Jump to content

Talk:2024 United Kingdom riots/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Should "Proud Boys" and "Atomwaffen Division" be listed?

They're currently in the article with a source of The Economist referring to seeing black and gold Fred Perry polos as evidence of the former and skull masks as evidence of the latter. Both are predominantly North American/USA based groups. The black and gold Fred Perry polo in particular is also common among EDL, National Front, and British racist groups in general (probably why the Proud Boys chose it) https://www.vice.com/en/article/7k9z3y/how-a-fred-perry-polo-went-from-fashion-item-to-far-right-symbol and skull masks, while probably inspired by Atomwaffen, are likely chosen for their intimidating look rather than genuine membership of a group banned in the UK. Lewishhh (talk) 07:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I think both should be removed as the claim is dubious. When trying to find more information for these claims I can't find another source other than the one used for both of them published by The Economist a few days ago. The claim in The Economist is as follows: "Among the masked faces in Liverpool was the occasional symbol of the far right—the distinct black and gold-trim Fred Perry shirts of the Proud Boys or the skull masks of the Atomwaffen Division, a neo-Nazi group." This claim is dubious at best - it is suggesting that the Atomwaffen Division (a UK proscribed terrorist organisation) is taking part in these riots because the editor of that Economist article saw some people wearing masks/balaclavas with depictions of skulls on them. It is also suggesting that the Proud Boys (A US/North American group) are also taking part because the editor saw the trademark black and gold Fred Perry polo amongst some protestors/rioters. Anyone can freely buy and wear a mask with a skull on it in the UK and not be a member of the Atomwaffen Division, and anyone can freely buy and wear Fred Perry polos in the black and gold colours in the UK and not be a Proud Boy. It's probable there are sympathisers of both groups amongst these protestors and rioters, but to claim the groups are actively taking part in any way based off of this single source published days ago (without any other sources mentioning it either then or afterwards), specifically the dubious claim within it, seems misleading and incorrect. Although there probably are, I don't believe this is evidence to suggest there are even supporters of these groups present either, like with the EDL, as there are no flags, no interviews, no police statements, no chants, graphics or logos, or other news articles showing and/or claiming this. I suggest that these two groups are removed from the list of parties unless more supporting sources with less dubious evidence are found than at present. TheBestEditorInEngland (talk) 07:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I have removed both the Proud Boys and Atomwaffen Division from the article. If anyone disagrees with this, please discuss here why they should be added back before attempting to add them back to the article, as per the above discussion. TheBestEditorInEngland (talk) 08:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Wearing a tee-shirt does not make you a member of the group. I know someone who had a Charlie's Angels tee-shirt in the 1970s, but he was a fan, not a member.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:52, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

New sources

  1. ht'tps://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/brave-walthamstow-protester-blasts-silly-riots-with-anti-nazi-placard-ahead-of-far-right-fears/ar-AA1opnXf?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=1bc9a71c496f451186b8a42197188e11&ei=49
  2. ht'tps://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p0jgthm5
  3. ht'tps://www.examinerlive.co.uk/news/local-news/live-updates-firefighters-tackle-huge-18605081
  4. ht'tps://www.itv.com/news/calendar/2024-08-05/social-media-users-complicit-in-riots-that-left-10-officers-injured
  5. ht'tps://www.examinerlive.co.uk/news/local-news/live-updates-firefighters-tackle-huge-18605081
  6. ht'tps://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13717445/pubgoer-attacked-birmingham-torn-liver-landlord-barred-goading.html
  7. ht'tps://news.sky.com/story/birmingham-pub-punter-who-incited-violence-will-be-barred-after-counter-protester-attack-13192106
  8. ht'tps://www.thesun.co.uk/news/29706765/shocking-footage-gang-palestinian-flags-punch-man-kick-head/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.120.133.19 (talk) 09:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
  9. ht'tps://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/london-mps-warns-locals-of-far-right-protests-with-four-boroughs-on-list/ar-AA1ohc7h?ocid=BingNewsVerp
  10. ht'tps://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/mp-says-businesses-at-centre-of-walthamstow-protest-rumour-are-distressed/ar-AA1oktY8?ocid=BingNewsVerp
  11. ht'tps://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/more-violence-expected-after-starmer-says-communities-will-be-protected/ar-AA1omXU6?ocid=BingNewsVerp
  12. ht'tps://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/uk-riots-the-38-british-towns-and-cities-facing-marches-tomorrow-as-target-list-leaked/ar-AA1ojtIG?ocid=BingNewsVerp
  13. ht'tps://www.independent.co.uk/tech/elon-musk-uk-riots-southport-twitter-x-b2591725.html
  14. ht'tps://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/police-investigate-attacks-on-cars-and-a-pub-after-hundreds-of-people-gather-in-birmingham/ar-AA1ojc8K?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=ac28a5c60b5f47278b47fc44b1b09e88&ei=35
  15. ht'tps://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/masked-thugs-surround-sky-news-reporter-and-slash-van-tyres-with-knife-during-live-report/ar-AA1ohJQR?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=ac28a5c60b5f47278b47fc44b1b09e88&ei=38
  16. ht'tps://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/rioters-set-up-race-check-point-screening-cars-and-only-letting-white-drivers-pass/ar-AA1ojy95?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=063ba61630f843e994cdf1988360715a&ei=5
  17. ht'tps://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/riots-uk-protests-today-plymouth-birmingham-tamworth-b2591721.html
  18. ht'tps://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/rioters-set-up-race-check-point-screening-cars-and-only-letting-white-drivers-pass/ar-AA1ojy95?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=063ba61630f843e994cdf1988360715a&ei=5
  19. ht'tps://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/riots-uk-protests-today-plymouth-birmingham-tamworth-b2591721.html
  20. ht'tps://www.independent.co.uk/tech/elon-musk-uk-riots-southport-twitter-x-b2591725.html
  21. ht'tps://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/lancashire-council-of-mosques-and-county-s-anglican-church-stand-shoulder-to-shoulder/ar-AA1ofcY1?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=063ba61630f843e994cdf1988360715a&ei=48
  22. ht'tps://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/prisons-prepare-to-house-six-hundred-rioters-as-starmer-vows-tough-crackdown/ar-AA1ojd1E?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=063ba61630f843e994cdf1988360715a&ei=69
  23. ht'tps://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/violent-scenes-not-a-reflection-of-blackpool-and-who-we-are-says-council-leader/ar-AA1ofUud?ei=44
  24. ht'tps://www.msn.com/en-gb/travel/news/australia-and-nigeria-among-countries-to-issue-uk-travel-warnings-over-riots/ar-AA1ofCQq
  25. ht'tps://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/three-water-companies-facing-168m-combined-fine-over-sewage-failings/ar-AA1oiPMJ?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=ac28a5c60b5f47278b47fc44b1b09e88&ei=66

194.120.133.19 (talk) 09:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The Daily Mail and The Sun are not very reliable sources, Examiner Live looks to be very local/niche. MSN just repeats other news outlets so in itself it isnt much use unless we know where the article was taken from. Abcmaxx (talk) 09:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The numbers on the map are hard to read

Is there a way the numbers can be made black instead of white, or another colour that is contrasted better so as to be more easily legible than it is at the moment? As it stands they are quite hard to read with the map also being white. TheBestEditorInEngland (talk) 08:50, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I've increased the size of the circles so there isn't any overlap which has helped. I'm not sure if the number colours can be changed, but the backgrounds can. Lewishhh (talk) 09:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, that is definitely an improvement over the previous one. TheBestEditorInEngland (talk) 09:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Should this article have protected status?

Just seems like a safe course of action to protect against misinformation and vandalism from people who'd be tied to or otherwise become biased from the topic of the article itself. 92.239.153.73 (talk) 11:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

It's XC due to repeated very serious BLPCRIME violations, even when semi-protected. CNC (talk) 11:07, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

MOS:FIRST

EDIT MADE
First sentence changed from "Far-right protesters have rioted" to "Far-right riots have taken place" per this edit. Closing the remaining relatively unproductive and unrelated discussion. For any new issues with the first sentence, opening paragraph, or lead in general, please open a new topic. CNC (talk) 12:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Currently reads: "Far-right protesters have rioted in various parts of England, and in Northern Ireland,..."

This appears to be based on the Southport riots, that widely described "far right protesters". Since then riots have been reported as simply "far right riots", as opposed to specifying protesters involvement. So should the first sentence be amended to:

"Far-right riots have erupted in various parts of England, and in Northern Ireland,..." or something similar? CNC (talk) 14:20, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

There are protesters and rioters. I would describe the situation as civil unrest with both protesters and rioters. MatchAndGoo (talk) 14:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Notability is clearly based on the riots, hence the article title. For example if you google "UK civil unrest", reliable sources coverage is about the riots, not about some broader protest movement encompassing protesters and rioters. Based on due weight, I think the first sentence could do better to reflect that more accurately, given not all the rioters are described as protesters here. It's not like we're avoiding describing far-right rioters as protesters either, we do so 6 times in the lead at present. CNC (talk) 14:53, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
It's a synonym that encompasses both protests and riots. It's not notability that should be taken into account (which is used to consider the title) because you want a term or description that can be used as way of describing the title to an audience who should be told that there both protesters and rioters taking part. MatchAndGoo (talk) 15:00, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Notability has little to do with the title, it's based on "whether a given topic warrants its own article". For reference sake, this article came about due to the Southport riots, not because of any protests. CNC (talk) 15:06, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
This of it this way
"The 2024 United Kingdom riots are ongoing civil unrest comprising of protests and riots." MatchAndGoo (talk) 15:12, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
There is already consensus on describing these riots as far-right, rather than some vague description of civil unrest. Have made this edit for a more concise description. Editors are welcome to revert me over it if there is disagreement, and I'm politely ignoring your suggestions as your account is clearly a WP:SPA per [1]. Fundamentally, it's not accurate to describe all these riots as being "from protesters" per reliable sources. CNC (talk) 15:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
How did you manage to conflate far-right with civil unrest? You can engage in civil unrest from the position of being far-right.
But it's non-factual to say that there aren't protesters and riots, and there are plenty of citations to show that the term protester is still widely used. The narrative in the media is that its riots comprising of protesters and rioters. MatchAndGoo (talk) 15:32, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
The article doesn't say that protesters aren't rioting, or protests haven't happened. Hence in the lead the description "protesters" is used 5 times to describe those involved, as explained. This is merely the opening sentence of the article for a very brief intro, based on the weight of RS reporting "far right riots". I don't think we've conflated anything, given the common description isn't civil unrest, but instead "far right riots". You realise the phrase "unrest" is used twice in the lead to describe events as well right? CNC (talk) 15:46, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
If I were writing the article myself, I would write:
"There is ongoing civil unrest in the United Kingdom comprising of protests and riots. The protests and riots have been widely described as "far-right" and "right-wing", but there has been increasing involvement from numerous groups including counter-protesters and counter-rioters". MatchAndGoo (talk) 16:06, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
You seem suspiciously intent on diverting blame from the far-right instigators of this event and attaching it to the counter-protesters. "Counter-rioter" is also not an existing term as it doesn't make sense. Lewishhh (talk) 16:18, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Well there is plenty of first hand evidence that left-wing and far-left groups are participating in protests and riots, the question is when the media will catch-up. We have citations that there are protesters and rioters outside of the right-wing groups and hence why I believe this latter idea of non right wing protesters and rioters should be included.
The spark of the riot is supposedly a black man who stabbed three young girls, but the focus on various ethnic groups from Muslim backgrounds is due to the wider Islamophobia that's been brewing due to various issues related to biases in politics, policing and the media.
Going of NPOV to challenge you, you seem intent on taking a far-left viewpoint and projecting it as centrist. Regardless of whether the rioters are far-right or not (and activist movements are generally either far-right or far-left traditionally so I don't disagree with this), it doesn't change your position of being far-left. MatchAndGoo (talk) 16:50, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
"The spark of the riot is supposedly a black man who stabbed three young girls". These sort of arguments have made the discussion barely worth contributing to. Per RS, the spark was clearly the misinformation that the suspect was a Muslim immigrant, when it turned out to be a British citizen with no connection is Islam. The riots started long before the ethnicity of the suspect was revealed, thus isn't considered a relevant factor by RS. The wider Islamophobia issue is also well documented in analysis, and summarised in the lead. Accusing people of being far-left because they are following reporting from reliable sources is WP:BADFAITH at best and should stop. CNC (talk) 22:00, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
You seem suspiciously intent on diverting blame from the far-right instigators of this event and attaching it to the counter-protesters
Note, that was one of the primary strategies of the US right during BLM. Even though multiple academic studies of BLM have shown that it was 90% peaceful, the right would focus on deflecting attention from the problem of police violence in the US to violence by protesters. As it turned out, there was documented infiltration of protests by far right agitators, who were caught engaging in vandalism and arson while pretending to be BLM protesters. This was covered by multiple mainstream media outlets. Viriditas (talk) 20:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Yes, it seems pretty clear from a few commenters turning up on here that there are attempts at biasing the record of this event's article here on Wikipedia. MatchAndGoo, as CNC has said, is clearly operating in bad faith. Lewishhh (talk) 22:16, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
The riots are exclusive to England + Belfast as has previously been discussed, so the “United Kingdom” isn’t a very accurate descriptor for a lead.
Also, I think the bias here is a little too evident. The notoriety and major characteristic of these riots has been the explicitly vocal, not merely “described” as, far right rhetoric, misinformation and subsequent escalation of violence stemming from it. There has been no equivalent in actions or statements from counter-protesters so far to make note of it as if there exists some symmetry there. KafkaHumour (talk) 16:27, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Hence why I used the word "increasing". There has been increasing involvement from other groups unaffiliated with the right-wing. Arguably it's a race riot and there's got to be an opposition in a race riot. MatchAndGoo (talk) 16:54, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Counter-protesters are already mentioned in the article. Mentioning them together draws an equivalence where there is none. Do provide your citations to this increasing involvement, though. KafkaHumour (talk) 17:12, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
I agree with that Zilch-nada (talk) 15:42, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for you feedback. Despite this discussion being completely derailed it seems so far the edit in question hasn't been controversial (given lack of reversion despite encouragement to do so). In hindsight, I realise it really wasn't that controversial an edit to make, as doesn't change the description, but more so makes a consise version of the first sentence. CNC (talk) 22:23, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Women's county cricket match between Essex and Kent has been postponed

https://www.skysports.com/cricket/news/12123/13192366/essex-postpone-womens-county-cricket-match-against-kent-amid-threat-of-planned-far-right-protests

A cricket match has been postponed due to planned far-right protests. MatchAndGoo (talk) 12:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Warm relations between the Catholics and Protestants of Ireland

It seems there has been an allying of Republicans and Unionists in Ireland over the far-right protests and riots, and there are two points that should be added to the article:

  • The idea that these protests are merging or merged with the anti-immigration protests in Ireland
  • The warming of relations between Catholic and Protestant nationalist groups in order to fight with the far-right

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgkyyjg3pxpo

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/politics/irish-far-right-group-hosted-in-belfast-by-loyalist-sean-grahams-bookmakers-attack-suspect/a557794374.html

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/far-right-irish-thugs-spent-night-drinking-with-uda-in-belfast-loyalist-bar/a1541636214.html

https://www.irishtimes.com/crime-law/2024/08/05/gardai-investigate-presence-of-far-right-figures-from-dublin-at-belfast-riots/

https://www.irishnews.com/opinion/brian-feeney-violence-the-far-right-and-the-power-of-social-media-2V2QCS3OLJFOLNXYLKP2ANO3LY/ MatchAndGoo (talk) 14:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

New sources

Whilst some of these sources may be useful, MSN links aren't - they'll need to come from the original source. Some of these (for example the one in the "BBC" section) are from deprecated sources.

High Wycombe, Oxford, Blackpool, Lancashire, Derby, Brent, Harrow, Devon and Cornwall make a stand for democracy.

  1. ht'tps://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/rioting-thugs-not-welcome-in-high-wycombe-say-mps-councillors-and-faith-leaders/ar-AA1oocGc?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=1c0fe615536f4cf28fe46356ccaf73ca&ei=21
  2. ht'tps://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/violent-scenes-not-a-reflection-of-blackpool-and-who-we-are-says-council-leader/ar-AA1ofUud?ei=44
  3. ht'tps://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/derby-news/council-statement-ahead-planned-far-9465367
  4. ht'tps://uk.news.yahoo.com/brent-residents-being-pro-actively-154117339.html
  5. ht'tps://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/lancashire-council-of-mosques-and-county-s-anglican-church-stand-shoulder-to-shoulder/ar-AA1ofcY1?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=063ba61630f843e994cdf1988360715a&ei=48
  6. ht'tps://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/devon-police-confirm-no-reports-of-exeter-or-torquay-riots-despite-social-media-rumours/ar-AA1op7U0?ocid=BingNewsVerp
  7. ht'tps://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/cornwall-anti-fascist-group-heading-to-plymouth-protest-to-take-on-far-right/ar-AA1og4Mv?ei=5
  8. ht'tps://uk.news.yahoo.com/cornwall-anti-fascist-group-heading-121039248.html
  9. ht'tps://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/brent-residents-being-pro-actively-safeguarded-as-neighbouring-harrow-named-on-riots-list/ar-AA1ogUje?ei=24
  10. ht'tps://uk.news.yahoo.com/cornwall-anti-fascist-group-heading-121039248.html
  11. ht'tps://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/24500375.oxford-host-southport-protests-week/

194.120.133.19 (talk) 17:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Elon Musk calls for a White nationalist coup

  1. ht'tps://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/met-police-chief-attacks-serious-voices-spreading-complete-nonsense-about-two-tier-policing/ar-AA1onWOr?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=a824fe7ee6404c709e1ef2211740da52&ei=17

194.120.133.19 (talk) 17:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The BBC lie again

  1. ht'tps://www.msn.com/en-gb/travel/news/major-bbc-blunder-as-presenter-slammed-for-pro-british-riot-comments/ar-AA1oo1gI?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=a3e5c8008b9d4bd0800236d450dbd85b&ei=43

194.120.133.19 (talk) 17:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

N. Ireland melts down

  1. ht'tps://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgkyyjg3pxpo
  2. ht'tps://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/politics/irish-far-right-group-hosted-in-belfast-by-loyalist-sean-grahams-bookmakers-attack-suspect/a557794374.html
  3. ht'tps://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/far-right-irish-thugs-spent-night-drinking-with-uda-in-belfast-loyalist-bar/a1541636214.html
  4. ht'tps://www.irishtimes.com/crime-law/2024/08/05/gardai-investigate-presence-of-far-right-figures-from-dublin-at-belfast-riots/
  5. ht'tps://www.irishnews.com/opinion/brian-feeney-violence-the-far-right-and-the-power-of-social-media-2V2QCS3OLJFOLNXYLKP2ANO3LY/

194.120.133.19 (talk) 17:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Fighting false news

  1. ht'tps://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/devon-police-confirm-no-reports-of-exeter-or-torquay-riots-despite-social-media-rumours/ar-AA1op7U0?ocid=BingNewsVerp

194.120.133.19 (talk) 17:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

MSN isn't a valid citation source. You need to provide the URL of the original news website which wrote the article. Furthermore you need to write what exactly you want changed in the article, or what you are trying to change about the article. MatchAndGoo (talk) 17:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

New sources

Plymouth, Doncaster, Preston and elsewhere+ politics

  1. ht'tps://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/far-right-protests-doncaster-380310/
  2. ht'tps://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/protesters-hurl-rocks-at-emergency-nhs-nurses-in-sunderland-riot/ar-AA1odhFa?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=aac20649b12141b18a82ff37b581d497&ei=57
  3. ht'tps://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/video/unrest-in-plymouth-as-rival-groups-clash/vi-AA1ohq1w?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=42900d594f83465ec3da1f1e4c158f3c&ei=35
  4. ht'tps://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/pm-rejects-calls-for-parliament-to-return-to-debate-riots-amid-demands-from-mps/ar-AA1ogsSH?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=42900d594f83465ec3da1f1e4c158f3c&ei=47
  5. ht'tps://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/southport-riots-violence-protests-far-right-tommy-robinson-edl-nigel-farage-reform-b1174829.html
  6. ht'tps://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/man-appears-in-court-in-stabbing-case-that-sparked-social-media-hysteria/ar-AA1ogQqQ?ocid=BingNewsSerp
  7. ht'tps://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-08-06/britain-prime-minister-calls-for-standing-army/104186950

194.120.133.19 (talk) 21:19, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

 Already done: All the cities you listed have already been mentioned in the article. C F A 💬 22:51, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Cornwall, Brent, Putin and politics

  1. ht'tps://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/08/05/far-right-riots-uk-where-southport-mapped/
  2. ht'tps://uk.news.yahoo.com/cornwall-anti-fascist-group-heading-121039248.html
  3. ht'tps://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/brent-residents-being-pro-actively-safeguarded-as-neighbouring-harrow-named-on-riots-list/ar-AA1ogUje?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=45442bed4e9b466fbcefb6d5f10898f1&ei=24
  4. ht'tps://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/cornwall-anti-fascist-group-heading-to-plymouth-protest-to-take-on-far-right/ar-AA1og4Mv?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=7eca9abc94e54c049d5b0e939552d59c&ei=5
  5. ht'tps://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/08/05/muslims-protective-ring-mosque-shops-edl-fear-allahu-akbar/
  6. ht'tps://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/08/05/suspected-rioters-man-bitten-fireworks-boy-in-court/
  7. ht'tps://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/uk-riots-disinformation-yvette-cooper-b2591205.html

194.120.133.19 (talk) 22:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

@194.120.133.19: - thanks for giving us these sources. Is there anything in these articles that you think ought to be added here? GnocchiFan (talk) 00:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Walthamstow

  1. ht'tps://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/brave-walthamstow-protester-blasts-silly-riots-with-anti-nazi-placard-ahead-of-far-right-fears/ar-AA1opnXf?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=1bc9a71c496f451186b8a42197188e11&ei=49 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.120.133.19 (talk) 19:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Moved article to "race riots"

REQUESTED MOVE OPENED
Closing pre-RM discussion as the article has returned to it's previous title and 7 August requested move has since been opened. CNC (talk) 20:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Per the section immediately above this one, these are clearly race riots and a specific group of people are being targeted by far-right groups and their supporters. I took the liberty of moving the article to reflect that. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

MatchAndGoo (talk) 18:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Arrests of rioters

A small number of the arrests relate to counter-protestors, such as this in Birmingham. AusLondonder (talk) 16:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

That's only 1 arrest, not "a small number of the arrests" BedVeritas1 (talk) 16:52, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
It's one example. I'm suggesting the breakdown of arrests in the infobox may be misleading. AusLondonder (talk) 17:19, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
The infobox just says "428 arrested." I don't see anything misleading about having a total number there, inclusive of 'counter-protestors' who end up getting themselves arrested as part of the general unrest. We can break the numbers down in the article if it's deemed relevant JeffUK 18:31, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
It's 428 arrested in the "far-right" column. For your perception it needs to be listed under a new row with all three columns merged. MatchAndGoo (talk) 18:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Good point. The arrests totals in the infobox were previous under injuries, which encompassed all parties. Unless we know that all these arrests are far-right (we don't), then it needs to return to injuries. We can still retain the remaining casualties sections for specific sides of the conflict, as these remain accurate it seems. Will make updates. CNC (talk) 19:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Have tried editing, but there's an issue with the parameters it seems. I can't seem to include arrests when casualties parameter is in use. Unless someone else can resolve? I agree at present it's potentially misleading. CNC (talk) 20:07, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Anti-migrant protester, 17, arrested in Portsmouth

According to Sky News:


"Anti-migrant protester, 17, arrested in Portsmouth

Sky News understands the teenager was detained for blocking a highway."


https://news.sky.com/story/uk-riots-latest-far-right-southport-live-13186819?postid=8095899#liveblog-body BedVeritas1 (talk) 20:46, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Totally uninteresting. The failure of predicted far-right protests to actually materialise they report, if that is actually the case, is far more significant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:52, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
There was this statement below the '7 August' sub-section:
"One man was arrested amid a counter protest in Bournemouth." BedVeritas1 (talk) 20:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
No need as User:Harrz added it already BedVeritas1 (talk) 21:01, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Map

Cities and towns affected by protests
Map
About OpenStreetMaps
Maps: terms of use
200km
125miles
Dundee
Dumfries
Bathgate
Paisley
Crawley
Barnsley
Walton, Liverpool
Stormont
Derry
Swindon
Oxford
Lewisham
Stoke Newington, Hackney
Carrickfergus
Bangor
Newtownabbey
Accrington
Cardiff
Westcliff-on-Sea, Southend
Chatham
Bournemouth
Portsmouth
Southampton
Normanton, Derby
North Finchley
Brentford
Northampton
Newcastle
Harrow
Walthamstow
Hastings
Brighton
Darlington
Plymouth
Birmingham
Sheffield
Lancaster
Weymouth
Solihull
Tamworth
Middlesbrough
Bolton
Manvers, Wath upon Dearne
Belfast
Hull
Bristol
Preston
Blackburn
Blackpool
Leicester
Stoke-on-Trent
Nottingham
Leeds
Liverpool
Sunderland
Aldershot
Hartlepool
Manchester
Whitehall
Southport

Click the fullscreen button in the top right for a clearer view and click individual marks for more details
  Riots and disorder
  Peaceful protests
  Attacks on hotels housing asylum seekers
2024 United Kingdom riots/Archive 2 is located in England
Southport
Southport
Aldershot
Aldershot
Belfast
Belfast
Birmingham
Birmingham
Blackpool
Blackpool
Bolton |
Bolton
|
Bristol
Bristol
Hartlepool
Hartlepool
Hull
Hull
Leeds
Leeds
Liverpool
Liverpool
London
London
⸌Manchester
⸌Manchester
Middlesbrough
Middlesbrough
Nottingham
Nottingham
Plymouth
Plymouth
Rotherham
Rotherham
Solihull
Solihull
Stoke-on-Trent
Stoke-on-Trent
Sunderland
Sunderland
Tamworth
Tamworth
Weymouth
Weymouth
class=notpageimage|
Affected cities and towns

In this edit, @Harrz: replaced the location map.

Though the new one links to a fullscreen zoomable map, the previous one was clearer as the cities and towns were explicitly labelled. The new one forces the reader to match numbers with the names listed beneath. Furthermore, the numbers are not clear in thumbnail size.

If having links to their respective articles or "Locations in red indicate hotels housing asylum seekers or migrants which were attacked" is important, the old version can be modified to do so.

Could we have a straw poll on which map to use? Thanks, cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 22:31, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Original map is neater by far. Lewishhh (talk) 22:42, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
  • I made the decision to change the map as the previous map will likely become very cluttered by the end of the week, with over 30 protests planned tomorrow alone. Also, as the map grows it will clutter the lead even more than it is already with the numerous citations, which is another issue I think needs to be sorted out per MOS:LEADCITE. Furthermore, the new one is far more useful in fullscreen, when it is zoomable, and in my opinion having a key at the bottom is better than labels on the map itself. I am aware that the numbers are hard to read normally and I am not sure how to fix this as they seem to be offset from the circle; if anyone knows how to fix these please do! Thanks, harrz talk 22:46, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
  • I'd support returning to the original map, which is much clearer for both mobile and desktop readers. The new map is difficult to interpret, is not as responsive or useful on mobile, and for no clear reason makes a distinction between general rioting and attacks on migrant housing during the rioting. Adam Black talk • contribs 00:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
  • We should return to the original map because it is much better than the new one. It looks better, and it is easier to read. If it a pity that the person who changed it to the new map did not contribute to the existing discussion at #Map: is image or mediawiki map preferred?. The old map copes with cluttering better than the new one: for example, on the new map I can read "21", "22" but not "26" because it is overlapped too much; whereas the old map solves that by having the name "Birmingham" to the left of the pin, and the words "Tamworth" and "Solihul" to the right of the pin.
    The new map does have one good feature (though it is not easy to figure it out), which is that if you click the white box in the North Sea you can expand the map. But this loses the key, and may provide an inappropriate level of precision. If you want to expand the map a lot, you might need the map to have the exact coordinates of incidents, not just the right town/city.-- Toddy1 (talk) 06:24, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
The author has now changed the new map to make some of circles larger, so "22" cannot be read either.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Interactive timeline
  • I'd be happy to make an interactive map similar to this one as an SVG image which can then be viewed fullscreen in Media Viewer but someone needs to maintain it (adding new pins as more places are affected). Would someone be keen to take this task? cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 22:51, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
If you do this I'd be happy to add new pins if they are similar to the current map, ie just adding coords. harrz talk 23:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 August 2024

Include the People Before Profit in the Counter Protest section alongside Stand Against Racism Beatrix TBS (talk) 13:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for it's inclusion? CNC (talk) 13:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
People Before Profit was present at the counter protest at Belfast City Hall on 03/08/2024 with Gerry Carroll MLA present, official protest signage with People Before Profit's official party logo was also used alongside Trade Union NIPSA and party SDLP. Beatrix TBS (talk) 11:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
I think this might be a bit early, there's mention in this https://www.belfastlive.co.uk/profile/psni-response-amid-calls-block-29664566 of their MLA calling for people to join a counter-protest on Saturday, but otherwise I can't find any reporting on them being involved. I expect that may come at the weekend though. Lewishhh (talk) 13:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Likewise I only saw coverage of them expressing opinions, not direct involvement. CNC (talk) 13:52, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. M.Bitton (talk) 20:52, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 6 August 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. I think it's WP:SNOWing in here. To summarize: we use WP:COMMONNAME; it is the UK government that is countering these, not the English government (which hasn't existed since 1707); there have been riots outside of England so it doesn't make sense to exclude Northern Ireland. (closed by non-admin page mover) Cremastra (talk) 14:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

2024 United Kingdom riots → 2024 England riots – Per discussion under “Requested move 4 August 2024”, starting this new formal move request. 99% of the riots have been in England, and, moreover, all over England, and so we should reflect this in the article title. It is erroneous to imply this is a UK-wide phenomenon when it is not. In 2011, there was also some disorder in Wales, but the page is still called 2011 England riots. If 99% of this year’s riots had taken place in Scotland and 1% in Northern Ireland, the article would not be called 2024 United Kingdom riots. The riots are not any more “United Kingdom-ish” because England is the biggest of the UK nations. Half of the UK‘s nations have not had any disorder to speak of, and one has only had a small amount (which we can still cover under an “Elsewhere” heading). Kennethmac2000 (talk) 19:32, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Oppose per common name. The vast majority of sources refer to them as the UK riots. Even googling "England riots" gives you the same result. C F A 💬 19:42, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose because there are planned protests in Scotland and Wales and there have been smaller demonstrations already. You have had a few riots in Northern Ireland, and also had the Dublin riot. MatchAndGoo (talk) 19:55, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME; both the broadcast media (BBC, Sky News, Channel 4 News, ITV News), and the "print" media (e.g. the Guardian, the Telegraph, the Independent) in the UK are all using "UK riots" as the descriptor in headlines. I think the jump to go from England to the UK on the 3rd was premature but we are where we are now. : M2Ys4U (talk) 20:12, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose The "minor" incident in Belfast resulted in the worst violence. [2] As I said on WP:ITN, we wouldn't be like this for other countries. If riots went up and down the area of Central Serbia, the largest and most inhabited part of that country, we would call those "Serbian riots" and not split hairs because it didn't get to Vojvodina. England contains 85% of the UK population. Imagine that rioting occurred in the German states housing 85% of the population. Would we object to calling those "German riots" because of the states with no incidents? On another level, England has no devolved government - the government of the United Kingdom is countering these riots. Unknown Temptation (talk) 21:17, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
    Serbia is a poor comparison because it isn't made up of 4 different distinct nations. A better example would be India or Italy where regional and cultural divides are much more pronounced across the country. Abcmaxx (talk) 09:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above snow looking discussion to maintain the status quo for the time being. While the riots have predominantly featured in England, UK riots do appear to be the COMMONNAME, more so than England riots. CNC (talk) 21:54, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Support. Despite the fact like others have said that the media is using “U.K riots” (even when it was exclusive to England..) there is an important distinction in which nations it is actually taking place in. Politically much of the rhetoric is far-right nationalism specifically in respect to Ulster and England. KafkaHumour (talk) 02:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose, as per comments above: there has been rioting in Belfast and “UK” is the obvious term for events in England and Northern Ireland; and RS use this term. Bondegezou (talk) 06:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now, the rioting is widespread enough to justify the use of UK at the moment. There are ongoing reports of concerns in localities in Scotland about the possibility of protests and counter protests therefore it is too early to say that this is limited to England. Anvib (talk) 06:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose: We are bound to follow RS so gestures to accuracy for its own sake—"there have been no protests in Scotland/Wales/Cornwall" or "the protests have been primarily in England"—feel to me misguided. Almost all RS use the term "United Kingdom". In this way, User:KafkaHumour's contribution above is self-defeating in its admission that we'd be going against the media grain. There are also signs this is the popular COMMONNAME, e.g. #UKriots is the predominant Twitter (Xitter...) hashtag. Frankly, this also saves us having to move it back to United Kingdom riots if things do turn ugly in Scotland later today! The only caveat I'll put on it is that perhaps we can re-evaluate when more academic sources come along; if they broadly refer to England or England and Northern Ireland riots then we should follow them in preference to the media—but for now the BBC et al is the best we've got. —Kilopylae (talk) 07:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Two points in Support:
1) For those referring to the common name, in the recent UK general election campaign, it was exceptionally common for the UK media to talk about Labour’s plans to change “Britain’s planning laws”, despite the fact that planning is a devolved issue in all three devolved nations. If people insist, I am happy to dig up academic papers describing the UK media and politicians’ habitual inaccurate attribution to the whole of the UK of things that only apply to England. We need to take that into account and not blindly emulate it.
2) We also need to differentiate between riots and other violence (given that this article is about riots). For example, there are reports of a racially aggravated attack in Belfast yesterday evening - that is not a riot and is therefore not within the scope of this article. Kennethmac2000 (talk) 09:38, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
No, we don't. Wikipedia is based on what reliable, secondary sources say. Formulating statements using a synthesis of published material, like what you're suggesting, is original research. Wikipedia is also written for an international audience. The United Kingdom is the sovereign state. Assuming everyone knows how the UK's weird divisions work probably isn't the best idea. C F A 💬 14:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose as Belfast is not in England and that riot seems to be a significant one not going away and still connected/grouped to the ones in England. If it expands to Wales and Scotland this RM would be even more redundant. We may review the title once months have passed after the riots and sources look back at it as more English only. Also oppose based on the argument that these riots are inherently "Anglo-centric" based on personal perception (we should follow if sources state it as such, not percentages) and therefore that Wikipedia must be too. A lot of articles on the UK are focused on England, so therefore should those UK articles be reduced to England? If there’s differences between the nations, explain them here, rather argue UK articles are impractical. Most sources use UK or "England and Northern Ireland" not just England for these riots. Should future sources change or Belfast considered a separate riot in sources or SPLIT, then it could be reconsidered then. DankJae 10:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose - too soon. The article may need a more-specific name in the long run, but the present name meets current needs. (If we change the article name to exclude Wales and Scotland, it might provoke the rioters to get a train there just to force us to change back.) -- Toddy1 (talk) 11:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Oppose: most sources describe it as UK riots, riots took place in northern Ireland, moreover some instances of violence also took place in Scotland and Wales Waleed (talk) 13:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Oppose: As many sources describe riots all around the United Kingdom there is no need to movie it back to the England riots. CrusaderToonamiUK (talk) 11:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Primary source: https://news.met.police.uk/news/latest-met-updates-on-events-across-london-on-wednesday-evening-486747

Secondary source: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/croydon-london-riots-disorder-farright-arrests-b1175331.html

Another secondary source: https://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/news/24504976.uk-riots-croydon-anti-social-behaviour-leads-10-arrests/

Statements from Deputy Assistant Commissioner Andy Valentine: "Two large anti-racism protests took place in Waltham Forest and Finchley. The majority of people engaged with officers and complied with conditions. These events passed without major incident or disruption.

“However, officers did face anti-social behaviour from a small group in Croydon who were not related to any protest, but were intent on causing trouble."


As such, this statement in the article: "Elsewhere in London, Metropolitan Police arrested ten people in Croydon" should either be removed as it's not relevant to the protests, or with context showing that they were not related to the protests. BedVeritas1 (talk) 09:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Looks like this has been removed already? Can't find that line anymore. CNC (talk) 13:43, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Yes, it was removed after I added this topic BedVeritas1 (talk) 13:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Channel3Now

Good article from the BBC in Channel3Now. Bondegezou (talk) 06:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

And this one§ has some good background we could use. Bondegezou (talk) 06:25, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm not convinced we need more info here on Channel3Now, apart from referencing the origin of the misinfo and that description of being a Russian-linked fake info description, given there is now a page that includes further info. CNC (talk) 13:48, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Solidarity Protests or Counter-protests

It's my understanding that Lewisham and Hackney were not on the list of targets being circulated and that these gathering yesterday, despite some confusion in the reporting, were organised by SUTR in solidarity, rather then due to a direct threat to the area. Can anyone help me find citations to prove this, or to prove they were in fact countering a credible threat?

Going by posts on Twitter, the early closure of Lewisham Market stalls as to be out of the way of the solidarity protest caused a lot of rumours that it was in fact due to far-right rioters heading for the area, and this seems to have morphed into claims they were already there, etc. Not sure if anyone will have reported this though if so. Lewishhh (talk) 10:58, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Hackney's counter-protests were due to a rumour uncorroborated by the police.
"Stand up to Racism has announced it will hold a ‘stop the far right’ rally in Leswin Road, Stoke Newington, at 5pm this evening (August 7).
It comes after rumours circulated online that a far-right demonstration had been planned for outside The Old Fire Station.
The Metropolitan Police has declined to comment on whether it is aware that far-right action has been planned in the area."
https://www.hackneygazette.co.uk/news/24503794.uk-riots-stoke-newington-anti-racist-protest-planned/
There is this article on Lewisham including a tweet from the Mayor of Lewisham with their official statement:
https://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/24504653.uk-riots-no-planned-far-right-activity-lewisham-tonight/
Also, this article from the same source including statements from the Mayor of Lewisham:
https://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/24503930.uk-riots-lewisham-council-police-aware-plans/
Neither the police nor the council confirmed far right threats in the area, they only acknowledged solidarity protests BedVeritas1 (talk) 13:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks! These seem like enough to fill in the gaps. Lewishhh (talk) 13:53, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Tabloid newspaper sourcing

The Metro and Daily Mirror sources have recently been removed by other editors as tabloid sources. The Manchester Evening News is also a tabloid newspaper owned by Reach plc, the owners of various other tabloids including the Daily Mirror, Sunday Mirror, The Sunday People, Daily Star and Daily Star Sunday. Is the Manchester Evening News the only tabloid which is acceptable?

As per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, is the view of the MEN significantly important enough to include in this article? Guidelines at WP:SENSATIONAL state: "Tabloid journalism is usually considered a poor basis for an encyclopedia article." Is the Manchester Evening News to be treated as an exceptional case as a tabloid? Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 22:24, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Is the Manchester Evening News a proper tabloid journalism newspaper? I.e. sensationalist, over-exaggerated and quite shoddy in reliability (examples include The Sun, The Mirror etc). Or is it just published in tabloid format but still produces reliable, quality content (e.g. The Independent)? I don't know much about the publication to give any real opinion on this, but it is important to distinguish between the two types of tabloid than to paint them all with the same brush. ThatRandomGuy1 (talk) 03:57, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
There is nothing in WP:RSPS to prevent the MEN being used as a source. WWGB (talk) 06:13, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
If anything, there appears to be consensus that MEN is reliable per the only RSN dicussion I could find from 2020. Being owned by Reach plc isn't inherently a reason a paper is unreliable, even if it's a good reason to question it. Given the current consensus, it'd be best to take this to RSN to re-open the discussion over reliability if you believe it's not WP:GREL. CNC (talk) 13:54, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Criticism of Nigel Farage's comparison of BLM in the UK to these far-right riots.

Could criticism of Nigel Farage's comments suggesting "two-tier policing" and "soft policing" of BLM in the UK be included?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/aug/05/priti-patel-criticises-nigel-farage-response-far-right-riots

"Patel said Farage’s comments were deeply misleading and “simply not relevant right now”. She told Times Radio: “There’s a clear difference between effectively blocking streets or roads being closed to burning down libraries, hotels, food banks and attacking places of worship. What we have seen is thuggery, violence, racism."


The paragraph in the Wikipedia article under 'Reactions' states: "The Reform UK leader, Nigel Farage, called for Parliament to be recalled over the riots and suggested there was a widespread impression of "two-tier policing" as a result of "soft policing" during Black Lives Matter protests, which he said contributed to a "sense of injustice"."


Criticism of his statements should be added after. BedVeritas1 (talk) 11:53, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Disagree
For one, not every statement needs to be given a direct response. Add a different reaction.
Two, though likely wrong and in bad faith, I feel as if you merely want to add a criticism to his statement because it in itself criticizes the actions of the BLM movement during 2020; saying that BLM protesters had committed similar crimes as those rioting and had been seen with greater leniency. Given Wikipedia's left-wing bias, especially on pages dealing with politics like this one, my assumption is that you are a member of said left-wing and your reaction here is from seeing your beliefs be confronted.
Thirdly and finally, if you want to add criticism then do so. I'm not an admin, I can't stop you. But, if criticism is added then something in support of his statement should be added as well, that the article (appears) to remain neutral in all sections and the reader is left with all relevant information needed to form an opinion. Vilo2023 (talk) 12:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Your own bias is evident here, and thinking you sound neutral in comparison is part of it. Someone saying one thing and another disagreeing is already two opposing opinions, a third in agreement with one of them is not needed for balance. Lewishhh (talk) 12:31, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Weren't you the one arguing that we shouldn't give counter-protesters and Muslim rioters equivalence with far-right rioters? Now you appear to be arguing the opposite when the right-left positions are swapped. MatchAndGoo (talk) 12:57, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I'm biased and I have no shame in admitting such. Everyone and everything is biased, even yourself. But the point still stands, this thread was likely made due to seeing an opposing view and needing a critique to it when putting a different reaction would have been suitable. The reason why I say a third is that the first in the chain, Nigel Farage's, would be the claim. The claim doesn't just support itself, but it is either proven or disproven by relevant information. Only providing one side of the information, the critique to Farage's claim, will only lead people to saying Wikipedia, which was made to be an unbiased platform, is biased. Both sides, a view supporting the claim and a view opposing the claim, should be added to allow the reader to make their own, informed, opinion. Vilo2023 (talk) 13:22, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Farage's statement is his opinion. Balance here is his opinion, and an opposing opinion. He himself has already given a view "for", adding a view "against" and another view "for" is clearly unbalanced. Lewishhh (talk) 13:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Why we are giving so much airtime to a comment by Nigel Farage needs to be considered. There's a lot of airtime being given to small far-right groups and personalities such as Patriotic Alternative, and very little airtime being given to the more mainstream concerns about things like immigration, nationalism, and multiculturalism particularly in relation to some people from "Africa, Middle East and South Asia". There are genuine widespread concerns that are being ignored, while this article is overtly focusing on the idea that they are rioting on the basis of lies (misinformation) spread by neo-nazis and white nationalists [...and the somehow the rioters would stop if they knew that the lies were lies]. MatchAndGoo (talk) 13:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
What on earth are you talking about? There are entire articles on criticism of multiculturalism and opposition to immigration, you're welcome to improve them. This article is about the far-right riots, not "concerns" over multiculturalism and immigration, only how they are directly relevant to the riots itself. The lead is currently a balanced summary of the reasons for the riots, with both disinformation and other sociopolitical factory: "The initial riot in Southport and subsequent riots elsewhere have been linked to disinformation on social media about the identity of the Southport attacker, in addition to pre-existing Islamophobic, racist, and anti-immigrant sentiment" As despite the original Southport riots being sparked by misinformation, the far-right have continued to riot regardless of the truth being revealed, as documented in summary as well as the analysis section. Your interpretation is simply wrong here. CNC (talk) 13:51, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
"The initial riot in Southport and subsequent riots elsewhere have been linked to disinformation on social media about the identity of the Southport attacker, in addition to pre-existing Islamophobic, racist, and anti-immigrant sentiment. Fascist groups spread misinformation online, and members of the neo-Nazi group Patriotic Alternative were involved in the Southport riot. Counter-protesters including Stand Up to Racism, anti-fascist and anti-racist groups, local Muslims, and other members of local communities, have opposed the rioters, with clashes occurring between opposing sides since the unrest began."
This is basically a narrative.
  • Yes, the initial stabber was misreported as a Muslim, but the rioters aren't rioting because this misinformation. It's ridiculous to continue to state that the riots are about misinformation about the identity of the stabber - the riots are about wider issues which have been reported on across mainstream media.
  • Why is Patriotic Alternative and Stand Up to Racism being given so much airtime? The vast majority of rioters and protesters aren't affiliated with a political group, and the most notable opposition has been the armed gangs of Asians.
At the most you can say:
"The initial riot in Southport had been linked to disinformation on social media about the identity of the Southport attacker, in addition to pre-existing Islamophobic, racist, and anti-immigrant sentiment. Subsequent riots have focused on wider generic issues related to Islamophobic, racist, and anti-immigrant sentiment, in addition to various socioeconomic and political issues such as biases in the media and police. Counter-rioters including self-described anti-fascist and anti-racist groups, local Muslims, and other members of local communities, have opposed the far-right rioters, with violent clashes occurring between opposing sides since the unrest began."
I've seen far more Palestine flags in the counter-riots than anything identifying the political groups listed in these articles. MatchAndGoo (talk) 14:24, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
The statement seems to be overtly false IMO. The perceived biases within the police towards Muslims did not start with BLM, but this article hasn't addressed the various biases within the police that go back decades. It's the first comment that I've seen which links Muslim policing to BLM which I think is completely false.
And there's a wider problem with the narrative in this article which suggests that the rioters are rioting due to misinformation, and said misinformation was propagated by far-right personalities. I think that the rioters know it's a British-born black man who killed the girls, but they are actually rioting over other issues and the stabbings simply tripped the fuse. The article would give too much importance to Farage by writing so much about him. MatchAndGoo (talk) 12:31, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
And everything you've said would be opinion or OR, this article should report facts not your opinions. Lewishhh (talk) 12:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
The same applies to you. MatchAndGoo (talk) 12:35, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Naturally, but I've not tried to insert mine. Lewishhh (talk) 12:38, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Which is obviously false considering the numerous violations of NPOV throughout your commenting on this article. MatchAndGoo (talk) 12:53, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
This is an incorrect assertion as NPOV only covers article content. Ideally discussions would take NPOV into consideration, and POV arguments wouldn't be made, but it's policy doesn't extend directly to talk pages. Otherwise a lot of the POV-pushing original research that you have expressed would have been removed already. CNC (talk) 13:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
You have a knack for diverting discussions with unrelated topics.
He claimed I was opinionating. I wrote back with how he was opinionating.
Yes we used different wording. The meaning remains the same though. He was opinionating with viewpoints seemingly from a far-left position. MatchAndGoo (talk) 14:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
No, you keep claiming I've posted things I haven't. You're very transparently claiming I'm far-left to detract from your clearly right leaning OR and opinions. Lewishhh (talk) 14:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
I think it's worth mentioning him in the article about the events he directly incited and which are becoming known as "The Farage Riots" Deadlight01 (talk) 12:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
I agree, but I noticed these criticisms were removed from the article, the statements originally included seem reasonably sourced. Perhaps they should be added back into the article.
"The Reform UK leader Nigel Farage was criticised by former Scotland Yard counter-terrorism police chief Neil Basu for questioning whether the truth was being withheld from the public, with Basu accusing Farage of inciting violence and creating conspiracy theories. Farage was also accused of giving legitimacy to acts of violence by Steve Rotheram, the Mayor of Liverpool City Region, after releasing a video in which he said the protests were "nothing to what could happen over the course of the next few weeks"." BedVeritas1 (talk) 13:21, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Why were they removed? What's left is a completely unbalanced POV of events. Inclusion of further content is very much due, especially accusation of involvement in inciting the riots etc. CNC (talk) 14:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure why these statements were removed, I've made a topic below under Talk:2024 United Kingdom riots#Criticisms by Neil Bass and Steve Rotherham BedVeritas1 (talk) 14:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Second YouGov poll included under Reactions not relevant

"A further YouGov poll of 2,163 British adults in the same period saw immigration identified as the number one issue facing the country (51%), above the economy (44%), and crime (39%)."

Why is this relevant when it's not polling people's reactions to the protests like the text before this statement? It ought to be removed.

"A YouGov poll of 199 people on 5–6 August found that only 7% support the riots, while 34% support the broader peaceful protests; 21% of Reform UK voters support the riots, 9% of Conservative voters, 3% of Labour voters, and 1% of Liberal Democrat voters." This statement is relevant to the protests as it's people's reactions to the protests. BedVeritas1 (talk) 11:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I would have thought that it was obvious that a poll assessing whether British people support the so-called "protests" is relevant to an article on the so-called "protests". What bothers me is that the only sources cited for the two YouGov polls is YouGov itself; it would be an improvement if we found newspaper articles commenting on the poll results.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:45, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
The article by Matthew Smith on YouGov says that the results of the poll of 2,163 British adults are relevant. But it is comparing results of polls undertaken on (1) 5-6 August and (2) 17-18 July 2024, and says that you cannot say "how much of the recent shift is because of the stabbings, and how much are as a result of the week-long rioting since then."
Smith, Matthew (7 August 2024). "Top national issues: crime and immigration shoot up following Southport and subsequent rioting". YouGov. Retrieved 8 August 2024.
-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Naturally, a poll assessing whether British people support the protests or riots is important.
However, this other poll that was included is not directly related and it's hard to prove indirect relation because there isn't a single interpretation unlike the poll assessing whether British people support the protests or riots which is obvious in its relation to the protests. BedVeritas1 (talk) 13:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
@Maculosae tegmine lyncis per edit re-instating this source [3], there was already a talk page discussion in progress. In future, please check the talk page first before suggesting others take discussions to the talk page, thanks. CNC (talk) 14:01, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Also, User:Maculosae tegmine lyncis the statement is misleading as the YouGov poll also shows a +19% increase in the concern for crime which was a greater increase than the concern for immigration +10%. If as User:Toddy1 has shown, "you cannot say "how much of the recent shift is because of the stabbings, and how much are as a result of the week-long rioting since then"", then the increase in crime should also be considered as one interpretation (among potentially many unlike the first poll which is obvious in its direct relation to the riots) is that the more significant increase in the concern for crime is related to the rioting. BedVeritas1 (talk) 14:03, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Support removal - it's not directly related to the riots. Every poll related to immigration can't be included in this article, only those that directly ask about the protests should be.
Lewishhh (talk) 14:04, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
I think that key points from Matthew Smith's article that compared poll results from July and August are:
In the 5-6 August poll, immigration was identified as the number one issue facing the country (51%), above the economy (44%), and crime (39%). In July, the figures were immigration 41%, the economy 53%, and crime 20%. This represented a 10 point rise in importance for immigration, and a 19 point rise for crime. It is "impossible to unpick how much of the recent shift is because of the stabbings, and how much are as a result of the week-long rioting since then."
I think that the citation should include a link to the raw results. There were some statements in Matthew Smith's article whose meaning was crystal clear once I had the table of raw results in front of me, but were ambiguous without them.
Smith, Matthew (7 August 2024). YouGov Survey Results, Sample Size: 2163 GB Adults, Fieldwork: 5th - 6th August 2024 (PDF). YouGov (Report). Retrieved 8 August 2024.
-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
This context is not included in the statement which makes it ambiguous and not obviously directly related. There's nothing about the more significant increase in the concern for crime (which showed the largest increase of any concern), or percentage increases (and decreases) in general. Crime has surpassed both health and housing to become the third top issue according to this poll. BedVeritas1 (talk) 14:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
I agree with you that the statement in the Wikipedia article[4] does not explain things well enough. Matthew Smith's article makes the point that the crime figure was also high in 2011 which was "the time of the last major national rioting."-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:42, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
So the statement should either be removed as it's ambiguous without obvious relation to the riots, or context needs to be added showing the percentage increases and changes in the top 3 concerns with analysis showing the relation to the riots. Perhaps this analysis should come from quotes from secondary sources. BedVeritas1 (talk) 16:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
The following newspaper articles comment on the YouGov article by Dylan Difford and Matthew Smith. But I have not found a newspaper article commenting on the YouGov article by Matthew Smith.
-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Sounds like it should be removed if lack of consensus for inclusion. CNC (talk) 17:21, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
With the context and analysis added alongside the statistics, the relation to the riots is more obvious.
User:CommunityNotesContributor User:Lewishhh if you wouldn't mind reviewing the changes User:Toddy1 added when you get a chance so there is a consensus BedVeritas1 (talk) 20:29, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Calling riots "race riots"

Some news articles have called the current riots "race riots". For example, see | Politico EU and | NPR. Should the article include mention of the riots as "race riots"? BootsED (talk) 17:45, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeh there's more sourcing as well, [5], [6], [7], and [8] (opinion). Goes in analysis section. CNC (talk) 17:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
I think it's better to consider it to be race riots because you've got two distinct camps that are fighting each other (Islamophobes and Muslims) and a lot of the counter-protesters seem to be very caught up in Muslim politics (pro-Palestine protesters and the like). There have been only limited attacks on other ethnic minority groups (which is notable considering the suspect in the stabbing is a black man) and in-fact more white people have been passively subject to attacks (looting etc...) with only Muslims having suffered worse. Furthermore the only really armed groups in this riot are the far-right and the Muslims. MatchAndGoo (talk) 18:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, nearly every sentence in this comment is so utterly false that it's bordering on WP:CIR, and this isn't the first time you've done this on this page. I am quite close to simply blocking you from the page, you're not adding any value at all (and you haven't edited any other part of the encyclopedia either, so we can add WP:NOTHERE as well). Black Kite (talk) 18:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Which part is actually false? Or do you just not like the facts of the situation because it doesn't agree with your political viewpoint? MatchAndGoo (talk) 18:57, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
There aren't "two distinct camps" here, as the article says. A lot of these people are simply racists, looters or rioters, and a lot of people opposing them aren't Muslims. The sentence about the counter-protestors is simply false (Hope not Hate? Local people protecting properties?). I'm not sure what "other ethnic minority groups" means, and how do you know the shops that were looted were run by whites? You don't. The last sentence may be the one that most closely adheres to reality, but again the latter part is based on a very small sample size. Do better, please. Black Kite (talk) 19:03, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
  • There's clearly a "Anti-Muslim" camp and a "pro-Muslim" camp. For example The Telegraph touched on this: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/08/04/far-right-and-muslims-clash-fresh-riots-bolton . The other camps are mostly protesters and I'd argue that the Muslim gangs outnumber them - no sources for that statement though.
  • A lot of the counter-protesters are pro-Palestine and focused on fighting Islamophobia. To say that statement is false is ridiculous. There is plenty of first hand evidence in the form of pro-Palestine chants and pro-Palestine flags.
  • What people forget is that in most of these cases there's no way to identify the ethnicity of the shop owner. Usually the shop has been closed long before it has been raided by rioters so even the shop owner isn't there - and many of the shops are simply brand name shops. There's no valid claim to say that the rioters have mostly looted ethnic minority shops.
MatchAndGoo (talk) 19:13, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Yet you just made up the fact that "more white people have been passively subject to attack" than non-Muslim minorities. At least you admit that you made up the other sentence about Muslim "gangs" (interesting word choice) outnumbering them. Please stop doing this, I won't ask again. Black Kite (talk) 19:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
    If you blocked this user there would be no loss to the encyclopedia, and I highly doubt anyone is able to argue otherwise. The only question would be the reasoning. CNC (talk) 19:31, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
  • I would rather not block them (and I certainly wouldn't if they were an established user) but if they continue wasting everyone's time with unsourced opinions, I see no other option ... and then there's stuff like this. Black Kite (talk) 19:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
The facts of the situation, as you presented it, are incorrect. Given how many lies have been spread by far right and racists which galvanized racists and ultimately led to these riots, we should be careful not to make stuff up. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
The opposing view is that you're trying to divert attention away from Muslims, but forget that you will end up spreading fear among other ethnic minority groups pointlessly.
For example, focusing on the idea that the rioters are rioting over the stabber might in fact come across as if you are trying to divert the racism away from Muslims towards Blacks, when in fact the rioters are rioting against Muslims for other reasons. Blacks have largely avoided being victims of far-right attacks and have largely refrained from mobilising against he far-right, same goes for the Indian and East Asian communities. MatchAndGoo (talk) 19:19, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Incidentally, you might want to watch the scenes from Brighton, Bristol etc. tonight. Whilst there is a mix of races in the anti-racist protestors, they are clearly not "Muslim gangs". I see Hope Not Hate, Stand Up to Racism, trade union flags (and yes a few Palestinian flags, but not many) [9]. Black Kite (talk) 19:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Does anyone have have sources actually discussing these riots as race riots, ie why they are being described as such, to include in analysis section? After looking through sources, most are just WP:HEADLINES using the phrase, or otherwise passing reference, as opposed to any analysis. The only useful source I found was The Independent, describing " violent race rioters blocking traffic in North Yorkshire to check if drivers were white or English before letting them through." [10] CNC (talk) 14:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
I dont think it's relevant to specifically name the riots "Race riots" in the title of the page itself, and instead just elaborate on it involving race further in the article. I think since the cause of the riots could be either considered "Race riots" or "Anti-immigration riots" it would fit better for the page to just be called riots, I also think many will believe the article to be non-neutral when the title implies rioters are racist, when many would refer to themselves as anti-immigration. Partey Lover (talk) 21:18, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Counterprotesters arrested

The article mentions many instances of counterprotesters being arrested, yet these are not shown in the causality and losses section. Shouldnt these be included since the number of arrests of the far right protesters are noted? D6strrrrr (talk) 22:21, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

As explained above, there was the suggestion to move the the list of arrests and charges of casualties1 (far-right) to general injuries section, given we don't know how many of the arrests and charges are related to side1, but I had no luck trying to make this edit. If there are reliable sources for arrests/charges on side3 then they should be added with reliable sources for now I think. CNC (talk) 22:27, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Per this edit, I've converted casulaties parameters to total injuries as arrests, given it's not possible to include the arrests field when using casualties. It's not ideal but better than misrepresenting the total number of arrests/charges. CNC (talk) 15:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
@CFA could you consider returning my edit please? [11] I assume you reverted in error. [12] CNC (talk) 15:57, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
 Done. Think I fixed it. C F A 💬 16:04, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Criticisms by Neil Bass and Steve Rotherham

I noticed these criticisms were removed from the article, the statements originally included seem reasonably sourced

"The Reform UK leader Nigel Farage was criticised by former Scotland Yard counter-terrorism police chief Neil Basu for questioning whether the truth was being withheld from the public, with Basu accusing Farage of inciting violence and creating conspiracy theories. Farage was also accused of giving legitimacy to acts of violence by Steve Rotheram, the Mayor of Liverpool City Region, after releasing a video in which he said the protests were "nothing to what could happen over the course of the next few weeks".[1]" BedVeritas1 (talk) 21:19, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Brown, Mark; Brooks, Libby (2 August 2024). "Nigel Farage giving legitimacy to violent protesters, says Liverpool mayor". The Guardian. Retrieved 2 August 2024.
  • It is sourced, but is the reaction of others to the reaction of Nigel Farage significantly important enough to include in the "Reactions" section of this article? In my view I don't think it is. If there were multiple sources containing details of, for example, the Prime Minister's reaction to Nigel Farage, that might be notable enough, but for the reaction of others with just one source in The Guardian, I don't think it's significant enough as per WP:NOTNEWS. The article can't include everything even if it's sourced. I also don't think the reaction and quotes from Priti Patel to the reaction of Farage is important enough to include as per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:QUOTEFARM, but currently those quotes from Patel are still in the article. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 22:24, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
    Then why include his comments supporting the myth of “two-tier policing” (which the Met Police commissioner said was imperilling police officers) and comparing these riots to the BLM protests in the UK (which Priti Patel criticised)? Moreover, according to the YouGov poll included in the article, 47% of Britons argue that Nigel Farage had a fair to great deal of responsibility for “causing the unrest at recent protests in England”. So criticism levelled at Farage for fanning the flames is relevant. BedVeritas1 (talk) 01:44, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
The only reason Farage's reaction was relevant was because of accusations against him, and within that context, so clearly it is WP:DUE. It'd be very WP:UNBALANCED to ignore this and currently looks like a very POV based summary. I'm not 100% convinced by the current suggestion, as there are plenty more sources available that should be used as well. I haven't got round to it yet, but likewise in analysis section there should be the reference of "farage riots" per weight of sourcing, probably along with "race riots" at this rate. CNC (talk) 14:26, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
I agree. About that, there was a recent article here:
https://news.sky.com/story/politics-latest-starmer-labour-riots-parliament-conservative-leadership-jenrick-police-live-12593360?postid=8098959#liveblog-body
Moreover, according to the YouGov poll included in the article, 47% of Britons argue that Nigel Farage had a fair to great deal of responsibility for “causing the unrest at recent protests in England”.
https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/50257-the-public-reaction-to-the-2024-riots
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/nigel-farage-populism-reform-far-right-b2592706.html BedVeritas1 (talk) 18:54, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

The riots have become popularly referred to as the Farage Riots and Farage himself has strongly objected to the riots being named after himself. It therefore seems appropriate to at least mention the trending name of Farage Riots under the reaction section, even if there is not a settled name for the events. It's at least a very popular meme worthy of comment.

https://x.com/DachshundColin/status/1821835822913438162

https://x.com/search?q=farage%20riots&src=typed_query&f=live — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiucsibgod (talk • contribs) 16:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Dogbiscuit (talk) 16:08, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Should counter-protestors be considered part of the UK Government side?

I think counter-protestors should be considered to be on the side of the UK Government as since World War II, protests by fascist, racist or counter-religious organizations have often been met by anti-racist or anti-fascist groups, many of which are aligned with the Labour Party which is the governing party of the UK. Do we agree with that? Pikachu3408 (talk) 20:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTFORUM. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
It doesn't matter whether editors agree with that or not. We don't add original research, we keep to what reliable sources are reporting and analysing. Orange sticker (talk) 21:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
No, they are not. The only time that that should be added is if the protesters where bing attacked like in the Attack on protestors at the Turkish embassy in Washington, D.C. LuxembourgLover (talk) 02:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
I am not sure everyone who replied to you understood the question. I'm pretty sure you're talking about the infobox top right of the article.
Counter-protestors are likely to have some government action taken against them (i.e. arrested or being issued with orders to disperse) if they do things like bringing weapons or issuing threats, or acting disorderly. That has already happened (though far less than against the instigators because they've been doing that kind of thing less).
In the UK police generally try to allow peaceful protests to happen ("facilitate") and keep both/all sides apart, that often involves action against both/all sides. It's easier to have 3 sections in the infobox. Komonzia (talk) 17:13, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Naming those arrested

Looking under the 'Arrested and sentences' section, only two people were named: "Two men, Sameer Ali and Adnan Ghafoor, were sentenced to 20 months and 18 months in prison each respectively for assaulting protesters in Leeds city centre on 3 August."

However, no one else was named. Is there a reason for this? There have been many, many names released, but these are the only people named in this article.


For example: "A 28 year-old man from Leeds was arrested and sentenced to 20 months in prison for 'stirring up racial hatred online during riots', after making a Facebook post stating that people should "smash the f**k" out of the Brittania hotel", which is used by the government to house asylum seekers awaiting processing." The source states their name: Jordan Parlour. This was not mentioned. https://news.sky.com/story/uk-riots-far-right-protests-latest-southport-police-anti-racism-counter-live-13186819?postid=8104318#liveblog-body

Plus, this same person was mentioned in a previous paragraph within the same section: "A charge for "using threatening words or behaviour intending to stir up racial hatred" was made on 6 August 2024 following Facebook posts." with a different source, and once again, no name was mentioned despite the name (Jordan Parlour) being in the source: https://www.cps.gov.uk/cps/news/man-convicted-intending-stir-racial-hatred-after-posting-online


Plus, with this: "On 7 August, the first sentences for crimes committed during the riots were handed out to three men who took part in unrest in Southport and Liverpool. The three were sentenced to periods of between 20 months and three years in prison" The source states their names: Derek Drummond, Declan Geiran, Liam James Riley.

I also noticed this change was made by ThePaganUK who also mentioned Ricky Jones' "Afro-Caribbean descent". I hope there is no political bias being shown here.

Ricky Jones: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2024_United_Kingdom_riots&diff=prev&oldid=1239483802

Only arrests mentioned: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2024_United_Kingdom_riots&diff=prev&oldid=1239310215


What is the reason for this disparity in naming? BedVeritas1 (talk) 19:15, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I see no problem making sure the article is consistent wrt naming to ensure WP:NPOV. I would go for leaving the names out. Orange sticker (talk) 19:24, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
I agree. BedVeritas1 (talk) 19:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Firstly, we need to distinguish between naming people facing charges and those subsequently found guilty. The former almost certainly shouldn't be named, per WP:BLP. As for the latter, an exhaustive list will clearly be undue, but there might possibly be a few individuals who receive enough ongoing coverage to merit naming. For now though, I'd agree that names are best left out, until we have anything to justify doing otherwise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:32, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
I've removed, corrected the actual charges and fixed the broken source. Agree with ATG that unless there is significant coverage to justify naming those convicted, it serves no purpose in this article. CNC (talk) 19:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for making the updates. I think that would be the best course of action. BedVeritas1 (talk) 19:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 7 August 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. WP:SNOW, this clearly isn't gaining consensus. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 20:49, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

2024 United Kingdom riots → 2024 United Kingdom race riots – Per the sources in this section as well as numerous other sources, these are clearly race riots and a specific group of people are being targeted by far-right groups and their supporters. The article should be moved to reflect that. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Several of these sources are opinion pieces. I think if we are to call them race riots we need more mainstream articles describing them as such. Currently they are described as simply "riots" or "far-right riots" much more than "race riots". I think a sentence in the body about how they have been described as "race riots" is due. BootsED (talk) 19:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
"Journalists have described the unrest as "race riots"." MatchAndGoo (talk) 19:38, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
I think something like that in the body would be due. BootsED (talk) 19:43, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Many are also just WP:HEADLINES when looking through sources which isn't helpful. CNC (talk) 14:18, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Neutral, but leaning oppose. Many riots have been described by sources as "race riots" but I think that could be a bit of a generalization for the scope of this article. A lot of the riots, at least originally, were based on Islamophobic misinformation. That has little to do with race. There were also plenty relating to immigration in general, which is not inherently related to race. And you can imagine how many "complaints" about the title this talk page will receive if this move goes through. I don't really care either way, but I think it'd be best to keep a broader non-POV title, at least for now. C F A 💬 19:08, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
    @CFA, respectfully, I don't think these people care about immigration from places like Western Europe. They care about immigration from very specific parts of the world. So "race riot" is accurate. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:13, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
    The riots are based on pre-existing anti-immigration sentiment, so it'd be OR to assume this excludes white people. Per ANS, being anti-immigration means opposing immigration, regardless of the origin. Also consider the context of England being an Island, whereby all immigration is coming from a foreign mainland (excluding Ireland maybe). It's not the same as generic Western Europe immigration. CNC (talk) 21:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
@Sojup you can disagree over the name but numerous journalists and sources have described it as such because race is clearly one of the factors. Its not "silly" at all. Far from it. Omnis Scientia (talk) 01:29, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Apologies for being unclear. I find the current article name silly and unnecessarily vague. Sojup (talk) 02:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
@Sojup, ah thank you for clearing it up. And my apologies for being so curt, I wrote the response half-asleep and this is a bit personal since I have family there who are part of one of the targeted communities and I'm quite worried for them. I just saw the word "silly" and got angry. So sorry for that. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:15, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
And my apologies for being so unclear. Wishing you all the best. Sojup (talk) 16:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Note: WikiProject Discrimination, WikiProject United Kingdom, WikiProject Current events, WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, and WikiProject Merseyside have been notified of this discussion. TarnishedPathtalk 03:30, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose: (a) No greater precision needed, and (b) Religion, anti-immigration, and general thuggery are involved, "race riots" oversimplifies. PamD 05:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose same as others. Cases have yet to process through the courts, but some of those that have, determined that some rioters were motivated by looting in the chaos already caused. I think cases should keep proceeding through the courts until the overall motive becomes clearer, rather than relying on news sources while it is happening. Other reports suggest that politicians determine that fake news is the cause, another reason why others have said that attributing it to race at this stage is an oversimplification.
IMO: Only one side is trying to make this rioting a race war, renaming the article to fit their conventions is not a neutral point of view.
Also to compare with other articles:
Template:Riots in England - Out of all the riots that are notable in England, even those specifically categorised as race riots, only two articles have the motive 'race' in titles, guessing it is due to applying the principle of looking at what the sources call the event rather than naming it ourselves. Komonzia (talk) 06:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A multifaceted conflict, a stretch to call it race riot. Historyexpert2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historyexpert2 (talk • contribs) 12:41, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose Keep it concise. And there are many underlying reasons for this situation as per sources and race is just one of them. Keivan.fTalk 14:10, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment. Recommend a WP:SNOWCLOSE to avoid wasting further time. CNC (talk) 14:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per literally everyone above me. Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 14:44, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "2024 UK race riots" implies that there was another case of major riots in the UK that was not about the race. We would only make that distinction if there were such instances, like "water riots" in Uganda, "language riots" in India, and "quota riots" in Bangladesh. However, these Southport-inspired riots are the only major riots in the UK this year (so far). Therefore, as of now, there is no need to add "race" to the title. However, I support emphasizing race in the first sentence/paragraph of the article lead instead. ℛonherry☘ 15:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose - these are more complex than any "race riot" – it's about Islamophobia and anti-immigration, not just two ethnic groups fighting. Given Chambers' definition of a race riot, [14], these clearly don't meet #1, and while they could be stretched to #2, that isn't what this is about. Adding extra qualifiers also contradicts our policy of concision. Adding an unnecessary qualifier that only explains some aspects of the riots is not, in my opinion, an improvement. Cremastra (talk) 16:47, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Oppose - additional to aforementioned reasons, WP:COMMONNAME focuses on common recognisability rather than simply the most abundant. Even if there is a plurality of uses of "race riots" (which at this point cannot really be demonstrated without cherrypicking specific term usage patterns), without an overall majority it fails to meet the requirement. Reliable sources vary between the unqualified "riots", "race riots", "far-right riots" and a few others, and the title as it currently stands contains the only commonality recognised amongst all of the above. Benjitheijneb (talk) 18:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wales?

The lead mentions Wales as a location of riots but, as far as I can see, Cardiff is later only mentioned as the scene of an anti-racist demonstration. Should Wales be removed from the lead? PamD 05:17, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

The lead mentions both riots and protests. As far as I'm aware, while no riots have occurred in Wales yet, protests and counter-protests have been held in Cardiff. More protests are also reportedly planned for Swansea, Cardiff and Aberystwyth in the coming days. ThatRandomGuy1 (talk) 08:00, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
As far as I can tell from content on Cardiff based on lead description of "far-right riots and anti-immigration protests", it's accurate enough per content: "Anti-racism protesters gathered in Cardiff following a far-right protest which had been planned, where they encountered some far-right demonstrators outside the Senedd,..." From one of the sources used "Anti-racism counter-demonstrators were on the streets of Cardiff for the second successive day on Sunday, as the anti-immigrant groups threatened to hold another protest in the Welsh capital." [15] I think this confirms the far-right demonstrators were anti-immigration protesters. Ideally some better sourcing would be included to avoid any ambiguity though. CNC (talk) 12:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
@Grnrchst @Erzan please see discussion about this and engage in discussion. Also to Erzan, per this, a quick reminder about WP:DRNE:
"If you can't or won't explain your revert, don't make it." CNC (talk) 18:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Didn't see this, but per those sources it seems one was planned but didn't materialise. Do sources now describe the riots as being in "England, Wales and Northern Ireland"? Needs more concrete sourcing than guessing it does. Seems the Cardiff incident is known for the counter-protesters instead. Open to adding the Cardiff incident elsewhere in the lead.
Also the Welsh Government doesn't control policing, if anyone adds it to the infobox again. DankJae 21:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Improvements have been made

I just came back to this article to lambast the disguising state it was in 4 days ago. Which was a Whitewash of reality. Almost like if racism, Islamophobia, etc were not at the root of it. I am shocked to find that the lead has been much improved and there is not much for me to complain about. I suggest Islamophobic tag be added to the page. The same way antisemitism is added to so many pages. Good work now it is a serious article. Hausa warrior (talk) 08:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Social Media Arrest

Seems like reliable sources covered this, would this be appropriate to add somewhere in the article?

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3w6q611yn1o

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/aug/08/chester-woman-55-arrested-over-false-posts-about-southport-murders

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/southport-stabbings-identity-woman-arrested-police-b2593467.html Cahlin29 (talk) 08:54, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Sources for it trending:

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1933353/im-pretty-disgusted-nigel-farage-riots

Origin? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjs144juNK4

Will these do for sources to add something about it? Are there more? While it's there on social media, discussion of the colloquial name for the riots doesn't seem to be happening in print much.

Also: Anti protest planned outside Reform office in Westminster- https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-riots-near-me-counter-protest-london-racism-b2593150.html Lewishhh (talk) 09:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

The Daily Express is listed as 'generally unreliable' at WP:RSNP. Beyond that, reporting protests before they've happened would seem hard to justify. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:56, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

MOS:ANDOR

"The attacker was falsely alleged on social media to be a Muslim and/or an asylum seeker."

Request edit to "The attacker was falsely alleged on social media to be a Muslim, an asylum seeker or both." as per MOS:ANDOR Itsziggyp (talk) 15:08, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done (diff)  M2Ys4U (talk) 16:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

"Supported by" in box

In the box, "pro-Palestinian activists" are listed separately from counter-protesters, based on the quote "In Walthamstow and at other counter-protesters across the country, many pro-Palestinian activists turned up with flags and signs saying "Make love not war".

How does this indicate that the "pro-Palestinian activists" are somehow one step removed from the rest of the counter-protesters if they're at the demonstrations as well? I know this is probably going to be shouted down as WP:OR, but there's significant overlap between "pro-Palestinian activists" and several "involved" groups of counter-protesters.

Is this [16] some sort of Schrodinger situation in which these are involved "Muslim youth and men" and just supporting "pro-Palestinian activists" at the same time? Unknown Temptation (talk) 18:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I've WP:BOLD moved it back seeing as nobody has put anything forward for this, other than the quote that says that they were in the protests with everyone else. Unknown Temptation (talk) 21:44, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 August 2024 (2)

→

"Riots in Derry/Londonderry were NOT related to the current situation in GB and was caused by normal Nationalist/Unionist tension during the apprentice boys of Derry march yesterday, this has absolutely no relation to the racist attacks in the rest of the UK and therefore this section should be removed." 81.133.71.17 (talk) 12:19, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Derry/Londonderry is mentioned several times in the article, and as far as I can see in each case is cited to sources which connect the incidents with the general article topic. We go by what sources say. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:45, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

References to far right connections removed by one single user

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2024_United_Kingdom_riots&diff=prev&oldid=1239792665

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2024_United_Kingdom_riots&diff=prev&oldid=1239792411

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2024_United_Kingdom_riots&diff=prev&oldid=1239791753

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Bsrc&action=edit&redlink=1

BedVeritas1 (talk) 15:48, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Resolved
Has been reverted by ATG [17]. CNC (talk) 15:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks ATG, I was concerned BedVeritas1 (talk) 15:52, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
I had already submitted the revert but looks like ATG beat me to it :) CNC (talk) 15:57, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Tommy Robinson Documentary / edit request

The documentary “Britain’s Banned Documentary - SILENCED” needs to be mentioned in the timeline, as it is a significant event leading to the start of the riots. I am requesting edit access to this article to add it, as I have watched and done research on the documentary. I am confident that I can write about it in a non bias manner. John Bois (talk) 05:22, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

There is no need. It is already covered at Tommy Robinson (activist)#Almondbury school assault libel case and Almondbury Community School bullying incident. The timeline does not support the case that this was a significant event leading to the start of the riots. It merely shows that it was part of part of a continuing pattern of racist lies by Stephen Yaxley-Lennon (a.k.a. "Tommy Robinson").
  • 2018 Yaxley-Lennon made social media posts that falsely claimed that Jamal Hijazi (a Syrian boy at school in Huddersfield) had attacked two girls in his school.
  • 2021, Hijazi sued Yaxley-Lennon for libel and won. Yaxley-Lennon ordered to pay £100,000 damages plus costs.
  • May 2023, Yaxley-Lennon released a 105-minute long program called "Silenced" that repeated the false allegations against Hijazi.
  • 27 July 2024, Yaxley-Lennon screened the film at a rally in Trafalgar Square in London.
  • 28 July 2024, Yaxley-Lennon travelled to Cyprus for a "holiday".
  • 29 July 2024, Yaxley-Lennon due in high court in the UK in connection with his allegations against Hijazi, but did not turn up.
-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:32, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
The documentary came out just three days before the July 30th riots and has 43 million views as of now. Don't you think that had an effect on why people were shouting 'Tommy Robinson' during the attack on the mosque on the 30th? This documentary has to be mentioned in some way or form in the article. John Bois (talk) 19:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Please provide the secondary sourcing necessary to indicate that this 'documentary' was significant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:51, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/08/01/how-censorship-made-tommy-robinson/amp/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/08/07/how-tommy-robinson-became-mainstream/ John Bois (talk) 20:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
The documentary was released in 2023. The current issue is that he screened it in Trafalgar Square on 27 July against a court order, but this was before the Southport attack so I don't see what relevance it has. Even the Spiked article points out that the chanting of Robinson's name was more EDL related than anything to do with a film that practically none of the rioters have probably seen. Black Kite (talk) 20:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Neither of the articles mentioned make an explicit link between "Silenced" and the riots.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:48, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 August 2024

A lot of dates could use ordinals for better clarity.

For example, "7 August" could be "August 7th" or "7th of August"

Thx:) 2601:840:4480:F460:4D3B:8971:A85C:84A8 (talk) 06:24, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Not done. If you check out WP:MOSDATE you'll see we don't display dates in the format you're suggesting. This is Paul (talk) 09:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE

MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE states that information within the infobox should be mentioned in the body. I will proceed with removing information in the infobox that is not mentioned in the body. NamelessLameless (talk) 21:50, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I have removed "Terrorgram affiliates
Ulster Defence Association
Active Club England
Various football hooligan firms" NamelessLameless (talk) 21:55, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Please do not remove "Anti-immigration protesters" from the infobox.

@Lewishhh Please do not remove "Anti-immigration protesters" from the infobox. Thank you. NamelessLameless (talk) 21:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

As I started above, I think that having this significantly improves the POV of the article. LuxembourgLover (talk) 03:37, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_United_Kingdom_riots/Archive_2&oldid=1241741375"