Talk:2024 Harehills riot/Archive 1

Archive 1

Concern over edits by InThePurpleSkyAbove

Hello folks, I've been working on clarifying some of the demographic claims on the page, based on concerns that some of the good faith additions, actually misrepresent the available data. One major claims by @InThePurpleSkyAbove is that Harehills is majority British Pakistani, the demographic data does not provide evidence for this. I've left a note on their talk page requesting that they read WP:RS. The changes I had made, which were more accurate were immediately reverted by the editor. I don't want to get involved with an edit war, but the changes they are making are do not reflect what the sources they use say. For example:

• .. with a demographic plurality of British Pakistanis

This is simply not reported in the sources:

• Areainsights does not use the word British Pakistani anywhere, so cannot support the claim
• the Time of India does say this, but don't say where the assertion came from, and none of the demographic data I have looked at shows this
• the novara media source uses this quote "We’re Romanian, Gypsy, Pakistani, Asian ..."

There is no statistical information that supports this assertion. This diff shows the constructive improvements I had made to the demographic information. I would appreciate the views from other editors, but I do not think it is appropriate for sources used by @InThePurpleSkyAbove to be mis-represented in this way. Lajmmoore (talk) 16:15, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Adding a few pings @Mtaylor848, @അദ്വൈതൻ, @WikiCleanerMan Lajmmoore (talk) 16:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't know about the sources but I think it's important to mention British Pakistanis and British Muslims in lead and in the demographics sections for the following reasons :

• British Pakistanis were involved in the riots at a later stage
• The area is heavily dominated by Muslims, predominantly Pakistani but also a many Bangladeshis and Arabs
• There is a significant presence of social media posts and heresy from across the political spectrum attributing the riots as being a "Muslim riot" similar to the various troubles with gypsies and Muslims across Europe.

There's a secondary undercurrent story about British Asian youths from the Bangladeshi and Pakistani community rioting for no real reason other than the usual socioeconomic indicators, and the values of community spirit in that area.

There's a sense that editors want to remove references to British Pakistanis because it's seen as Islamophobic, but the reality is that most of these assertions are factual. British Muslims do indeed dominate the area and many were involved in the riots at the later stages. TimingIsThere (talk) 17:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

"Originally immigrating in the 1960's, Bangladeshis and Pakistanis are at present the largest immigrant groups in Harehills."

https://crp.leeds.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/52/2016/03/Harehillsmappingreport.pdf

The word-on-the-ground says that the area is dominated by Pakistanis, but you could also reword the lead to say "Bangladeshis and Pakistanis are at present the largest immigrant groups in Harehills.". TimingIsThere (talk) 17:39, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

The CRP Leeds source is a report from an undergraduate model, see https://crp.leeds.ac.uk/religion-in-leeds/mapping/ (the Harehills student project is listed elshwehre on the CRP microsite, but it part of the same module as the link) - so would not be considered a reliable source - see the dissertations bullet here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Scholarship - PhD and MAsters dissertations can be OK but not undergraduate projects. Lajmmoore (talk) 09:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

British Pakistani

This source which was already provided uses the term British Pakistani in its Statistics table. So let's keep that term in the article. Also note that the word used is plurality(significant number or in large numbers) not majority.

I have reviewed the sources provided for verification, and added failed verification template for one which appears to be unrelated to the context of the statement

അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 17:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

@അദ്വൈതൻ however, although the term is used, it doesn't actually state the content that is in the article, which is not how uses sources as evidence for claims works! Lajmmoore (talk) 09:28, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@Lajmmoore

British people of Pakistani origin make up a plurality of the area's population. The area also has a large romani people community, who are often classified as Eastern European in demographic studies.

This is the current status of the sentences and citations.

The citation use the term British Pakistani and gives the percentage of population which is a single consolidated population(as British Pakistani is single homogeneous people when compared the other white background) just below the white British.(the case of White British can be taken for granted therefore doesn't need to be included in the article)

These are the notable background of Harehills. Also the notability does not at all mean that they were responsible for the riot unless confirmation from the respective departments. അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 10:47, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Which citation @അദ്വൈതൻ?

• Health profile overview for Gipton and Harehills ward? No, this source only says that for people registered at GP surgeries, there are 19% Pakistani or Pakistani British. This is not the same as British people of Pakistani origin make up a plurality of the area's population"
• Gipton & Harehills Overview No, this source describes the Gipton and Harehills ward as whole, it only refers to people as Asian (or derivatives) or Muslim. This is not the same as British people of Pakistani origin make up a plurality of the area's population"
• Times of India? This does mention it, but since it was written after the addition to this Wikipedia article, I wonder whether they are drawing on this page as a source, so its entirely circular. Additionally, the TOI is not considered a fully reliable source, and can be "have a reliability between no consensus and generally unreliable. It has a bias in favor of the Indian government", see WP:TOI - I would suggest it is not acting as unbiased source in this instance.
• The Express? - this is a deprecated source (which I have previously removed!!!), see WP:DAILYEXPRESS (& I'm going to take it out again - it "generally unreliable")
• [We’re Romanian, Gypsy, Pakistani, Asian – this is what it means to be from Harehills]? yes, the quotation here mentions Pakistani, but in the context of wider communities present in the area. This is not the same as British people of Pakistani origin make up a plurality of the area's population"

I fail to see why misrepresenting the content of sources, or using unreliable or deprecated ones to support this statement is OK. Lajmmoore (talk) 12:15, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Under the Ethnicity link of Area insights in Gipton & Harehills Overview refers Pakistani as constituting 22.66% which is as I said earlier as a single consolidated group just below English, Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish or British - 23.69%. This will be sufficient for

British people of Pakistani origin make up a plurality of the area's population

as the Pakistani is the second majority(below the combined ethnicity of English, Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish or British) in the Ethnicity table. The case of English, Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish or British can be taken for granted, but the case Pakistani has notability/expectationality to be included in the background of the Harehills.

I am not against the removal of "Time of India" from the citation list as the Indian news agency may not be reporting directly from the scene, probably quoting from other news agency's reports. അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 14:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I diasgree @അദ്വൈതൻ, I think by not include the statistisc for White communities, it is a false repesentation of the demographics of the community by over-emphasising one particular group. If you're going to going to look at the largest groups, you then also need to include the 17.37% who are black, so that readers can see the comparison. Thanks for pointing the hyperlink - I was clicking the citation which did not at the time direct me to the subsection. Lajmmoore (talk) 16:01, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

the percentage of Whites is already in the article 34.5% are white.

I was thinking of adding the percentage of Blacks as it has a significant figure. അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 16:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes @അദ്വൈതൻ, i think you should add both - cherry picking one demographic without providing wider contextual statistical information does not rpovide the reader with the whole story Lajmmoore (talk) 07:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Done. അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 09:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

The Times of India is reliable in this context. This isn't paid content. TimingIsThere (talk) 11:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

That's not what the WP:TOI entry says. It states: "The Times of India is considered to have a reliability between no consensus and generally unreliable. It has a bias in favor of the Indian government and is known to accept payments from persons and entities in exchange for positive coverage." This does not mean that only paid-for content is deemed unreliable, but that is a contributing factor why much of its content is deemed "generally unreliable". Lajmmoore (talk) 22:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

You claims that, "The area is heavily dominated by Muslims," and "British Muslims do indeed dominate the area," are demonstrably false, given that 58% of the population is not Muslim. Reference to "social media posts and heresy" is by definition off-limits. People are saying all sorts of nonsense, usually to to perpetuate their own domestic - and not always UK - agendas. A summer flashpoint in a deprived area will inevitably reflect the local demographics. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that the opposition argument, including yours, are also trying to perpetuate their own domestic or international agendas.

Anyway word-on-the-ground does say that the area is dominated by Muslims.

And further more the article doesn't say that the area is dominated by Muslims, only that a plurality are Pakistani which is provided in census data.

And in addition to the ones given, there is sufficient citations to agree that the area has a notable population of Muslims:

• "She said: "I represent Gipton and Harehills. There's a large Muslim population there and there's always a lot of panic around that time on weekends from residents saying 'We're not able to get the body released'." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-64729287
• "In Gipton & Harehills, the 'Muslim' community represents the largest religious group, making up 39.4% of the population."https://www.areainsights.co.uk/borough/leeds/gipton-harehills/

There are plenty of citations from right wing news outlet such as the Daily Mail and the Daily Express, but they won't fly on Wikipedia, I know.

You're argument is on false grounds anyway because the article doesn't actually say that Muslims dominate the area, even though they do in reality. It's not nonsense but factual. A lot of your stuff it literally far-left these days. TimingIsThere (talk) 14:45, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

'British Pakistanis were involved in the riots at a later stage'

I'm sure some were (as were some white British, etc). But the image most used on SM to make that point, of one of the men torching the bus, is of a man who has been charged and named as Iustin Dobre - both forename and surname suggest Eastern European Roma. Identifying people as Pakistani Muslim by sight isn't as easy as some people assumed. Redmark (talk) 08:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello @TimingIsThere - whatever the "word on the ground" is - that is not a reliable secondary source so therefore can't be used as an argument to continue to include misinformation in an article, please read WP:RS for clarification Lajmmoore (talk) 09:27, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

It's a valid argument to search for more material though. And the information being included in the article is correctly cited. TimingIsThere (talk) 09:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

That information is cited and should be included. There was a significant presence of British Pakistanis at the riot and much of social media and many mainstream media outlets have picked up on the involvement of Pakistani people. TimingIsThere (talk) 09:10, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

References

Propose move

I would suggest we move to 2024 Harehills riot; it is how it is being widely referred to; the BBC, the Times, Talk, GB News etc etc. I think only we are referring to it as 'unrest'. Mtaylor848 (talk) 00:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Just going back to this, I noticed that the most recent article form The Guardian is still referring to it as "unrest" see Lajmmoore (talk) 22:32, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Children now returned

For editors looking to positively contribute, there's a number of sources that now discuss how the children are returned to their family see & see - please remember to check if your soures are reliable by doing a ctrl+F on this page: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources (it is not exhaustive, so judgement still needs to be used) Lajmmoore (talk) 13:08, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Concern over edits by TimingIsThere

Hello @TimingIsThere - it's great that you have joined Wikipedia - we always welcome new editors, however I would strongly encourage you to discuss reinstatements on this talk page. I would also very strongly encourage you to read throroughly WP:RS to better understand reliability - for example GB News is not considered a reliable source, so even though you make a claim here that "a direct quotation of a resident rather than commentary/text written by GB News" so its OK. That goes against the strongly worded discussion elsewhere Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 382#Reliability of GB News as a source for citations. Lajmmoore (talk) 12:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

GB News is generally not considered a reliable source, but are you suggesting that they made up that quotation/interview? It's the opinion of the resident and it ought to be included in the article.

The other point that I'd make here is that editors here are seemingly focused on removing negative references to British Pakistanis and British Muslims, which turn the article from a factual text to an far-left opinion text.

People here need to accept that a large percentage of the local community in Harehills is made up of British Muslims and that British Pakistanis were involved in the riot. Yes, the spark of the riot was Romani Gypsies, but Muslims joined the riot later on. You can argue whether it's socioeconomic or racial or whatever, but the facts of the matter are that the area contains a lot of British Pakistanis and many of them joined the riots. TimingIsThere (talk) 13:25, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

They don't need to have "made up that quotation". Their general unreliability means that we can't be sure that they have not quoted partially or out-of-context; nor sought out a heavily unrepresentative opinion to further an agenda. But that doesn't matter much, because the quote in any case is irrelevant. It is the opinion of one individual member of the general public, not a fact worthy of a tertiary encyclopedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:08, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

" It is the opinion of one individual member of the general public, not a fact worthy of a tertiary encyclopedia."

You could say that about any opinion or theorising about the incident. TimingIsThere (talk) 18:11, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello @TimingIsThere I think it might be worth reading some of the introductions to the principles of editing Wikipedia before making further changes. This essay on "What Wikipedia is not" might be helpful, and I would once again encourage a through read of WP:RS. In terms of the latest reversions, I really think this sentence sits better at the back of the paragraph it is currently in "The Guardian in 2017 described the area as having a high number of Pakistanis and Eastern Europeans." behind the most recent demographic data, otherwise it gives a false impression. I think too, the context for why that Guardian article was written is significant, as it was part of Teresa' May's election campaign. Context is so important. I would really encourage you to discuss changes here, so that the many interested editors can support each other to reach a consensus. Lajmmoore (talk) 18:27, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Notice

I dropped a note about the above discussion on the Harehills talk page and on WP:WikiProject Yorkshire - I think perhaps more voices are required for consensus Lajmmoore (talk) 19:48, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Removing WP:NPOV "Ethnically, Asians outnumber whites"

I removed this phrase "Ethnically, Asians outnumber whites" made in this edit by @അദ്വൈതൻ, and re-wrote the sentence, so the content is maintained. I expect the language was used in good faith, but I do not think it is appropriate phrasing for an encyclopaedia. Lajmmoore (talk) 07:16, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Opinion pieces

I see the aftermath section has two opinion pieces, one coming from "Logically Facts" (which sounds like a new Ben Shapiro video series) and one from Spiked, a minor contrarian website which criticises anything it considers to be identity politics.

Both of these sites are minor, and including their pieces as WP:PRIMARY sources without a secondary source to back up their supposed importance, opens the gates to just about any other opinion piece. What does Logically Facts have that Website X doesn't? What credentials put Spiked's opinion over a website literally called "The Communist"? [1]

I saw that on 2024 Southport stabbing, opinion pieces were removed for the reasons I outlined above. [2] Would we miss anything if they were removed here? Unknown Temptation (talk) 15:22, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I would support their removal Lajmmoore (talk) 15:51, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Removing them would make the article unencyclopedic. TurkeyAndHungry (talk) 20:01, 31 July 2024 (UTC)