Talk:2024 United Kingdom riots/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Far right label

First and foremost, I do not endorse hostility towards anyone based on their religion or country of origin. However, it's important to recognize that Wikipedia is a neutral platform where information should be presented without bias. With that in mind, the sources labeling these protests as "far-right" primarily come from left-leaning outlets, with the exception of Al Jazeera, which may not be entirely neutral since Muslims were targeted by the most extreme protesters.

It's also unfair to label these protests as “far-right” based on the actions of a minority who infiltrate and cause chaos. This is similar to how pro-Palestine protests, which sometimes also lead to riots due to a minority of protestors, are only labeled as “far-left” by right leaning media. The focus of the article should remain on the protests that followed the stabbing of the three young girls in Southport, rather than the actions of a particular fringe group within the protests.

With this said my heart goes to the three girls whose life was taken from them so early and to those who suffered discrimination due to their religion and place of origin. V.B.Speranza (talk) 17:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The sourcing could be improved, but it's not just "left-leaning" publications at all, it's literally all major outlets.

Some examples for you: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]

You'll be hard pressed to find a reliable source that hasn't referred to these riots as far-right. CNC (talk) 17:23, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Take this article from The Economist: Many of the protesters took offence at the claim that they were members of the far right, and to chants of “Nazi scum” from the counter-protesters. We’re just “ordinary people”, said John Taylor, an ex-marine who was attending a demonstration for the first time. He said he did not object to immigration itself but rather to the violent crime and cost to the taxpayer it brings when newcomers are not “vetted” properly. ... Yet chants of “Muhammad is a paedo” and “Oh, Tommy Robinson”, in support of a far-right firebrand who has repeatedly spread the “Great Replacement” conspiracy theory claiming that Muslims are being brought into Western countries to outbreed and “replace” whites, suggested that plenty in the crowd deserve the labels they have been given by Sir Keir. Is The Economist a left-leaning publication?-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:44, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Depends on where you look. However The Telegraph and The Times certainly lean right. When those publications collaborate such claims about the far-right, it's confirmation there is no bias involved. CNC (talk) 18:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

"Sir Keir" ????? Maurnxiao (talk) 20:13, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I mean, that bit of the quote's accurate. Keir Starmer is indeed a Knight Commander of the British Empire, so can be called Sir Keir. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 20:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Time Magazine, The New York Times, Politico, Reuters, Bloomberg, Sky News, The Washington Post, Euronews, The Herald and Le Monde are left leaning media… either way, every other point I made in what I said previously remains.

I don’t want to make this a political war, I give my opinion from a neutral POV and I still defend that the point of the article should stand on the majority and not the minority of protesters. V.B.Speranza (talk) 18:16, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

But the article is primarily about the riots, with the protests as part of the build-up and aftermath of those events. Which, as has been shown, media from all areas of the political spectrum has referred to as being caused by misinformation promoted by groups with far-right ideologies. Lewishhh (talk) 18:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Why are right-leaning publications reporting the same then? The Telegraph is definitively right-wing, they aren't even considered centre-right these days. You should provide reliable sources for this claim of "minority of protesters", that's certainly not how it's been reported by the majority of RS, and could do with inclusion in the analysis section for balance. As a reminder NPOV is also about WP:BALANCE, describing these riots as being far-right in the minority would be a WP:FALSEBALANCE. CNC (talk) 18:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The riots are caused by far right individuals, but the riots are caused by a minority of those who participate in the broader protest. What I’m saying here is that they label everything as far right, not just the riots, while Pro-Palestine riots earlier this year had barely any backlash by these same media outlets… V.B.Speranza (talk) 18:33, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Unless you're going to provide a reliable source, this sounds like original research. You acknowledge that they label it all as far-right, so I don't see the issue anymore. CNC (talk) 18:36, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The Daily Mail, which is depreciated so I wont be linking, is definitely classed as right wing and has multiple articles referring to Right-wing riots. Knitsey (talk) 18:44, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a neutrality problem, one that I acknowledge and have tried to address. I've done my part by pointing out bias in this article. If changes aren't made, it’s disappointing, but I understand there's only so much I can do. This issue goes beyond a single article; it’s deeply rooted across the entire platform. Wikipedia tending to favor left-leaning perspectives isn’t an opinion, it’s easily verifiable, but I can help you and just give you a couple studies on the matter.

It’s a problem that goes way back in time… and still persists to this day. V.B.Speranza (talk) 18:59, 12 August 2024 (UTC) V.B.Speranza (talk) 18:59, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

You still haven't provided a reliable source for your original research. Instead you are trying to back up your original research with sources of WP bias. This is not how WP works. CNC (talk) 13:46, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I think right now it’s fixed as they say ‘anti-immigration protests and far-right riots have proven out across the UK.’ This is a lot better as they separate the ‘we should have some limits on immigration’ from the ‘we hate everyone’ LuxembourgLover (talk) 03:36, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

And it’s been ruined… LuxembourgLover (talk) 15:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Efforts to keep this site neutral are vain... all i can do is to keep neutrality in the articles i create myself... V.B.Speranza (talk) 16:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Still no reliable sources for your claim that this article is biased then is what you're saying? CNC (talk) 21:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

On 31 July, I scrubbed the article to make sure that what it said about the far-right was backed by sources,^[14] see also Talk:2024 United Kingdom riots/Archive 1#Far right. It may also have been done by other editors since then. There might be value is someone checking that all the mentions in the article of terms such as "far-right" are supported by the sources cited for them.

But if anyone does that, they should be aware of degradation of verifiability due to over-editing. So if they find statements that are not explicitly supported by the citations next to them, it would be best to check whether other sources in the article support the statements.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:48, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

References

Law enforcement in the United Kingdom#Two-tier policing

I'd opened a talk page discussion on this page about WP:RECENTISM and lack of WP:SCOPE for hyper-focussing on this event. There's now a multiple-way discussion on misrepresentation of sources (see page history for details). I'm requesting more eyes to make sure this section doesn't become a WP:COATRACK for whatever view people have on this matter and I honestly wouldn't mind having this section removed and anything relevant carried over to this article. Unknown Temptation (talk) 15:26, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

The relevant Talk page discussion is at Talk:Law_enforcement_in_the_United_Kingdom#"Two-tier"_section. Bondegezou (talk) 10:50, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

What is the topic of this article?---Opinions wanted.

User BedVeritas1 holds the opinion that (quote) “This article is specifically about the far-right anti-immigration riots during this time period.”

My opinion is that the article should encompass the full scope of the events, not just the far-right anti-immigration riots. This includes the anti-immigration (not even fully) protesters who are not far-right and have never been associated with the BNP, EDL, etc. It's important to include the perspectives and actions of those who participated in the protests but are not associated with far-right groups like the BNP or EDL. These individuals may have different motivations and backgrounds, and their inclusion would provide a more balanced and comprehensive view of the events.

Users CNC, Orange sticker, and Lewishhh support BedVeritas1's view. My intent in creating this new topic is to gather additional perspectives from editors who may not have engaged in the earlier discussion and who do not want to read the sprawling original conversation, to ensure a broader consensus on how to approach this content. NamelessLameless (talk) 19:47, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I also agree with BedVeritas1 on this issue (as stated above). What made this topic noteworthy is the violent extremism of the far-right rioters. The anti-immigration views of the milquetoast, tea-sipping right may be relevant on Wikipedia somewhere, but not IMO in this article. Newimpartial (talk) 19:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

It is an article about the riots that were promoted by the far right. If you think that there should be an article with a much wider scope, nobody is stopping you from creating a new article.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 August 2024

Correct typo "summonsed" to "summoned" 92.21.104.171 (talk) 21:13, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

That is the correct legal term under English law. BedVeritas1 (talk) 21:15, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Far-right anti-immigrant riots, not anti-immigrant protests and far-right riots

The lede and info-box should include far-right anti-immigrant riots or protests as they're considered together and one by multiple news sources:

"An analysis of social media data by Sky News shows that the far-right anti-immigrant movement has had far greater reach and popularity across several social media platforms than the pro-immigrant anti-racist movement in the past week."

https://news.sky.com/story/far-right-outnumbers-anti-racist-movement-when-it-comes-to-social-media-posts-and-engagement-13192784

"Protesters gather against a planned far-right anti-immigration protest in Walthamstow, London on Wednesday."

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/london-high-alert-far-right-demonstrations-come-capital-rcna165567

"Far-right, anti-immigration riots"

https://www.npr.org/2024/08/04/nx-s1-5063346/uk-riots-far-right-what-to-know

"Far-right anti-immigration protests across England have turned into riots and looting."

https://news.northeastern.edu/2024/08/07/uk-riots-misinformation/

It should be noted that the single user User:NamelessLameless has made these two edits on their user page to possibly deflect from any political biases they may have while making controversial changes on articles concerning the far-right:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:NamelessLameless&diff=prev&oldid=1240028932

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:NamelessLameless&diff=prev&oldid=1240029014

They're also on the Great White Replacement Theory article wishing to connect "white demographic decline" with the far-right theory despite established editors reverting their unfounded changes.

Talk:Great Replacement#Removal of content

They have been the main user making these changes splitting "anti-immigration protestors" and "far-right rioters" over the past day, despite them being one and the same during these events according to multiple news sources. Their changes may be a way to go against the sources and insert their political biases, and as such their changes should be reverted and the article return to the way it was before their changes. BedVeritas1 (talk) 07:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for highlighting clear bias, I've undone the changes. Lewishhh (talk) 08:40, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@Lewishhh Please read my response below. NamelessLameless (talk) 16:58, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with the always using the label "Far-right anti-immigration protests". There are multiple types of people. There are many people on the right-wing spectrum that are anti-immigration: a lot of Far-right anti-immigration protesters and also a lot of right-wing anti-immigration protests.

I am the one who originally wrote the sentence "The riots were fuelled by underlying Islamophobic, racist, anti-immigrant sentiments". But in fact that isn't actually true, because some people may oppose immigration for reasons unrelated to race or religion, such as job opportunity. I search for an objective truth and one truth is that there are many people on the right-wing spectrum that are anti-immigration. Trump is anti-immigration. Elon Musk is anti-immigration. Nigel Farage is definitely anti-immigration and he's not far-right but his supporters are definitely out there. Giorgia Meloni is anti-immigration. There are a lot of flaws on this page in explaining that.

"In an objective context, such as a Wikipedia article, it's important to distinguish between different political views rather than lumping them together under one label. If the article is conflating right-wing anti-immigration views with far-right views, this could indeed be misleading and may not accurately represent the diversity of opinions within the right-wing spectrum."

The infobox has a list of far-right groups in bullet points. It seems to be trying to link everyone to those far-right groups when that isn't the case. Am I wrong?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsgTTsQIgiM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0X4uPjcEsE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-S8H4FZWU8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdanhEKXsDA

These YouTube videos provide real footage from these protesters and riots and also back up my claim that there are multiple groups.

Now let's do a breakdown on the reliable sources you have sent: the first one is not relevant. The 2nd one uses two terms as well: "anti-immigration protesters" and "far-right anti-immigration protesters". It makes a distinction, just like I was trying to do. Notice how there's a comma in the NPR article title. The NEU article also uses two terms: "anti-immigration protests" and "far-right anti-immigration protesters". So in fact these sources help my argument. NamelessLameless (talk) 16:58, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Your argument relies on OR, not on finding sources that agree with you. The majority of sources on the page are unanimous in the far-right position and nature of the ideologies behind these events. Lewishhh (talk) 17:04, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@Lewishhh I understand Wikipedia policy on Original Research (OR), and I knew you would bring it up. I addressed it in my final paragraph. (It's in bold now) Please take the time to read. NamelessLameless (talk) 18:29, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

In their 7 August explainer entitled "Why are there riots in the UK?", BBC News says: "The violence, in towns and cities across England and in Northern Ireland, has been fuelled by misinformation online, the far-right and anti-immigration sentiment". That seems clear enough, not all anti-immigration sentiment if from the far-right. I think NamelessLameless is correct about that. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:48, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@DeFacto Thank you for your input. Now I want to point out that my edit made the first sentence say "Anti-immigration protests and far-right riots", but these editors have made it say "Far-right anti-immigration protests and riots". Does that sound like an accurate statement to you? NamelessLameless (talk) 20:32, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

No, it isn't. As I understand it from the high quality sources, there were anti-immigration protests other than those that may have involved far-right protestors. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:46, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how these YouTube videos can be used as reliable sources for an online encyclopaedia.

The first source is relevant as it relates to the effects of social media on the demonstrations on each side. As another source states:

"The rallies have been advertised on far-right social media channels under the banner "Enough is enough"."

https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20240805-uk-pm-keir-starmer-slams-far-right-thuggery-after-more-anti-immigrant-violence-knife-attack

The second source does not make a distinction as it also includes "against an anti-immigration protest called by far-right activists" which shows the far-right elements of the anti-immigration riots of this time period.

In the third source, the comma doesn't change the sentence. "Far-right anti-immigration riots" is the same as "far-right, anti-immigration riots". Moreover, the source includes "On Sunday, U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer called the riots "far-right thuggery," adding that the riots will not be tolerated. "This is not protest," Starmer said on X. "It is organized, violent, thuggery and it has no place on our streets or online."".

Moreover, the article starts with "Over the past few days, the U.K. has been battered by widespread riots led by hundreds of far-right protesters." in the first paragraph.

So this is about the far-right, anti-immigration riots during this time period.

In the fourth source, as this article references, the source also discusses the far-right element of these riots hence why the photo at the top includes the caption "Far-right anti-immigration protests across England have turned into riots and looting." BedVeritas1 (talk) 08:17, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree with edit made by @Lewishhh per reliable sources documenting these far-right riots as anti-immigration. The anti-immigration protests aren't notable in themselves and are barely covered in the body unless disorder occurred. I otherwise acknowledge that (yet another) MOS:FIRST discussion is beneficial to order discuss the first sentence, in order to re-affirm consensus. CNC (talk) 23:48, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with @NamelessLameless and @DeFacto. I don't think there is much of a consensus for the current "Far-right anti-immigration protests and riots". Actually, there doesn't seem to be any consensus here at all. Not all anti-immigrant protesters are far-right, and not all anti-immigrant protesters are far-right rioters. I'm sure this isn't controversial, in fact, it's pretty straightforward in my opinion. There is absolutely a protest element to this, we can't leave out the peaceful protests and just mention riots. So with that, I think an alternative lead is needed. I prefer @NamelessLameless version of "Anti-immigration protests and far-right riots". I'm happy to discuss with other editors about my choice. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 02:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I also want to point out that the lead used to split up the two, as in "Anti-immigration protests and far-right riots". But the Infobox did not match this and so I tried to change the Infobox to match the distinction and that’s when these editors went all out to lump all the protesters into one group by changing the lead to “Far-right anti-immigration protesters”. Trying to claim that I’m making biased edits when they’re literally using the classic Straw Man Fallacy is crazy. Everyone has bias, but I try to be as objective as possible. The branding of all anti-immigration protesters as far-right is just use of the "Straw Man fallacy"---making it easier to wave their position away as a bunch of racist lunatics. The definition of the Straw Man fallacy is "the distortion of an opponent's argument to make it easier to refute". Clearly labelling everyone against immigration as far-right seeks to make their position weaker and easier to refute. And by the way it doesn’t seem to me that any reliable source has stated that all these protesters are far-right, but the Infobox and first sentence of this Wikipedia page sure suggest it. I want these editors to ask themselves whether they are actually the ones making the biased edits. NamelessLameless (talk) 07:32, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

We've seen your edits and the timing of them. This article is specifically about the far-right anti-immigration riots during this time period. I would like add another source:

"In some of the worst scenes on Sunday, masked rioters in Rotherham, northern England, smashed windows at a hotel that has been used to house asylum seekers.

At least 12 officers were injured, including one who was knocked unconscious, as they battled around 500 protesters with "far-right and anti-immigration views", South Yorkshire Police Assistant Chief Constable Lindsey Butterfield told media."

https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20240805-uk-pm-keir-starmer-slams-far-right-thuggery-after-more-anti-immigrant-violence-knife-attack

BedVeritas1 (talk) 08:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

If you want to write down history that is useful to posterity then this article shouldn’t specifically be about “far-right anti-immigration riots during this time period”. And actually it isn’t. That is your own misconception. But if you thought that way then now I can understand why you were so keen on changing the first sentence and the Infobox.

Lastly, your quote that you have provides does nothing to show that there is only a “Far-right anti-immigration camp” and not different distinct camps, so quite frankly it does nothing to help your argument that there is only one camp, if that even is your argument. NamelessLameless (talk) 09:18, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

First, I was not keen to change anything, simply to revert the article back to the way it was where the lede and infobox originally said "far right anti-immigration protests/protestors". Secondly, the article is about the far-right anti-immigration riots during this period (30 July to 5 August) as that is what so many reliable sources talk about. It doesn't relate to anti-immigration protests from before the 30th of July like the one on the 1st of June 2024.

"Date:  Saturday, June 1, 2024

Time:  Starting at 1100-1700 (local)

Demonstration:  Anti-immigration march

Route:  Victoria Railway Station to Parliament Square

Date:  Saturday, June 1, 2024

Time:  Starting at 1100 (local)

Demonstration:  Anti-racism march, countering Anti-immigration march

Route:  Downing Street to Parliament Square"

https://uk.usembassy.gov/demonstration-alert-planned-demonstration-in-london-june-1-2024/

Plus, I've already expanded on the sources and added more. In the the same source included there was also: "Prime Minister Keir Starmer on Monday vowed "swift criminal sanctions" against far-right riots in several cities that have seen widespread damage and nearly 400 arrests." These events are about the far-right anti-immigration riots. Although, as User:Orange sticker has said, "anti-immigration" could be considered a non-sequitur or even redundant, as these can simply be considered far-right riots with various aspects: racism, Islamophobia and anti-immigration sentiment. BedVeritas1 (talk) 09:30, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Your argument that “This article is specifically about the far-right anti-immigration riots during this time period.” shows a fundamental disagreement in the TOPIC of this page and an agreement on the TOPIC of this page will have to be made in order for any next constructive actions to pass. I strongly oppose your views that “This article is specifically about the far-right anti-immigration riots during this time period.” NamelessLameless (talk) 09:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

The topic of the article is the riots between 30 July and 5 August, including unrest until the 10th of August as well as counter-protestors and government against the rioters. The riots and rioters have been described as "far-right anti-immigration" by multiple reliable sources. You've sent YouTube videos as your sources. BedVeritas1 (talk) 09:50, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Far-right anti-immigration was one description maybe. But there are others in the RSes of equal or more weight too, which cannot be ignored per WP:NPOV. See "Far-right protesters attack hotel housing asylum seekers in violent weekend" in The Washington Post of 4 August, for example. The first sentence of the body of that article says: "Far-right and anti-immigrant demonstrations across Britain descended into violence over the weekend...". That's saying "far-right" and "anti-immigrant" - not your "far-right anti-immigration".

Sure news media very often have sensationalist headlines (the one on that TWP article is "Far-right protesters attack hotel housing asylum seekers in violent weekend"), but we must ignore headlines per WP:HEADLINES, which says: "News headlines—including subheadlines—are not a reliable source... Headlines are written to grab readers' attention quickly and briefly; they may be overstated or lack context, and sometimes contain exaggerations or sensationalized claims with the intention of attracting readers to an otherwise reliable article."

Wiki expects us to look at a broad cross-section of quality sources and summarise, with due weight to each view, what they all say. We must not cherry-pick a few sources which support just one of the available views and use just those in the article to portray that view in Wiki's voice. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

You're reading the words "Far-right and anti-immigrant" and concluding those are two distinct sets and not just two descriptors of the same subject. If the rioters were described as "drunk and violent" would you think that was an either/or situation? And as I've stated before, as anti-immigrant sentiment is a factor of far right ideology, it is pointless to try and make a distinction. Orange sticker (talk) 11:50, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

No, the distinction is that there are two different groups:

1. Far right groups
2. Anti-immigration (not even fully) who are not Far right and have never been associated with the BNP, EDL, etc.

NamelessLameless (talk) 19:09, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I think once you throw bricks at a mosque, chant racist slogans and set fire to police vans the line between those groups disappears, and the sources agree with me. Orange sticker (talk) 19:27, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Orange sticker, read more of that TWP article and you'll see:

• "Demonstrations organized by far-right or anti-immigration groups damaged cities across the country..."
• "... whether all those arrested were part of far-right or anti-immigration marches."

Clearly treating them as two separate groups.

And:

• "The anti-immigration demonstrators there attacked a Holiday Inn Express..."
• "Scores of violent far-right protesters..."
• "Far-right protesters threw bricks and chairs at the hotel..."

Clearly describing two different groups. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:03, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

If you are able to read that article as Clearly describing two different groups - well, I'm curious how you could reach that conclusion. Is an "anti-immigrant demonstration" prompted by disinformation from far-right figures "anti-immigrant" or "far-right"? Concerning events in Rotherham, the idea that "anti-immigrant demonstrators" entered the hotel while "far-right protestors" stood by throwing bricks and chairs at the hotel - well, that division of responsibility rather strains credibility, doesn't it? The article makes much more sense if the far-right and anti-immigrant demonstrators are understood as the same body of protestors. Newimpartial (talk) 20:18, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

The topic of the article is clearly the riots and the unrest surrounding them. Many users have contributed to it but none until you seem to have disputed it. Lewishhh (talk) 09:52, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I dispute the balance in it. We need to cover all views. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:NPOV also requires that we assign weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. Orange sticker (talk) 11:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Orange sticker Yeah and that's funny you bring this up because right now you and some other editors are assigning ZERO weight to the fact that there are anti-immigration (not even fully) who are not Far right and have never been associated with the BNP, EDL, etc. I repeat: Zero. 0. Nada. Nothing. NamelessLameless (talk) 19:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

NamelessL, are you suggesting that anti-immigration protesters who are not Far right and have never been associated with the far right have participated in the riots and racist attacks that this article is about? If so, what is the reliable sourcing for this? Newimpartial (talk) 19:27, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Newimpartial, have you read "Far-right protesters attack hotel housing asylum seekers in violent weekend" in The Washington Post of 4 August that I mentioned above? It clearly distinguishes between the two groups. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:10, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

To answer your question, my reply about that article is here. Newimpartial (talk) 20:21, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

You keep referring to the BNP, EDL, etc. as if one has to be affiliated with groups such as those to hold far-right opinions or take part in far-right politic influenced actions. This is obviously not the case. Lewishhh (talk) 23:21, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

As above, the topic is quite clear and has never been in dispute before, so if you want to discuss that I recommend you open a new topic rather than clutter this discussion with alternative proposals. For reference it evolved out of the Southport riots (moved to a new title) once the riots had spread. It did not evolve out of an Anti-immigrant protests in the United Kingdom article, because this is quite simply not notable. CNC (talk) 10:00, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

You could argue that the logical fallacy here (non-sequitur) is applying "anti-immigration" label, as it's hard to see how actions such as smashing the windows of a mosque have anything to do with immigration. However, along with the "far right" label, that is what the vast majority of reliable sources are using so trying to reframe the motivations of the rioters is original research. Islamophobia, racism, anti-immigrant sentiment and the use of violence are all aspects of far right ideology. Orange sticker (talk) 08:42, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes—actually I was getting around to talking about that label. I will respond in full about the “anti-immigration” label tomorrow. NamelessLameless (talk) 09:23, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

It's a good point, I'm not opposed to the first sentence returning to "Far-right riots..." without mention of anti-immigration for this reason. The first sentence shouldn't be overloaded and instead briefly introduce the subject, but it's starting to look that way. If the line "The riots were driven by underlying Islamophobic, racist, anti-immigrant sentiments, fuelled by disinformation about the identity of the attacker." was moved up to the opening paragraph, then this could cover the issue of not providing enough context in the opening paragraph overall. CNC (talk) 09:52, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I think this would be reasonable. BedVeritas1 (talk) 09:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I think we should still be careful to ensure WP:NPOV despite the fact that its hard to find sources in the British press and media who do. Hopefully as time passes more sober analysis will be available that looks more seriously and impartially at the motivations. As the "anti-immigration" aspect received WP:SIGCOV I don't think it's controversial at this point to include it alongside the various other catalysts and misinformation. Orange sticker (talk) 10:02, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

There's a good article here which starts to link together the various manufactured moral panics that have lead to certain outbreaks of violence. Orange sticker (talk) 10:18, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

This is a good article, and it does note that there's a difference between those who are anti-immigration but not far-right. However, it still calls these rioters and protestors far-right and it shows the difference when there are anti-immigration counterprotestors (although this is only one article showing one person who is an anti-immigration counterprotestor protesting against the far-right).

"Among the crowds of counter-protestors who had turned out to defend the Abdullah Quilliam Mosque, we suddenly spot a familiar face beneath a black and yellow cap: Lewis. The man who fell into a world of conspiratorialism during the pandemic is now standing on the opposite side of the road from the far-right and says he wants to respect the imam’s calls for peace. He agrees that immigration levels into Britain are too high at the moment but thinks that “violence is not the answer”. The asylum seekers “only want what’s best for their families — I would do the same,” he says. “We can talk about borders but I don’t understand the hate”."

So it's still accurate to say, with the many reliable sources included in this Wikipedia article, these were far-right anti-immigration riots. Of course, as you've said, anti-immigration can be considered a non-sequitur and these riots can be thought of as more far-right Islamophobic and racist riots in multiple cases considering attacks on Black and Asian people as well as burning down mosques. So I would think CNC's suggestion is reasonable in simply calling these riots "far-right riots" and show the main and common causes (racism, Islamophobia, anti-immigration, disinformation) as well as showing (when more analysis is made in the future) how these riots differ from other anti-immigration protests. BedVeritas1 (talk) 10:33, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

This seems like a good approach. Lewishhh (talk) 10:08, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

As CNC has said, there have been multiple reliable sources about the far-right anti-immigration riots (which is what this article is focusing on). There haven't been notable peaceful anti-immigration protests, certain not enough to overshadow the far-right anti-immigration riots, during this time period. BedVeritas1 (talk) 08:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

End of Riots

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.

---

It looks like the rioting has started to evaporate over this week with very low levels of unrest the last few days. If there aren't reports of rioting this weekend I think we should date the riots to the 7th,8th of August if people agree with that? I think we should evaluate this on Monday, as we should have a clearer picture by then. Jasp7676 (talk) 13:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Was thinking the same thing. A note could also be added that there were isolated incidents or otherwise that continued, similar to 2011 England riots infobox. Aside from Northern Ireland, it otherwise seems that the last riots were 5 August. CNC (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I think that would be the best course of action, otherwise the article runs on saying there is still rioting over a week after it stopped and it starts to become misinforming. e (talk) 14:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

- It's Monday and we now have a clearer picture that definitely supports changing the page to the 5th of August or thereabouts, if someone wants to implement that onto the page that would be great. @CommunityNotesContributor and EEEEEE1:Jasp7676 (talk) 11:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done - settled on 5th Aug as end date but added that there were sporadic incidents after that. Mark and inwardly digest (talk) 13:28, 13 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.

5 or 7 August as the end date of riots?

There were still widespread mass protests (albeit counter ones) on 7 August, and some minor protests did happen, just not like on 3-4 August. It seems like a more natural end to me as opposed to the 5th.

Looking at the size of the 7 August summary on the article, it doesn't feel like it belongs in the "aftermath" section.

Thoughts? Icantthinkofausernames (talk) 15:13, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I believe the thought process is that the page is about the riots, and that the counter-protests are a response to, and in the aftermath of, those. Lewishhh (talk) 15:29, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

There was already previously unopposed consensus established regarding this. CNC (talk) 21:52, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I do agree that the counter protestors came out in large numbers on the 7th of August BUT in my opinion they are clearly not rioters and therefore should not be counted as such. I think they are part of the response/aftermath section as they weren't violent/rioting or part of the same movement. Therefore I think we should keep the date at the 5th of August Jasp7676 (talk) 20:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 August 2024

Request that "They followed a mass stabbing in Southport ..." is changed to "They followed misinformation about a mass stabbing in Southport ..." Also, on the Main Page, the "In the News" headline to be changed from "Following a mass stabbing in Southport, far-right protesters riot in England and Northern Ireland" to "Following misinformation about a mass stabbing in Southport, far-right protesters riot in England and Northern Ireland.

These edits will reinforce that the misinformation about the stabbing is significant. 82.33.74.10 (talk) 07:52, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I support this change. Orange sticker (talk) 08:38, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Though I support the sentiment, I do not support the proposed change of wording. The 2nd-4th sentences of the lead are as follows:

2. They followed a mass stabbing in Southport on 29 July, in which three children were killed.
3. The attacker was falsely alleged on social media to be a Muslim, an asylum seeker or both.
4. The first riot started in Southport and later many protests and or riots spread across the country.

I think the existing wording properly explains the chain of events: the stabbing --> the lies on social media --> the riots. -- Toddy1 (talk) 09:58, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Suggesting a change to the ITN wording should be posted at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors#Errors with "In the news" not here. That page currently lacks edit protections so you can post such a request yourself. If it's felt that this isn't an error or more extended discussion is needed, I think someone there should direct you where, if anywhere you can continue discussion, but it's unlikely to be here since it's not something which concerns this article. It might also be helpful to check out the discussion leading to the posting Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/August 2024#(Posted) United Kingdom riots although I only see a brief suggestion the article should mention misinformation without any specific opposition. Nil Einne (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Edit has been contested by Toddy1 which makes it ineligible for it to remain in the queue of requested edits since it is not non-controversial. Consensus is needed. The main page concerns brought up are moot considering the news item has passed but, as mentioned, would be addressed at a different venue. —Sirdog (talk) 22:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Outright false statement in the lede lol

This is what you get when you try to synthesize sources haha. The article previously stated The British government under Keir Starmer accused Russia of spreading disinformation to stoke the unrest. That is not true. The source cited actually states:

Asked whether foreign states were behind the spread of disinformation online, Sir Keir’s official spokesman said that “clearly, we have seen bot activity online, much of which may well be amplified with the involvement of state actors amplifying some of the disinformation and misinformation that we’ve seen”.

"He refused to single out a particular state responsible but said that disinformation “can be linked to state-backed activity” and said that the NCA and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology were “looking at it”.

This wasn't mentioned elsewhere in the article and wasn't supported by the other two sources so I've removed the sentence. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 17:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Too much use of the term anti-fascist?

Hopefully we ae all anti--fascists here, but if we took part in the protests would that be how we described ourselves? It seems to blanket a term and in the lead it's pretty poorly sourced, mainly local papers. It's an all too easy label for journalists to use. Yes, it's sourced, and the text I removed as unsourced the editor has agreed had the wrong source and may be reinstating it with the one they meant to use. Still, is it really suitable to label everyone in a demonstration as anti-fascist? Doug Weller talk 12:18, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this in reference to, but the sourcing for anti-fasicst counter-protesters is relatively well referenced from looking at just the first page of google searches for reliable sources and could be improved for the lead here: [15][16][17][18][19][20]. I otherwise agree labelling all counter-protesters as anti-fascist would be inaccurate, unless the source determines this based on a specific counter-protest for example. I'm happy to replace the lead sourcing for this, as granted the local news / morning star isn't great. CNC (talk) 12:29, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

If that's how sources describe them it would be disingenuous to describe them as anything else, and as far as I can see all uses of the term are referenced, bar the mention of the disorder in Blackpool. Orange sticker (talk) 12:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I've now added a source for Blackpool. Happy for the term to be removed if deemed invalid though. Lewishhh (talk) 13:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Antifa (disambiguation) suggests that in some circles, "anti-fascist" really means far left. (Which is what I understand it to mean.) We do not know whether journalists meant that when they described counter-protesters as "anti-fascist".

If WP:EXTRAORDINARY applies, then we should want multiple high-quality sources that are clear as to what they meant by "anti-fascist", before we start using such a loaded term to describe the counter-protesters.-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:02, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

The word Antifa is not used in this article. Orange sticker (talk) 15:08, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

For non-US media, and specifically UK media, anti-fascist simply means opposition to fascism, hence there is rarely reference of Antifa alongside it, therefore I don't see EXTRAORDINARY applying here. Describing the counter-protesters as being opposed to fascism is far from a loaded term in and out of itself. Also As a point of reference we are writing this article in British English, and therefore British terminology applies here, and US terminology (and its implications) do not. CNC (talk) 15:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

With the greatest respect, with British-English, the literal meaning may be incorrect. I was once caught out like that when someone told me to send them something "at my earliest convenience"; they thought I was an idiot because I did not send it immediately.-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:01, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I think there's a basis for using "anti-fascist" to characterise some of counter-protestors, partly through self-identification and partly because it seems quite pedantic to have a strong position that anti-immigrant mobs aren't "fascist" in any sense. Concur with CNC on avoiding "antifa" though, and distinguishing between British anti-fascism and German style antifascist ideology which is a more complex subject than people turning out in the streets to oppose right wing mobs. Battleofalma (talk) 09:03, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Citations in the lead

One style of doing articles is to have everything cited. Another style is to have everything cited in the main body of the article, and possibly also the infobox, but not to have citations in the lead - and that can work provided that people make sure that everything in the lead is said in the body of the article.

I am rather concerned by this pair of edits by Беарофчечьня [Bear-of-chechnya] that removed the citation from the 3rd paragraph of the lead (the one that starts: "The riots began on 30 July when ..."). That leaves the 1st and 2nd paragraphs of the lead with lots of citations and the 3rd and 4th paragraphs uncited.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Nobody commented, so I have restored the citations to the 3rd paragraph of the lead.^[21] If you think those citations should be removed, please provide an explanation here.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:19, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

You also removed newly-added content from another section, which I have restored. WWGB (talk) 07:54, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you are right I did - that was not intentional. Thanks for restoring it.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:39, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

@Toddy1, the norm is to write and cite everything in the body of the article first, then to summarise the most important info in the lead, and therefore it should never need references - per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY.

For the same reason, entries in the infobox shouldn't require cluttering with references either - per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:44, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

We can greatly improve the lead by removing the listing of all involved groups with associated references. After all, "Editors should avoid lengthy paragraphs and overly specific descriptions – greater detail is saved for the body of the article". The involved groups are already nearby in the infobox anyway. WWGB (talk) 11:03, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

WWGB, if you think that the article style should be to have everything cited in the main body of the article, but not to have citations in the lead, I do not mind - but if someone wants to implement that, they should remove all the citations from the lead. Having two paragraphs in the lead in one style, and two in the opposite style does not work. -- Toddy1 (talk) 17:01, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Per MOS:LEADCITE it does work. It isn't about having citations in the lead or not, as some of it binary include or exclude type format. This is why it usually makes sense to have contentious claims cited, that are likely to be challenged, but not for others. For example I don't see the need for citations in the timeline summary paragraph, but it helps for others. Ideally with Template:Leadcite comment added to the top of the lead it would solve the issue, but nobody ever reads that, and contentious claims get removed or incorrectly tagged with citation needed which just get's disruptive. If all the citations were to be removed, contentious lead content would inevitably get challenged, and thus citations would likely need to be returned. Have seen enough times what happens when contentious articles have all citations removed from the lead, and it usually results in many being returned to avoid further challenges. CNC (talk) 11:37, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

The anti-immigration aspect of the riots are too emphasised (WP:UNDUE)

There was a discussion in a few newspapers about the connection between declining foreign students and immigrant healthcare workers, and the climate of anti-immigration sentiment.

However these rioters aren't rioting against foreign students or healthcare workers. In fact, there is actually very little aggression against foreign students and healthcare workers. So why is there an argument being formed that anti-immigration sentiment is causing said people to stop immigrating to the UK?

I think one of the major causes is because editorialisation in articles such as this tends to over-emphasis the immigration aspect in lieu of the more acute issues relating to migration and islamophobia. I think most of the public would have noticed that the only ethnic minority systematically targeted by the rioters were Muslims, despite knowing that the suspect in the stabbing was a black man, which further pushes the idea that this isn't a generic anti-immigration riots. They are rioting against several issues but not all immigrants.

The citations/sources available to prominently include "anti-immigration" are weak. Yes, you can find a plethora of sources stating "anti-immigration", but you can also find a plethora of sources using numerous other titles.

And finally I am not suggesting that anti-immigration sentiment didn't play a role, but rather that there are other issues at play and that anti-immigration sentiment was only a small part of it. Ronaldmcflurry (talk) 19:45, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

One of the references regarding anti-immigration sentiment literally mentions healthcare workers lol

Earlier, a woman joining the anti-immigration protest, who asked not to be named, said: “There’s too many immigrants here. You can’t get a doctor’s appointment and they’re prioritising foreigners over our own people. It needs to stop.” (The Times)

Your qualms with what the sources report should be taken up with them, not with Wikipedia. Our job is only to represent what independent reliable sources have reported about the subject.

the only ethnic minority systematically targeted by the rioters were Muslims...[therefore] this isn't a generic anti-immigration riots

When calling the riots anti-immigration, reliable sources have described how rioters targeted immigrants, asylum seekers, immigrant businesses, and immigration law firms; chanted specifically anti-immigrant/anti-immigration slogans; and were fueled by anti-immigration disinformation. Just because Muslims were targeted doesn't make the protests not anti-immigration nor does the label anti-immigration necessarily mean opposition to all immigrants (though that is a view shared by many in the participants/organisers). ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 21:59, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

The first quote does not discuss healthcare workers. It talks about foreigners getting priority over locals when it comes to appointments. Sources do not focus on the anti-immigration aspect per se since you can find plenty of articles that use terms other than "anti-immigration" to describe the riots including "far-right riots" or "race riots" among others.

And the second point alludes to my reasoning. "Just because Muslims were targeted doesn't make the protests not anti-immigration nor does the label anti-immigration." The focus on the anti-immigration aspect is WP:UNDUE precisely because of what you wrote. A percentage of the protesters may hold views that are anti-immigration, but a percentage of the protesters hold other views as well. Who is Wikipedia to say that the anti-immigration label should take priority over other labels such as [pro-]racist, islamophobic, far-right etc.. labels?

I'm not saying that we shouldn't use the term "anti-immigration" to describe the riots. But we shouldn't use the term as a title or single-term to describe the riots. It should be used along with other descriptors as it has been in the infobox. Ronaldmcflurry (talk) 11:11, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

So what is your proposition, that we remove it from the lede (so it says "far-right protests and riots") and have it included only where multiple motives are listed (anti-immigration, Islamaphobia, racism, xenophobia, etc.)? Lewishhh (talk) 11:18, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes Ronaldmcflurry (talk) 13:10, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I've said in previous topics on this talk page that the phrase "far right, anti-immigration" is tautology as one is a trait of the other so I don't object to this edit at all (nor removing it from the Parties heading in the infobox). However, I'm concerned that @Ronaldmcflurry saying The citations/sources available to prominently include "anti-immigration" are weak is incorrect and so I am wary of any further edits to reduce the prominence of "anti-immigration" in the article. The article may benefit from making sure racist and Islamophobic actions are correctly labelled throughout. Orange sticker (talk) 13:22, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Related to the above discussion, it would be worth having a note with a list of references to these riots being described as both far-right and anti-immigration (even just using the references already in the article, as it doesn't need strengthening per say). I know the previous far-right note was considered unnecessary, but it seems like every other day there is a new editor claiming that this description is undue, and this could save on carbon dioxide usage. CNC (talk) 14:36, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

In Liverpool, a Polish shop was targeted.[22] Orange sticker (talk) 08:27, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Numerous ethnic minorities were affected by the riots but it's a jump to say they were targeted because of their ethnicity rather than just because their shop was in the right place and the right time (and even in that article it mentions a library next door being burnt down).

The article also included a quote saying: "“This wasn’t about politics or immigrants, it was a night out.”". Ronaldmcflurry (talk) 11:14, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Your quote is the viewpoint of one of the victims, another says, "“Of course, the flames were fanned by the far-right at first ... But then people just came out to see what was happening and got swept along with it. Social media just whipped everyone up into a frenzy.". But we're not here to cherry-pick. Unsurprisingly, riots that targeted hotels housing asylums seekers and charities supporting them, chants of "stop the boats" [23] and "send them back" [24] are being widely reported as anti-immigration.[25] So it is certainly not WP:UNDUE to include this in the article, alongside other motivations such as Islamophobia. Orange sticker (talk) 11:48, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I am referring to these being referred to as "far-right anti-immigration riots". It's undue weight to say they are anti-immigration so prominently. Ronaldmcflurry (talk) 13:10, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Ok I'll bite to see if we can move things forward. I see you have learnt about undue weight, so please also learn about false balance if you haven't already. You describe "a plethora of sources using numerous other titles", but in order to taken seriously, you need to provide these, as no one is going to simply take your word for it. Then when you do, we will see whether reliable sources describe these predominantly as anti-immigration and far-right. CNC (talk) 14:42, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

In Hull, three Romanian men were attacked and sentences were recently given to the attackers. The Judge in the case called that day's riots "12 hours of racist, hate-fuelled mob violence". He doesn't say the attack on these men was incedental to this (in the wrong place at the wrong time, to paraphrase you). It's very obvious that it wasn't only Muslims or Asians that were targeted – although these groups have been targeted more so than others due to the false claims made about the attacker – and no white, British-born people have been targeted in this manner.

But in any case, this is a moot point as we go by how reliable sources describe these riots. GnocchiFan (talk) 16:03, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we should waste our time entertaining original research here. Either editors come here with reliable sources to support their claims, otherwise this just WP:NOTAFORUM based WP:SOAPBOXING at his point. CNC (talk) 11:51, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

It's original research to give undue weight to the idea these were anti-immigration riots/protests. Ronaldmcflurry (talk) 13:09, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources say anti-immigration. Your claim that this is UNDUE is no reason to ignore that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:54, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling As these posts are the only ones so far from this editor, they may not understand our policies yet. Doug Weller talk 14:01, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Locations

There are places mentioned in the text that aren't included in the locations, e.g. Darlington and Oxford for starters. 2A00:23C8:4F2B:EA00:6420:4CC0:97EF:65D4 (talk) 17:55, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Unaffiliated locals in the infobox

An editor has edited the code for the infobox moving * Unaffiliated locals<ref name="BBC-Clashes-2024-08-04"/><ref name="Cheshire-20242"/> from "side3" (counter-protesters) to "side1" (far-right anti-immigration protesters). His/her edit summary was: A huge number of local people who are not members of organizations participated in the rallies.^[26] The citations are as follows:

• "Clashes break out between rival groups after protest". BBC News. 4 August 2024. Archived from the original on 6 August 2024. Retrieved 4 August 2024.
• Cheshire, Tom (4 August 2024). "Bristol witnessed a 'running battle' as protesters clashed – with bottles and punches thrown". Sky News. Archived from the original on 3 August 2024. Retrieved 4 August 2024.

There is no mention in the text of either citation of anything that would support having a mention of "unaffiliated locals" in the infobox on either side.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:01, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Edits that messed up the citations

I have reverted to the version of 17:04, 25 August 2024‎ (UTC). Edits since then left the article with two kinds of reference errors:^[27]

• Duplicate references, where the edit process has duplicated existing reference definitions and given the duplicate a new name
• Undefined references, where the edit process has left existing reference names undefined.

If would be best if the people whose edits were reverted discussed whatever if was they were trying to achieve on the talk page, so that they can get consensus, and (if appropriate) have their edits implemented in a way that does not cause errors.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:32, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I have implemented a change made by Kennethmac2000 at 08:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC),^[28] which seems to have been in response to DankJae's edit summary 17:57, 25 August 2024 (UTC).^[29] Saying that the riots occurred in England and Northern Ireland ought to be completely non-controversial and did no damage to the article.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:47, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Mentioning England and Northern Ireland in the lead

As referenced above, there is a dispute whether the lead should mention the two UK countries that specifically had riots, I think the following formats had at least been used:

• in England and Northern Ireland
• in England and Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom
• in the United Kingdom
• in the United Kingdom (primarily/specifically England and Northern Ireland)
• in two of the four countries of the United Kingdom

or a combined approach:

• in the United Kingdom.

Notes

IMO, at a minimum, as the title is "2024 United Kingdom riots", as most sources use just United Kingdom/UK, then at minimum that should be used (disqualifying the first option) Personally fine with mentioning "England and Northern Ireland" additionally but seems it was constantly removed by others at some point. But remains in the infobox.

Thanks DankJae 14:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I have no objection to the first sentence of the lead being either:

• From 30 July to 5 August 2024^[a] far-right, anti-immigration protests and riots occurred in the United Kingdom.^[b]
• From 30 July to 5 August 2024^[a] far-right, anti-immigration protests and riots occurred in England and Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom.^[b]

Where [a] and [b] are as now (i.e. [a] explains the dates and [b] is a list of towns). Both ways are good. I do not want on a footnote explaining that "riots present in England and Northern Ireland, but absent in Scotland and Wales". We have already got two useful footnotes for the first sentence; a third is too much.

The information that the riots were in England and Northern Ireland is already present in the second paragraph of the lead, so it is not really necessary to have it in the first sentence of the first paragraph. But if accepting the words "in England and Northern Ireland" in that sentence will placate some editors, then I am happy for it to be there.-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:58, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I have reverted Erzan's deletion of the word "occurred" from the sentence.^[30] Having a verb in the sentence is compulsory.-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:13, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Also to point out I'm not opposing to this extended inclusion in the first sentence either, there are so many more important things to argue over, and my British bias may well unhelpful here. My reply below was simply to clarify the guidelines in first sentence, opening paragraph, and lead, in the hope other editors can make more informed opinions over inclusion or not. CNC (talk) 18:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Tbh I find it odd that the list of towns note doesn't at least describe where Belfast is or separate it among all the other places in England. So it possibly could be added to the towns footnote. But I understand the note is used on both "United Kingdom" (lead) and "England and Northern Ireland" (infobox), so such addition would mean the infobox would have to use UK instead. As they are all places in the UK alphabetically, technically that is all that's needed. DankJae 21:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

The note could also be amended to be organised by country, ie "England: ..., Northern Ireland: ....". It's something I considered before, but never seemed necessary due to lack of locations in NI compared to England. CNC (talk) 21:54, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Since we are decribing the first sentence, the relevant guidelines MOS:FIRST apply, as opposed to the more general guidelines on MOS:OPEN or MOS:LEAD. Thus based on MOS:LEADCLUTTER there is an argument that this clutters the first sentence, even if entirely due in the opening paragraph. Given the riots were predominantly in England, with less significant events in Northern Ireland, I think the second sentence covers this without needing to specify in the first sentence. The location "United Kingdom" otherwise confirms to the reader that they have reached the correct article they were looking for, without needing to specify which countries within the UK. CNC (talk) 18:20, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @Kennethmac2000:, who participated in the dispute. DankJae 21:20, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping! Kennethmac2000 (talk) 10:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Also pinging @Erzan for same reason as above. CNC (talk) 21:57, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

The lead mentioning the UK and then the infobox adding more info is tidy and straightforward. Plus it's backed up by the sources and how these events are being described across the UK and even wider European media. Erzan (talk) 22:42, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

How the riots were described by UK and wider European media is why the page is called 2024 United Kingdom riots and not 2024 England and Northern Ireland riots. However, that doesn't take away from the need for precision in the lede.

As another example, while Rishi Sunak was UK prime minister, he announced a plan for a new education qualification called the Advanced British Standard (aka the "British baccalaureate"). Since education is wholly devolved, this only applied to England, despite the reference to "British" in the name. The English-language Wikipedia article on the Advanced British Standard therefore, correctly, begins, "The Advanced British Standard was a proposed replacement for the system of A-levels and T-levels in England." Kennethmac2000 (talk) 10:29, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

The info box and map makes it very clear where they occurred. Erzan (talk) 09:21, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

With respect, the second sentence does not cover it. Firstly, it doesn't mention Northern Ireland. Secondly, it leaves the reader to have to infer that some/most/all(?) of the riots took place in England, rather than stating this explicitly.

It would be possible to construct a reasonable second sentence - eg, "The riots, which took place in England and Northern Ireland, and, in England's case, were the largest incident of social unrest since 2011, ..." - but I suspect we'd end up in the same discussion about that, so perhaps it's as well to stick to the first sentence. Kennethmac2000 (talk) 10:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

If we think about other potential scenarios, what would we do?

Eg:

- If the riots were in Scotland and Northern Ireland (but not England or Wales), would we really not mention that fact very early in the lede?

- If the riots were in Catalonia, the Basque Country and Navarre (but not any other autonomous community), would we really not mention that fact early in the lede?

- If the riots were in California and Florida (but no other state), would we really not mention that fact early in the lede?

If the argument is, "Yes, OK, I take your point, but England is by far the biggest part of the United Kingdom, so this is different", I don't think that's a valid argument to be honest. Kennethmac2000 (talk) 10:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I have made a number of comments, but I notice there have been no further comments since then. I assume that means most people don't have a particularly strong view.

I would therefore propose that we go with one of the following options:

• in England and Northern Ireland
• in England and Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom
• in the United Kingdom (specifically, England and Northern Ireland)
• in two of the four countries of the United Kingdom
• in two of the four countries of the United Kingdom (England and Northern Ireland)

Kennethmac2000 (talk) 09:33, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to say the riots were in England and NI, but we have to remember that some readers will not necessarily know that England and NI are parts of the UK, so I like your second option, maybe tweaked to "in England and Northern Ireland, within the United Kingdom," Bondegezou (talk) 09:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

The sources overwhelming call it the UK riots and the rest of the article repeatedly states where they occurred. The lead is already a little messy and mentioning different national and regional names doesn't make it clearer, it makes it will make even less clear for non-UK readers.

Erzan (talk) 09:19, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Again, that is why the page is called 2024 United Kingdom riots. The lede should then describe the subject matter with more precision - as it no doubt would if riots had taken place only in certain states or autonomous communities in Germany, the US or Spain. To refer to an analogous article, the Advanced British Standard article is called that, despite the fact that the qualification under discussion would only have existed in England. The first sentence clarifies that fact. Did you actually read my previous arguments? It is difficult to debate this if you are just going to assert that the lede is a little messy without engaging with the substance.

Can you propose a compromise? Kennethmac2000 (talk) 19:14, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

These were riots in the UK, the geography of the events were across most of the UK and every source I can find describe it as riots in the UK. The info box, map and rest of the article goes into detail. So I support the status quo for it's accuracy and simplicity. Erzan (talk) 08:24, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

The riots were spread across most of England, yes. However, the four constituent nations/countries of the UK are of interest in their own right, regardless of their respective population sizes, so I think England and Northern Ireland merit being explicitly mentioned in the lede.

I think this mention should be in the first sentence, but I am willing to compromise at somewhere in the first paragraph. Would you like to propose something? Kennethmac2000 (talk) 13:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes. I propose the status quo and for the reasons previously given. Erzan (talk) 14:52, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't accept that, for all of the reasons I have previously given (as you are already aware). I am therefore suggesting that we devise a compromise, which lands somewhere in the middle. Are you willing to propose one? If not, I am happy to make one directly in the article. Kennethmac2000 (talk) 10:00, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Summary

Concerning having "in England and Northern Ireland, within the United Kingdom" instead of "in the United Kingdom" in the first sentence of the lead:

• Acceptable

1. DankJae
2. Toddy1
3. Kennethmac2000
4. Bondegezou

• Unacceptable

1. Erzan

• Not opposing

1. CNC

-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:14, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

fwiw I think it's tautological, and MOS:REDUNDANCY seems to suggest being as brief a possible. Also 'within' should be 'in' if it's going to be kept. Orange sticker (talk) 12:42, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

This is what i was trying to say and was directly engaging. Now it has been pushed into an edit war. Erzan (talk) 12:48, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you but it's clear the consensus is for the alternative, so it's not for us to change to our preference. Orange sticker (talk) 12:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG would apply as well. Any admin looking at a brewing editwar would probably look at all parties involved. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 12:55, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's tautological. Saying they were in England and NI gives more detail, but readers don't necessarily know those are part of the UK, so you need both. It's like saying something happened in New Jersey, USA.

On the general point, there does appear to be a consensus for this edit. Erzan, I would suggest you should revert yourself. Bondegezou (talk) 09:23, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Not only is is self evident due to the article title, I think it's safe to assume readers know where these places are, and there aren't any other places with the same names. Orange sticker (talk) 09:35, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

For more detail is this not what the info box is for and has been used for? And the rest of the article repeatedly mentions the places? I was asksd to come and discuss and there is no good faith engagement with what I raised. Erzan (talk) 09:51, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Ezran, you came, you discussed, but in this case most editors disagreed with you. You should respect that. You are free to keep discussing the matter here, but I think your revert of Kennethmac2000 earlier today was questionable. Bondegezou (talk) 11:30, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Inviting someone to discuss and editing the page within 72hrs is not good faith engagement. Erzan (talk) 13:12, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

You were pinged on 26 August; now is 4 September; that is nine days later, not 72 hours.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:50, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Even 72 hours is more than enough for a such a minor MOS dispute imo. @Erzan I think you're best just letting this one go. Orange sticker (talk) 13:55, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

To hopefully avoid an edit war, I first wanted to check: do I have support from most folks here to reapply the edit I made yesterday? Kennethmac2000 (talk) 09:28, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I've been searching for a guideline on this with no luck, however I also can't find any examples of either England or Northern Ireland needing the 'within United Kingdom' disambiguation either, certainly not when both are together. So I'd still like to urge everyone to reconsider but I respect the consensus. Orange sticker (talk) 09:50, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

@Orange sticker, there is likely no specific guideline on a purely content dispute on whether something is as important for the lead, MOS:LEAD, and the first sentence MOS:FIRST.

This discussion is just whether the additional information on where in the UK these riots occurred should also be mentioned in the first sentence. As the title has United Kingdom, that should at least be mentioned in it, so readers know they're at the correct article, hence "within the United Kingdom". As some editors wish that the specific parts of the UK are added in the first sentence for these riots as them only being in two UK countries has been raised/considered an important detail. I do see value with having it somewhere. Fine with adding it in the first paragraph, if agreed here is it best to. But also fine having it in the second paragraph more prominently (and largest unrest in England moved down from the first paragraph), and leaving UK for the first paragraph.

Sources do group the riots as "UK", but in text usually expand to "England and Northern Ireland". As well as the lack of riots in Scotland and Wales also mentioned in media. DankJae 11:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

While we're being pedantic(!) on Wikipedia and in general we don't say England or Northern Ireland are 'in' the UK, but parts of it. Same as you wouldn't say your arm is in your body, I guess. Orange sticker (talk) 12:34, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes. We've had plenty of discussion, let's just make the change. Bondegezou (talk) 13:13, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I didn't find that DankJae's assessment pedantic personally, but instead an accurate assessment of mos guidelines in reference to the topic, and it's very similar to what I stated before about this being in the first sentence. I still don't see the inclusion as necessary, based on MOS:FIRST, but instead worth including in the MOS:OPEN. When not everyone agrees that this should be in the first sentence, but there is consensus for it to be in the opening paragraph, this doesn't seem that complicated to me. To me it's more questionable having "following a mass stabbing in Southport" within the first sentence, as it doesn't help to explain the what, were or when of the topic; it is clearly context about the topic that should instead be in the first paragraph based on mos guidelines. CNC (talk) 17:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Have made this edit [31], given there does appear to general support for it (even if not from me). Personally it was more about removing unnecessary context from the first sentence that instead belongs in the first paragraph. CNC (talk) 17:50, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Nigel Farage

Should Nigel Farage, Tommy Robinson or any other individual figures be listed in the infobox as riot perpetrators due to potential incitement on social media? 92.10.201.219 (talk) 02:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I think the only individual where that would make sense is Robinson, but WP:BLP and WP:BLPCRIME apply. Bondegezou (talk) 07:39, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

This is a preposterous suggestion. Encouraging a riot is a crime under British law, for which people have already been convicted and jailed for this event. You can't say that someone encouraged a riot unless they're convicted of it, any more than you can call someone a drug dealer or child abuser. That's it. We have a legal system to decide things like this. Any idea of Wikipedia being a useful source for facts goes out the window if we say people committed crimes because we feel like they did, or we just don't like them. Unknown Temptation (talk) 22:00, 6 September 2024 (UTC)