches about how terrible the article is, and trying to lay down rules for others to follow, and let's do some collaborative work. I am happy to discuss drafts and to help shape them into a final form, but I haven't got the time to produce initial drafts myself, nor do I share anything like your strong opinions on this article, so I'd rather take a back seat and try to help. Rubywine . talk 19:26, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
A clear WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT was the unecessary forking of this thread into the one below, ignoring an ongoing discussion. In addition, see his misleading edit summaries, one named "tagging", in which he didn't tag, but remove tags, another basically saying there was no discussion for the inclusion of the tags, ignoring this thread. In addition, I posed a direct question in this thread, which he has had ample time to answer, but hasn't, and in fact proceed to open a new thread that ignored this one. That is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior. I am not saying he cannot come back from it, or that he has repeatedly done it, but it is moving the goal posts if you revert, alleging no discussion, and then refuse to take part on the discussion. All am saying is that WWGB shouldn't allow our disagreements on what is to be included be seen from his perspective as permission to edit war. --Cerejota (talk) 02:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
The fact that the aftermath of the events are still current, is no excuse for such a poor, non-netral POV and OR riddled article. The tags are required to warn readers to take it all with a pinch of salt. They are currently essential. The best way to get rid of them is to address the issues and clean-up the article. FactController (talk) 21:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Present company excepted, I have learned not to trust a damn thing I read in Wikipedia. I've seen some wanton misinformation posted in some high-profile articles by people pushing their own political agendas and the wanton incompetence and favouritism of (far too many) Wikipedia administrators serves only to exacerbate the problem when legitimate concerns are brought to their attention. Deterence Talk 00:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The Sun

I notice that The Sun is being cited. Hitherto this red top has not been considered a reliable source; it has no reputation for fact checking. Bridgeplayer (talk) 01:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Even if it wasn't a tabloid, The Sun hasn't been considered the least bit reliable ever since its appalling coverage of the Hillsborough Disaster. Deterence Talk 01:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The sun is crap.82.18.204.132 (talk) 16:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Definitely. All the tabloid citations must go, if possible. The Mail is even worse in some respects. Rubywine . talk 05:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Race? class?

Can we get some clarification of the riots? Are the riots limited to black areas, or are they multi-racial? Can we get some level-headed discussion that does not stoop to David Starkey's level? There needs to be some analysis of social class' relationship also. And please let us use internationally decipherable language, not regionalisms, such as "chavs."Dogru144 (talk) 10:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Without looking at a roll-call of those being processed by the Courts, the best one can do may be to examine the racial mix of those appearing in the video footage of the riots. From what I saw, there was a pretty strong representation of both White and Black rioters, along with some of Indian ethnicity. This suggests that the riots had a rather "multi-racial" representation. Perhaps others will have seen differently. Regardless, I don't think such data achieves the standard of verifiability required of WP:RS, especially given that the majority of rioters were hooded and/or masked, most of the video footage is of relatively poor quality and there is no way to be sure that the published video footage is representative of all the rioters. Deterence Talk 10:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
All I've read is that over 50% of those arrested are under 18, so too young to vote. But I don't think this is of importance. There's no way this can be traced back to a cause in such a simple way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.22.28 (talk) 21:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
The rioters were of different races, with blacks being significantly over-represented in comparison to their numbers in the general population. Many of the white rioters, as Starkey said, are whites who have become culturally black; they embrace and imitate black gangster culture and behaviour. Most rioters are underclass, but there have been rioters of other classes. 188.28.215.188 (talk) 09:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Section "Causes"

Someone, could put one reference in the section? Eduardo P (talk) 16:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Lead Section

Comments about the lead section from Cerejota (copied) :

The introduction may need to be rewritten to comply with Wikipedia's lead section guidelines - the lede is an unmitigated disaster, that makes me blush in embarrassment at its lack of encyclopedic coherence and quality. --Cerejota (talk) 20:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Ouch. To begin with, I corrected some grammar and removed a paragraph. This is the result:

Widespread rioting, looting and arson occurred, initially in several districts of London, then later across parts of England, from 6 to 10 August 2011. The riots began in Tottenham, North London, following a peaceful march protesting the fatal shooting of Mark Duggan by Metropolitan Police Service firearms officers on 4 August 2011. Disorder spread across London and to other areas of England, with the worst disturbances centred on several major cities.[1][2][3][4]
On 6 August 2011, about 200 people, including relatives of Duggan, marched in Tottenham. Disturbances started the same evening, and over the following days spread to other areas of London including Hackney, Wood Green, Enfield Town, Ponders End, Walthamstow, Islington and Brixton.[5] Violent disorder was reported in several boroughs of London, as far south as Croydon. At least 186 police officers were reported injured.[6] On 8 August, rioting and looting occurred in Birmingham, Liverpool, Nottingham, Bristol, Medway and Leicester and on 9 August spread to Manchester city centre and Salford. As of 13 August, 2,275 people have been arrested, of whom more than 1,000 have been charged.[7] Five men have died; a man was shot on 8 August,[8] three men were killed by a car in a hit-and-run attack on 10 August,[9] and an elderly man who was beaten unconscious on 8 August died three days later.[10]
On 11 August 2011, the Association of British Insurers estimated that the riots had caused more than £200 million worth of damage.[11]

This is the paragraph which I removed. I thought it wasn't worth saving; you may disagree. I think it says very little, and I find it generally problematic. I think it needs to be replaced with something far more substantial about the response of politicians, the police, the media and others.

In response to the incidents, Prime Minister David Cameron, Home Secretary Theresa May, London Mayor Boris Johnson and Opposition Leader Ed Miliband cut short their holidays to return to London. Parliament was recalled on 11 August to debate the situation.[12] By this time, disturbances and unrest had largely abated and thousands of residents across the country had started the clean-up process. Arrests and investigations are ongoing.

So the next step is to locate and think about Wikipedia's guidelines for lead sections. Suggestions and comments would be great. Rubywine . talk

Great effort and a step in the right direction. The specific link would be WP:LEDE and various sub-areas, such as WP:MOSBEGIN, but of course subject to all other content policies, as these are MOS. In particular, this article, and hence the lede, suffers from understandable recentitis, but this is not an excuse not to cure it. As such my guiding principles are the NPOV issues related to WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NEVENTS. I will be abstract because I find that often clarifying what we want to achieve helps to achieve it with less pain, but I will discuss any text that is proposed. Please do not take this to mean that I am against your edit, which is indeed a step forward. My apologies for the TL;DR, but this is an important part of the article, that if we are serious in developing into a quality entry we should discuss in depth - to avoid edit warring, and promote a better editing environment.
Let me start:
WP:LEDE issues
  • WP:MOSINTRO issues - "Provide an accessible overview". I do not think the lede achieves this most important and overriding task. I elaborate further, but ost issues are related to being overly detailed, to news-centric, and journalistic.
  • WP:BEGINNING/WP:BOLDTITLE issues- our first sentence goes against even the direct examples given. It has rather vehemently been defended, without elaboration, but with an invisible comment referencing WP:BOLDTITLE, which I assume (as no discussion is made) refers to the "page title is descriptive" exception. I disagree that it applies in this case, and no compelling argument has been made as to why it does. I disagree because this is not a descriptive name, it is the name of an event as per WP:RS. A descriptive name is a name given to something by wikipedia editors as a way to describe an article covering a topic that no WP:RS has given a name to. The example in BOLDTITLE is clear in this sense: if you search the web for "Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers", you do not find articles in RS that use that name as a descriptor - all you find are wikipedia clones, and tagging databases - that is because the title "Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers" was an editorial decision on the part of the editors of that article to describe the topic. "2011 England riots", on the other hand, is a WP:COMMONNAME common name for this event, not a descriptive title. The difference is not trivial, and in fact leads to problems with WP:UNDUE lack of neutrality in the existing lede (more on that later). The sentence should be a variation of "2011 England riots began...", because as a common name, rather than a descriptive title, it is subject to the regular MOS format of "beginning with the title as the subject of the first sentence".
    Put bluntly, the title of this article is not "Widespread rioting, looting and arson in England in 2011" (a descriptive title, for which a lede for a descriptive title would be suitable), but it is "2011 England riots" the emerging common name for a contemporary historical event worthy of encyclopedic coverage. I believe, in this case, that we need to remember WP:NOT#Journalism - we do not speak in news language which is generally descriptive language - language that describes information, we speak in encyclopedic language, which is generally presentational language - we simply present, not describe, verifiable information. As such, this lede reads like an article at Wikinews, not an entry in an encyclopedia.
  • WP:UNDUE issues - This is part of the WP:NPOV policy, and hence pretty important to consider. Uses of undue weight are prevalent in this article, and in fact most major edits of the content (and the coatrack/povfork for the "causes") result from undue weight being given to information. A good example is the line you removed from the lede (althought I would have indeed included a line saying something like "The riots forced Government and Opposition leaders, including the Prime Minister, to cut short their summer holidays." - because this is a factoid that establishes the seriousness of the situation to a reade rin the future looking back on this event). That said, a problem I see with the lede is that it really doesn't establish the what the article is about. Here is a framework:
    • First sentence - see above.
    • First riot at Tottenham, then spread across London, then across England. Provide approximate dates of spread, but over-detailed accounts of political sub-units should be avoided. Provide a date as to when major rioting subsided.
    • Effect on government and society - such as the cutting holidays short, business impact, political debates, without going into detail, for example "Extensive economic paralysis" and/or "Extensive debates and controversies in the media"
    • Casualties, arrests, convictions, and property damage - objective facts only - X killed, Y wounded, Z arrests, Q convictions, W pounds in damages, no news worthy but un-encyclopedic details.
    • Causes/context/controversies, possibly
    • Reactions from the international community, possibly
  • Such a frame work would cut UNDUE significantly, as no details are provided, inviting the reader to go into the article for them.
That is it from me for now. Clearly, some of the issues I mention are related to the content itself, but I think we can make a good lede for a bad article, and that this goodness can be contagious. In fact, lede overhauls tend to be the one of the first things done in peer reviews geared toward GA status, precisely because often fixing the lede leads to fixing other article issues, or illustrating them.--Cerejota (talk) 02:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Please don't feel the need to be cautiously polite. I've spent 3 minutes editing the grammar and have no attachment whatsoever to this text. I just wanted to get something onto this page to get things started. Please just go right ahead with a rewrite. Your framework looks excellent. But unless it's for your own benefit, please remove the policy copied from WP:LEDE - if we need to refer to it, I'd rather look at it properly laid out. Thanks. Rubywine . talk 05:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I disagree on the assessment ofWP:BOLDTITLE - I first saw that here applied - checked it up as it was new too me - and as wikipolicies shoud do -it made sense. We are still to close to the event to have a RS Title, maybe a few month down the line. (Hey how many of us still remember the Great War?). Since there is no real name or identifier this gives us the option to build the lead to be a summary of the article without being hampered by a cumbersome "The 2011 England Riots were riots that happened in England in 2011..." Agathoclea (talk) 07:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Agathoclea. "2011 England riots" is our description of the events, not a widely accepted name for them.
Reliable sources are using a variety of terms. Google News currently shows more results for "UK riots" and "British riots" than for "England riots", with the year almost never included (because news media needn't disambiguate in this manner). —David Levy 09:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Additionally, Google News gives 4-times as many results for "London riots" as for all the other terms mentioned by David added together. FactController (talk) 09:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Excellent point. I forgot to check that term. —David Levy 10:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
The BBC calls the "England riots" in general [2]. From a descriptive perspective, perhaps London hits more, but we should look at the qualitative, not the quantitative. This point is obviously disputed, and I won't hold it up to keep us from fixing the other issues, but it is pretty clear to me that this is a name being given to this event by the RS. You cannot get more RS than the BBC.--Cerejota (talk) 11:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
The BBC is a reliable source, not "the" reliable source. Other reliable sources (inside and outside the UK) differ in their relevant terminology.
I don't think that anyone advocates reverting to "London" in the article's title (which would be less accurate). The point is that "England riots" (which, by the way, isn't the same as "2011 England riots") doesn't prevail to the extent that it can be considered a formal designation. This might change in the future, or perhaps another term will become the widely accepted name. It's too soon to know. —David Levy 17:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The most important aspects of the topic

According to WP:LEAD, the lead should give an NPOV introduction to the article and a concise summary of the most importand aspects of the topic, including controversies, with the amount of emphasis reflecting the significance. Perhaps the best place to start to to attempt to agree what are the most important aspects of the topic.

I'll stick my neck out here and offer the following as an Aunt Sally list of the most important events:

  1. Saturday: A peceful march over a fatal shooting by police degenerated into a disturbance in Tottenham.
  2. Sunday: The spread of news and rumours about the previous evening's disturbances in Tottenham triggered riots in a handful of other areas of London (.., .. , ..).
  3. Monday: The morning was quiet but by evening many more areas of London were affected by widespread looting, arson and violence, with the worst outbreaks in .., .., .., .. and ... . A man suspected of being involved in looting was found shot, in Croydon, and died later in hospital. Localised outbreaks of copycat actions were reported in Birmingham, Bristol and Nottingham.
  4. Tuesday: London was quiet following a massively increased police prescence, but copycat actions escalated in Birmingham and spread to other localities in the West Midlands and the north-west to localities in the Manchester and Liverpool areas.
  5. Wednesday: London remained quiet whilst hundreds of arrests were made there. Three men were killed in Birmingham in a hit-and-run incident related to the disturbances. Looting and violence continued in two locations around Manchester and Liverpool.
  6. Thursday: a man who had been assaulted in Ealing on Monday died in hospital. Parliament was recalled to debate the events.
  7. Small and localised events took place in many smaller towns and cities in England throughout the latter four days of the troubles.
  8. The troubles were characterised by rampant looting and arson attacks of unprecedented levels.
  9. Initial police action and reaction was criticised as not being appropriate.
  10. Arrests, charges and trials are continuing, with courts working extended hours.
  11. Analysis and speculation over contributory factors continues.

FactController (talk) 09:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

In general this is a great overview on how to conceptualize the article, but too detailed for a lede. I like your points 7-10 for the lede. They are beautifully concise, accurate, and absolutely verifiable. Perhaps with little modification they can be included.--Cerejota (talk) 11:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposed New Lede

Here is my draft proposal for the Lede in the main article. I have tried to incorporate elements of the existing Lede, and the concerns expressed above (especially those of User:Cerejota), as much as possible. This is only a tentative suggestion. I encourage and welcome criticism and suggestions. No kittehs were harmed in the production of this Lede:

The 2011 England riots began on the evening of the 6 August in Tottenham, North London, and subsequently spread to other parts of London and England over the following 4 days.
The riots spawned from an initially peaceful demonstration by approximately 200 people at the Tottenham Police Station by those concerned about the circumstances relating to the fatal shooting of Mark Duggan by police officers from the Specialist Firearms Command (CO19) of the Metropolitan Police Service on 4 August 2011. The demonstration turned violent as the crowd grew in size and rumours spread that police officers had attacked a 16-year-old girl.[1][13] According to Commander Adrian Hanstock, the violence was started by "certain elements, who were not involved with the vigil".[14] Initially, the rioting was confined to Tottenham and Tottenham Hale.
On 7 August, rioting spread to many other parts of London, including Enfield, Ponders End, Brixton and Wood Green. On 8 August, rioting and looting occurred in outside London, most notably in the towns of Birmingham, Liverpool, Nottingham, Bristol, Medway and Leicester. Rioting and looting spread to Manchester city centre and Salford on 9 August.
In a marked difference from the civil disobedience that has occurred in previous generations, the large scale of the rioting and looting was facilitated by increased incitement and coordination provided by popular social media, such as Twitter, Facebook, Blackberry Messenger and text messaging.
As of 13 August, 2,275 people have been arrested, of whom more than 1,000 have been charged.[7] Five men have died; a man was shot on 8 August,[8] three men were killed by a car in a hit-and-run attack on 10 August,[9] and an elderly man who was beaten unconscious on 8 August died three days later.[10] 186 police officers were reported injured.[6]
As a result of the scale of the rioting and looting, Prime Minister David Cameron returned early from his holiday in Italy and chaired an emergency meeting of COBR.[15] Subsequently, all police leave was cancelled and Parliament was recalled on 11 August to debate the situation.[16]
On 11 August 2011, the Association of British Insurers estimated that the riots had caused more than £200 million worth of damage.[17]

Obviously, many of the numbers will change as new information comes to light. Remember, this is just a draft suggestion from which an alternative Lede may evolve. I have not put too much time and effort into references because, 1) I'm not sure how much referencing is required for the Lede (especially when the references will occur in the main content anyway), and 2) experience has taught me that my proposed draft will be ignored anyway. Enjoy. Deterence Talk 11:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

A good start, but possibly too much detail, mainly relating to the shooting by police and to police actions and unnecessary weight given to police opinions, with none from other sources mentioned - leading to too many paragraphs. Also, too much weight given to the relatively few serious events occurring outside of London, and not enough weight given to the relatively large number of districts of London seriously affected (there were more than the combined number for the rest of England put together). FactController (talk) 11:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict):Still too news based. While I insist that "2011 England riots" is a common name, not a descriptive one, I will push that aside for the moment (ie when every freaking historian calls it that, on which I put money), because I won't let the perfect be an enemy of the good. I will eliminate the sourcing and wikilinking for clarity in the discussion, as well as putting placeholders because it is trivial to source things, and incorporate the other discussions. Also, I write American, so I trust that editors of the real English would fix my spelling to keep with the rules:


I think this version is succinct, NPOV, conforms to policy, and reflects the actual contents without being over-detailed.--Cerejota (talk) 11:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict): Whilst Cerejota was writing that, I was writing my version as an evolution of Deterence's draft, but now I've reworked it as an evolution of Cerejota's version, which I largely support, but my version reflects my concerns over exaggeration of geographical extent:


FactController (talk) 12:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Here's an excellent visual representation of my geography point from the BBC.
  • Day 1 - 2 places in Greater London.
  • Day 2 - 7 places in Greater London.
  • Day 3 - 14 places in Greater London & 4 places elsewhere in England.
  • Day 4 - 0 places in Greater London & 8 places around Manchester and Liverpool, 3 places in the West Midlands and 2 others elsewhere in England.
  • Day 5 - 0 places in Greater London & 3 places in Manchester and Liverpool and 1 place in Leicester.
Widespread across England? A scattering across London, and a few dots in the Birmingham area and the North-West around Manchester and Liverpool and little else. FactController (talk) 13:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I can live with this version with a small modification to the first sentence: rather than "For three days in August 2011 London", something to the effect "Between the 6 and 10 August 2011 in England". I further elaborate "why" below.


We need to source it and fill in the blanks and give it a day to see if there is further comments. You make a good point on the geographical spread, some comments on that:

  1. I know you have argued that this has been a mainly London thing, and that might be true, but this is OR. Even the BBC speaks of "England Riots". Even if there is a lack of precision, the generalized view on this event is that it is a matter of national concern for England, and indeed the UK, rather than a localized London matter with widespread attention and some minor copycating. Remember, "verifiability not truth". The historical view is that this is an issue of all of England, and the lede (and, indeed, the title) reflect that. The nuance, of course, shouldn't be lost in the article text.
  2. Is anyone saying that it peaked on day 3-4? That seems to bear out from the info, but I am afraid of including it as per WP:SYNTH. If RS are saying so, then that is certainly lede material - it gives an idea of the cresendo, peak, and diminishing action, a notable historical fact.

I feel good about this being able to fix the issues so we can move to the article proper.--Cerejota (talk) 14:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I've now put it into the article. FactController (talk) 07:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

new Infobox image

The image in the infobox is meaningless, a map of the spots, where the riot happened would be better! 78.35.196.9 (talk) 14:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh I think its fine as it is, it has an iconic quality to it, and its not boring. The image with the map is elsewhere in the article, and while informative, it is visually boring. --Cerejota (talk) 14:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
The photo needs to be replaced. As it stands, it looks like any normal burnt-out building and gives no indication that it is the result of rioting. Shouldn't the main photo in an article about rioting include some indication of actual rioting? Deterence Talk 00:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Very good point, it's not representative of the riots, but the after-effects of the riots. One difficulty is that photos of rioting/looting in progress are generally obscured by the cover of darkness. WWGB (talk) 00:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

YouGov pie chart incorrect

I was browsing this article and noticed that the pie chart given to illustrate the YouGov / The Sun Survey Results in the Causes section is unfortunately very much in error. The percentages correctly reflect the survey results, but the pie itself is very disproportionate to them and thus useless as an illustration. I'd happily do it myself but don't have enough edits to upload an image, and I'd hate to just delete it without replacing it. Anyone? Thanks -- FreshLikeADaisy (talk) 04:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not really a particularly useful survey.. if they'd asked people to rank things we could at least have a bar chart showing the percentage of people who believed that any of those factors had been part of the cause of the riots. But if you can show something in a pie chart it's so simplistic it's probably not worth showing in a graph. Nevard (talk) 07:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

YouGov poll

BUT WHAT IS THE GREY!?--Sabri Al-Safi (talk) 15:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Non't know mate.82.11.105.195 (talk) 16:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Professor Green

Gang culture has been cited as a cause of the riots. Paul Routledge writing in the Daily Mirror singled out the role of rap music. However, rap artist Professor Green (not actually a professor) challenged this assertion on Twitter.[56]

140 characters must have been a really insightful rebuttal. LOL. Is twitter really a WP:RS now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.132.92.8 (talk) 13:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

First, the knee jerk reactions from conservative old wind-bags who want to blame rock'n'roll or rap music for all of society's ills are the sort of whinging-dressed-up-as-science that we can immediately ignore. Second, a brief tweet from a rapper no one has heard of is even less notable. Deterence Talk 03:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Besides, Starkley won that competition by a mile. Also it is hilarious we specify that Professor Green is not a Professor (wikilink should be enough), also I hate him cause he dissed The Streets, which is the finest white rapper that side of the atlantic of Eminem... :)--Cerejota (talk) 12:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
So I was not the only one who had to CRACK up laughing when they stated the overwhelming fact that Professor Green is not a professor! I think we should also point out that neither Dr. Robert (Blow Monkeys) nor Dr. Dre is a doctor. ROFL. -andy 77.190.55.228 (talk) 17:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

LOL Professor Green explains it all! He is just another one pathetic product of bloodocracy dope-dealing regimes of UK and USA which shall certainly fall... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.86.156.63 (talk) 17:52, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Effects > Music > Independent record labels face ruin

Today FactController deleted the following section under Effects with the dismissive comment "one of many":

Music
On 8 August 2011, a Sony Music-owned warehouse in Enfield at Enfield Lock which acted as the primary distribution centre for independent music distributor PIAS Entertainment Group was set on fire.[18] Most of PIAS' inventory was considered lost including the entire British stock of LPs and CDs for Domino Records, XL Records and over 100 other European independent record labels.[19] Several album and single releases were announced to be affected or delayed by the fire.[18] On 11 August 2011, London police reported that they had arrested three teenagers in connection with the fire.[20]

Quoting the Guardian headline: "Independent record labels fear ruinous stock loss". The destruction of most of PIAS' inventory including the entire British stock of LPs and CDs for Domino Records, XL Records and over 100 other European independent record labels is notable and definitely deserves to be mentioned. That is why I am reverting this edit. FactController, as ever, I am completely dismayed by your pattern of editing. Rubywine . talk 15:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

There are countless businesses that face ruin following destruction of their stock. Shall we add the details of each and every one of them? FactController (talk) 15:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
This section doesn't describe the effects on just one business, it says that the destruction of the primary distribution centre for an independent music distributor means that 100+ European independent record labels are facing ruin. Over and above the obvious long-term cultural repercussions of that, this text is extremely well sourced. If similar well-sourced coverage of the damage to British retail business and other sectors become available then of course they should be included. That's what the "Effects" section is there for. Rubywine . talk 17:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
It's a classic case of WP:RECENTISM. Even the NME article cited says that they expect to be shipping orders again by next week (now this week?). The BBC reported on 11 August that a Pias guy said "I am very confident that our combined efforts will result in the smallest interruption to our collective business." Perhaps we should add a sentence about it to the end of the 'Property damage" sub-section - what do you think? FactController (talk) 18:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
No this isn't recentism, and no this shouldn't be reduced to a sentence. The BBC reference you've just given should definitely be added. It says: "Alison Wenham, who chairs the Association of Independent Music (AIM), said: "This is a disaster for the music community, but with the fans' help, labels and artists will survive. Pias and AIM have since announced they are to set up a fund to help labels which have been affected by the fire, in response to "the numerous offers of support, benefits, fundraising initiatives"." This information needs to be concisely summarised and added to the existing section. Rubywine . talk 18:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I've now added the info about Sony to the existing section, but haven't "concisely summarised" it yet. FactController (talk) 09:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Isn't it routine to highlight a few of the more notable victims and targets when writing articles of this sort? If David Beckham was killed during the riot then we would have to mention that even though his life is no more valuable than any other person. Similarly, the destruction of a high-profile business is more notable than an arson attack against the corner bakery. Deterence Talk 09:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Possibly, but if hundreds of players, of varying levels of importance were similarly effected, you might include that fact, and details about the more notable ones, in a section covering that. You probably wouldn't include a whole new section about just the more notable one. FactController (talk) 09:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
You make a good point. I would be much more comfortable if the section mentioned a few of the more notable targets instead of a single target of relatively dubious noteworthiness. Deterence Talk 11:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ a b Lewis, Paul (7 August 2011). "Tottenham riots: a peaceful protest, then suddenly all hell broke loose". The Guardian. Retrieved 7 August 2011.
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference guardian-06-duggan was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference enf1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference DailyMail-2023556-martyr was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ "160 Arrests As Looting Spreads Across London". Sky.
  6. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference cnn_figures was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  7. ^ a b "England riots: Weekend opening for courts dealing with riots". BBC News. 13 August 2011. Retrieved 13 August 2011.
  8. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference death_one was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  9. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference death_two was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  10. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference death_three was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  11. ^ "Riots to cost over £200 million". Reuters. 11 August 2011. Retrieved 11 August 2011.
  12. ^ Danica Kirka & Jill Lawless (9 August 2011). "UK PM Recalls Parliament as London Continues to Burn". Jakarta Globe. Retrieved 10 August 2011.
  13. ^ Cite error: The named reference jackson was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  14. ^ Camber, Rebecca (9 August 2011). "Did bullet fired at officer belong to police? Father-of-four may not have been using gun before he was shot dead by officers". Daily Mail. UK. Retrieved 9 August 2011.
  15. ^ "David Cameron chairs emergency Cobra meeting after third night of riots". The Guardian. UK. 9 August 2011. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
  16. ^ "England riots". BBC. Retrieved 9 August 2011.
  17. ^ "Riots to cost over £200 million". Reuters. 11 August 2011. Retrieved 11 August 2011.
  18. ^ a b Llewellyn Smith, Caspar (9 August 2011). " title="Linkification: http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2011/aug/09/independent-record-labels-stock-london-riots">http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2011/aug/09/independent-record-labels-stock-london-riots "Independent record labels fear ruinous stock loss in London Riots Fire". The Guardian. UK. Retrieved 9 August 2011. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help); Missing pipe in: |url= (help)
  19. ^ " title="Linkification: http://pitchfork.com/news/43478-labels-react-to-sonypias-warehouse-fire/">http://pitchfork.com/news/43478-labels-react-to-sonypias-warehouse-fire/ "Labels react to Sony/PIAS warehouse fire". Pitchfork Media. 9 August 2011. Retrieved 9 August 2011. {{cite news}}: Check |url= value (help); Missing pipe in: |url= (help)
  20. ^ " title="Linkification: http://www.nme.com/news/various-artists/58573">http://www.nme.com/news/various-artists/58573 "Three teenagers arrested over Sony warehouse fire". New Musical Express. UK. 11 August 2011. Retrieved 11 August 2011. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help); Missing pipe in: |url= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2011_England_riots/Archive_11&oldid=1140132201"