→Deletion of See also: restoring |
|||
Line 604: | Line 604: | ||
:::::I stand corrected and apologise for the misunderstanding. [[User:Deterence|<i><b><font color="Blue" face="Mistral">Deterence</font></b></i>]] [[User talk:Deterence|<sup><font color="Blue">Talk</font></sup>]] 04:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC) |
:::::I stand corrected and apologise for the misunderstanding. [[User:Deterence|<i><b><font color="Blue" face="Mistral">Deterence</font></b></i>]] [[User talk:Deterence|<sup><font color="Blue">Talk</font></sup>]] 04:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC) |
||
::::::No problems at all. It's pleasant to find myself in agreement with a fellow editor. Yikes, just look at this below.<span style="border:2px ridge #aaf;padding:1px 8px;font:normal 10px Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="color: #358;">[[User:Rubywine|Rubywine]]</span> . <span style="color: #35d;"><strong>[[User talk:Rubywine|talk]]</strong></span></span> 04:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC) |
::::::No problems at all. It's pleasant to find myself in agreement with a fellow editor. Yikes, just look at this below.<span style="border:2px ridge #aaf;padding:1px 8px;font:normal 10px Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="color: #358;">[[User:Rubywine|Rubywine]]</span> . <span style="color: #35d;"><strong>[[User talk:Rubywine|talk]]</strong></span></span> 04:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC) |
||
{{outdent}}Andy, you are serious in your edit summary? It seems like you need to recharge your AGF battery, because launching into accusations of POV pushing without evidence is surely a failure to AGF. That said, I disagree strongly with your assessment of the situation - there was no attempt on my part to push any POV. I just found it weird that unlike the bulk of the articles in wikipedia, this lacks a see also and dropped some stuff into it, including a List article I recently created. |
|||
I think that see also's, and [[WP:SEEALSO]] backs me completely, are very good ways to separate this article from a news article, in that it provides encyclopedic depth and contextualizes events in the wider world, and goes into our wealth of encyclopedic knowledge to enrich the knowledge of our readers. They should be present whenever possible and needed, which I have found to be nearly always. |
|||
Your argument "ad absurdum" that we would have to include every British riot in the last 50 years is put to rest by the existence of a conveniently placed navbox that highlights the most notable events regarding riots in the United Kingdom - I think you might have missed it, but its right there in the bottom of the article. So there is no possibility of the see also becoming a problem in this sense. The other arguments seem more like a philosophical opposition to See Also's in general, rather than an specific criticism of any particular one -even when you mention particular ones. I am sure that if you have a philosophical opposition to See Alsos in general, the place to vent it is not here - but in the talk page of the appropriate MOS. |
|||
What would a "see also" include in this article? For starters, to reflect notable and reliably sourced views that compare this event to others, [http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e1999d92-c363-11e0-b163-00144feabdc0.html?ftcamp=rss#axzz1UsntbGYK Such as this piece] by [[Dominique Moïsi]] in the [[Financial Times]], without giving these views [[WP:UNDUE|undue weight in the article]] - precisely address issues of neutrality in a way that is encyclopedic, rather than journalistic, which is what your proposal of complete deletion of the section feels like. That said, I see the point on the inclusion of the list, but the cause of the Tottenham riot is directly related to the police killing a man - that is an issue of *this* event to, as the Tottenham riot was the riot that sparked all the other. That is information that provides historic context that has no other space to go in this article than a See Also. And any other addition we can discuss, as well as removals. |
|||
I see many problems with the article, in particular the lack conscientiousness of not discussing edits, the incredible amount of redundant sources, the lede and its utter lack of any making of sense and looking more like a tabloid lede rather than an encyclopedia lede, and of course, the NPOV battle, etc. The See also has neither been a source of problems, nor the "problems" it might create cannot be solved by discussion and consensus. |
|||
That said, I am restoring the section, and restoring the links, and will revert to my limit as per 3RR, unless substantial, non-philosophical opposition to each item is given. --[[User:Cerejota|Cerejota]] ([[User talk:Cerejota|talk]]) 05:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== David Starkey comments: "the whites have become black" == |
== David Starkey comments: "the whites have become black" == |
||
Revision as of 05:37, 13 August 2011
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
- See also Talk:2011 England riots/map
Page move from London->England, may need England->UK
The WP:RM for this page originally was for 2011 London riots -> 2011 UK riots. Someone pointed out the BBC called it the "England riots" which tilted the debate to that term. Now, however, the BBC is referring to it as the UK riots [1]. That means Sky, Guardian, BBC and AJ are using "UK riots." Need to keep an eye on this term in case another move is needed. -- Fuzheado | Talk 18:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Agree all main media organisations are now calling it the UK riots. A teenager was arrested in Scotland over inciting riots[1]. --Halma10 (talk) 18:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Agree I'm happy at least this page has been moved to "2011 England riots", but BBC News and The Guardian have referred it to "UK riots". Also, on TV, BBC is referring it to as "UK riots". I honestly think this page should be moved to "2011 UK riots". Nations United (talk) 18:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Comment The discussion above supported England more than UK (at least until and if the rioting spread outside England, which hasn't happened).Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Comment Outside of London it only affects a few localities in 3 or 4 cities. The BBC 6 pm evening national news only mentioned London and Birmingham. It is barely relevant outside of London, it certainly isn't England-wide, let alone UK-wide. I can't understand the clamour to exaggerate it so much out of all proportion to its reality. FactController (talk) 18:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Comment This article should be moved to 2011 UK riots or 2011 United Kingdom riots. GoodDay (talk) 18:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
In addition, CBC news is calling it the UK Riots. GoodDay (talk) 22:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Not sure about this Two other articles - 1981 England riots and 2001 England riots - use "England". Are they incorrectly named?--A bit iffy (talk) 18:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
:Agree, because news organisations are generally using "UK"--A bit iffy (talk) 20:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- Further to my comment above, I've done a quick trawl of major news organisations' usage, and I find:
- BBC, CNN, Sky, Al Jazeera, The Guardian, The Daily Mail, ITN, Sydney Morning Herald all use "UK"
- New York Times uses "Britain"
- France 24 (English) uses both "Britain" and "UK"
- The Times possibly uses "England" (can't be sure because of paywall)
- The Sun seems to use nothing in particular
- --A bit iffy (talk) 22:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- The story this morning from the BBC refers to it as 'England riots' again [2] - maybe Deacon of Pndapetzim is correct and there's different editors with different opinions! Either way, I still think a name hasn't really been settled on, so we should keep 'England riots' unless the situation changes --Richardeast (talk) 09:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- Here in France;
- TF1 (French) uses 'Engand' [3]
- France2 (French) Uses 'England' [4]
- France24 (French) uses 'UK' [5]
- I think England riot is correct as it's not effecting other countries in the UK, only England --84.99.15.246 (talk) 09:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- Further to my comment above, I've done a quick trawl of major news organisations' usage, and I find:
- Disagree - changing my mind again - BBC in particular are using 'England', as are some others, so leave it as '2011 England riots'.--A bit iffy (talk) 19:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Disagree Just because media organisations are using the term "UK Riots" does not make it correct. The media are prone to inflate headlines given the slightest opportunity. Inciting riots is not rioting. Have there actually been any riots in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland? Using the term "UK Riots" if there have been none in those countries seems, in itself, to be inciting people to riot in those locations. If/when there are verifiable sources for rioting in other parts of the UK then that would be the time to consider changing the name of the article. Stanley Oliver (talk) 19:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC) Agree as UK Riots seems to be the consensus - even if it is as accurate as calling the 1992 Los Angeles riots the 1992 North American Riots. Stanley Oliver (talk) 20:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC) Disagree "England Riots" seems to be the preferred term in the media today - although there have been some 'isolated incidents' in Wales: South Wales Police.Stanley Oliver (talk) 18:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Comment it is not up to Wiki authors to decide on the name (whether it is technically correct or not). If the media consensus is UK riots, than this is the term that should be used. --Halma10 (talk) 19:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Disagree If you run with your logic, we could call it '2011 EU riots' or '2011 Earth riots'. It's only affecting England, if things move to Scotland, Wales... or to France then we'll update at a later date but so far, this title fits the bill. --Richardeast (talk) 19:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- That's not the argument being made. The point is all major media outlets are using "UK riots" now, and if we were to apply the verifiability standard, it would be the "UK riots." -- Fuzheado | Talk 19:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- The daily mail is still calling it London riot [6] - The BBC page I'm on is calling it England riot. Different editors seem to be making different editorial decisions, but it's still an England only riot, in the same way 2011_Northern_Ireland_riots --Richardeast (talk) 19:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- Have you refreshed the BBC page recently? The live page is certainly calling it UK riots. violet/riga [talk] 19:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- Yes - it's still 'England riots' [7]
- read the top of the page, it says "Last updated at 17:00". The daily mail is also using UK riots [2]--Halma10 (talk) 20:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- This morning it's gone back to 'England riot' on the BBC [8]. I still think we should wait and see what happens on the ground rather than trying to follow decisions by different editors with different agenda. --Richardeast (talk) 09:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- read the top of the page, it says "Last updated at 17:00". The daily mail is also using UK riots [2]--Halma10 (talk) 20:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- Yes - it's still 'England riots' [7]
- Have you refreshed the BBC page recently? The live page is certainly calling it UK riots. violet/riga [talk] 19:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- Agree with Fuzheado, check out Wikipedia:Verifiability. It should be called UK riots, and trying to analyse the technicalities of it, is also a form of Original Research (against Wiki policy).--Halma10 (talk) 19:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, this policy is about article content and the thresholds for inclusion. It is almost irrelevant for article titles, for which see WP:NAME, most particularly WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- Almost irrelevant? Take a look at the page, as the first sentence after the intro says: "should be interpreted in conjunction with other policies, particularly the three core content policies: Verifiability, No original research and Neutral point of view." -- Fuzheado | Talk 01:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- If you can fathom any verifiability issue here, then go ahead and elaborate. No such issue has yet been raised. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- Almost irrelevant? Take a look at the page, as the first sentence after the intro says: "should be interpreted in conjunction with other policies, particularly the three core content policies: Verifiability, No original research and Neutral point of view." -- Fuzheado | Talk 01:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, this policy is about article content and the thresholds for inclusion. It is almost irrelevant for article titles, for which see WP:NAME, most particularly WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- The daily mail is still calling it London riot [6] - The BBC page I'm on is calling it England riot. Different editors seem to be making different editorial decisions, but it's still an England only riot, in the same way 2011_Northern_Ireland_riots --Richardeast (talk) 19:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
The recent reports overwhelmingly use UK riots, cannot find any recent use of the term England riots. I do understand that some authors (who might be Welsh, for example) do not want to be tarnished with this, but there is no reason (from the wiki policy perspective) why this is called England riots. Can I also add that a Scottish teenager was arrested today in Glasgow in relation to inciting riots.--Halma10 (talk) 19:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- Different editors seems to be making different editorial choices; The Scotsman and Daily Record are both still calling it 'the London riots', as is the Belfast telegraph & Ulster TV and the Daily post in Wales... I know some of the English news agencies (like Guardian and mirror) are calling it a 'UK riot' and I'm sure there's a variety of editorial/ political reasons why they've decided to do that, but I still think we should stick to 'England riot' unless the facts change on the ground since essentially, that's what it is! --Richardeast (talk) 20:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
We're getting a bit ahead of ourselves, talking about "recent" in relation to unfolding events. There is no one common name for these events (c/f Kristallnacht), and the current title is just a description. The BBC was running "England riots" at 4PM GMT but "UK Riots" at 6PM GMT on its red update bar on the right, for the same descriptive purposes. Maybe the guy on the evening shift was English, and the afternoon guy was Welsh, who knows. Some of the BBC text just now says they are in England, some that they are in the UK. All that matters just now is accuracy, and from that perspective it's a total non-issue. The riots are happening in and confined to England, and thus are happening in and confined to the UK. Both are accurate description and acceptable to Wikipedia. If a common name does emerge as a contender (like Mark Duggan riots, or indeed 2011 UK riots), then and only then can we can talk about usage and common names; if not the chief guidance is normally taken from standardization principles and style guidelines rather than usage (e.g. from how other riot articles are named). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Strong Agree: Although this hasn't spread to Scotland, Wales or NI, the media are now calling it the UK riots and WP policy usually suggests to go with the most common name. I'd also ignore what the Daily Mail says. They're about 15 years behind the rest of the country and think Diana is still alive. Welshleprechaun 20:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I'm not sure we can say all in the media are all using a common name - The BBC has gone from Tottenham->London->England->UK and this morning back to England again [9]. --Richardeast (talk) 09:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- Disagree 2011 England riots reflects the disorder at present. If there is major disorder in Wales/Scotland then we move; but its not there yet. Whilst we give good regard to media descriptions, the title should be helpful to readers and 2011 United Kingdom riots (certainly not 2011 UK riots) would mislead readers that the riots had spread beyond England. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Disagree Riots are so far confined to England, if and when they occur in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland then we can do a page move to 2011 UK (and Northern Ireland) riots. --wintonian talk 02:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Cardiff:Attempted burglary at JD Sports, 2 fires in Butetown and Canton and criminal damage at takeaway in Ely. Should make it UK riots! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.3.84 (talk) 07:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Disagree - it is not "UK" unless it spreads to Northern Ireland. England, Wales and Scotland comprise Britain, so "British riots" is accurate so far. So what if the media gets it wrong?86.42.206.248 (talk) 08:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Disagree since media is using various terms interchangeably. Heck, Sky is now calling it simply "Riots". If it has spread to Wales, then "2011 England and Wales riots" would be more appropriate, and so on and so forth. --Dorsal Axe 11:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Agree - The media is calling them "UK riots", not "England riots"; I wasn't really happy with the latter anyway to start with. As a side note, why can't the media use adjectives; it should be "English riots" or "British riots". VJ (talk) 14:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
BBC is back to England riots. The afternoon shift / evening shift theory might be correct. :D Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- No, the evening shift is sticking with "England Riots" (as at 19:56 BST), regardless of the minor incidents in Cardiff. Unless the day shift managed to swing some overtime. ;o) Stanley Oliver (talk) 18:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- Yes - looks like they're sticking with 'England riots'... as for the incidents in Wales and Scotland, things like this happen in cities most days and can't in all seriousness be considered a part of the riot! Here in the south of France a Tabac store was attacked and looted (http://www.ladepeche.fr/article/2011/08/10/1144099-l-agression-sauvage-du-bar-tabac-le-select-filmee-par-les-cameras-de-surveillance.html) but i'm not sure we should include that in this article! --Richardeast (talk) 20:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- Disagree; per the sources and geographical accuracy, we should stick with England riots for now. --John (talk) 22:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- It's been reported of trouble in Cardiff, Wales. http://www.south-wales.police.uk/en/content/cms/news/police-attend-small-/ The Guardian are reporting this in it's coverage of the riots. @ Richardeast This may be small but it is not ordinary and almost certainly connected. Also yes, the rest of the British Media (where this is happening) is using the term 'UK riots' --82.16.221.138 (talk) 22:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- Even if the events in Cardiff are connected, do they really qualify as riots? See the legal definition of a riot at point 1 on this page; 12 people or more, etc. | 1. Also, the BBC are using "England Riots". Google gives "England Riots 2011" = 20m results vs "UK Riots 2011" = 19.3m results. Not scientific but it does indicate a fairly even split. Stanley Oliver (talk) 23:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- Actually; the BBC News have been using 'England Riots' all day and Sky News simply use 'Riots'. See also [10][11] etc. Also see "Alex Salmond, Scotland's first minister, has complained about broadcasters headlining coverage of urban unrest as "UK riots"[12] Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Uh-oh - I might have spoken too soon: It's all kicking off in Scotland Rioters strike in Edinburgh. Stanley Oliver (talk) 00:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I saw this video of youths on the streets of Edinburgh, using social media to arrange a mass gathering at Conference Square. Looks like things could get be getting ugly north of the border! Youths gather in Conference Square, Edinburgh --Richardeast (talk) 10:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Uh-oh - I might have spoken too soon: It's all kicking off in Scotland Rioters strike in Edinburgh. Stanley Oliver (talk) 00:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Actually; the BBC News have been using 'England Riots' all day and Sky News simply use 'Riots'. See also [10][11] etc. Also see "Alex Salmond, Scotland's first minister, has complained about broadcasters headlining coverage of urban unrest as "UK riots"[12] Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Even if the events in Cardiff are connected, do they really qualify as riots? See the legal definition of a riot at point 1 on this page; 12 people or more, etc. | 1. Also, the BBC are using "England Riots". Google gives "England Riots 2011" = 20m results vs "UK Riots 2011" = 19.3m results. Not scientific but it does indicate a fairly even split. Stanley Oliver (talk) 23:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- It's been reported of trouble in Cardiff, Wales. http://www.south-wales.police.uk/en/content/cms/news/police-attend-small-/ The Guardian are reporting this in it's coverage of the riots. @ Richardeast This may be small but it is not ordinary and almost certainly connected. Also yes, the rest of the British Media (where this is happening) is using the term 'UK riots' --82.16.221.138 (talk) 22:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- Agree There was no rioting in Cambridge, so can we have a term that reflects it wasn't in Cambridge please? I'm joking of course - but my point is we can't easily come up with a term that easily combines the set of cities involved, so going with simply UK riots seems fine to me. As for Northern Ireland riots, those had political issues that were specifically related to Northern Ireland. It's unclear there are any reasons for rioting that are specific to England as a whole, but nowhere else in the UK? If there are political issues behind it, they would apply to the rest of the UK too. Mdwh (talk) 00:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Comment 'BBC News also said it had decided to refer to the unrest as "England riots", rather than "UK riots".' [14] --AndrewTindall (talk) 11:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose for now
Dear fellow editors of a category of articles hated by many precisely because they are full of these these discussions;
Not a single RS is calling this a UK-wide phenomenon, just England. They might eventually, we revisit then. If they never do, we look at them to see how they are treating any unrest in Scotland and work based on their formulations. This is a wiki, its VERY easy to update.
Sincerely,
--Cerejota (talk) 12:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Undecided Looking at the BBC and broadsheets, there is no clarity as yet.
Rubywine . talk 13:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Strongly Agree This was a United Kingdom event and a United Kingdom riot. This could not be seen as a EU riot because the trouble spots didn't cover 1/3 of the EU map and it wasn't the responsibility of the EU governance. If dozens of trouble hot spots covered 1/3 of Germany or the USA, and the federal government responded it would be called the Germany or USA riots. The United Kingdom is one nation-state, trouble hot spots covered at least 1/3[3]) of the country and the British government had to respond. In addition Police from Scotland and Wales was also sent to assist police in England. --Erzan (talk) 8:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- All that that map shows is that the troubles are centred around London, with a few hot-spots centred on a few major cities in the west-central region of England. You'll note there's nothing in the north, east, south or south-west of England and nothing in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. Not 1/3, but probably less than 1/1000 of the UK area is affected. FactController (talk) 08:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- The map clearly shows trouble spots, when mapped on the United Kingdom, Cover 1/3 of the British Isles. It does not require every square mile of a country to be effected to be considered a country wide event. In addition the Guardian editor responsible for the map admits it does not map every incident. Furthermore two trouble spots were reported in Wales. Thus officially crossing the English border. Erzan (talk) 09:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- Comment "United Kingdom" spelled out is preffered lest we scare the bejeezus out of those parents sending there kids off to University of Kentucky (UK) in a few weeks. Metal lunchbox (talk) 08:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- Or indeed the universities of Kansas, Karlova, Khartoum, Kerala, Kaapstad, etc. I assume your comment was a joke. Rubywine . talk 11:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, it is funny but no I do not intend my comment as a joke. UK is actually used quite frequently in English to refer to the University of Kentucky, though not as frequently as United Kingdom. Why not avoid ambiguity altogether. UK residents might be appalled, but nonetheless not everyone knows instantly what UK refers to. If the page is moved, I think "United Kingdom" would be preferable to "UK". Metal lunchbox (talk) 21:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, yes, I see the problem Metal lunchbox but can think of a very simple solution... lets dissolve the United Kingdom and let the member countries control their own affairs! --Richardeast (talk) 21:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, it is funny but no I do not intend my comment as a joke. UK is actually used quite frequently in English to refer to the University of Kentucky, though not as frequently as United Kingdom. Why not avoid ambiguity altogether. UK residents might be appalled, but nonetheless not everyone knows instantly what UK refers to. If the page is moved, I think "United Kingdom" would be preferable to "UK". Metal lunchbox (talk) 21:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- Or indeed the universities of Kansas, Karlova, Khartoum, Kerala, Kaapstad, etc. I assume your comment was a joke. Rubywine . talk 11:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Disagree. The BBC calls them England riots and that's what the title of the Wikipedia article should be as well. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 15:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
"England" riots
Has wikipedia turned into the propaganda arm of the SNP? There were no riots in Kent, either, but Kent is still in England, just as Scotland is in the UK. There doesn't seem to be any reason to favour one over the other, unless you're a nationalist partisan. 94.193.35.68 (talk) 12:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- It's what our sources call it, and therefore so do we. violet/riga [talk] 12:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- There was nothing of the 2005 civil unrest in France in my little village in rural south of France.... but somehow changing the article name to '2005 civil unrest in some parts of some towns and cities in some parts of Metropolitan France' doesn't quite have the same ring to it. --Richardeast (talk) 13:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- p.s. apparently there was some unrest in Medway [[15]]. --Richardeast (talk) 13:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- However, by doing so, the article is in contravention of the WP:SENSATION guideline. FactController (talk) 12:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
We have an ongoing dicsussion about this at the above - consider contributing to that rather than starting new topics.--Pontificalibus (talk) 12:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Time to revisit the title issue again?
There are reports of "sporadic" incidents in Cardiff. That maybe be enough to justify a title change, but if this thing continues to spill over into Wales, or into Scotland (or maybe it already has entered Scotland? I just noticed the "incidents" map on this talk page has 2 Scotland dots), it may be time to revive the "UK Riots 2011" title proposal again. Last I heard no one has issued an official title for this event. 68.146.71.145 (talk) 20:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- The two dots in Scotland are for the two teenagers arrested for incitement. violet/riga [talk] 20:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- 2011 United Kingdom riots would be the best title (spell out UK). Indeed, whilst the majority is in England there have been verified liked events taking place in Scotland and Wales. If we include those in this article we should move it as the current title would be inaccurate.--86.164.212.12 (talk) 21:06, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- Issue is under discussion, above. It would probably be best to keep the conversation in one place, esp. as this is such a busy page. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Unbalanced weight given to locations in infobox
Most of the major troubles were centred on districts of London, with some localised hotspots in a few other cities and towns around England. London has been affected massively more than anywhere else. The amount of space given to each place in the list needs to be proportional(ish) to the amount of troubles experienced there. Currently Manchester, Merseyside, West Midlands, West Yorkshire and Bristol which only experienced relatively few incidents compared to each of the districts of London most heavily affected, are given equal weighting to the whole of Greater London - that needs to be addressed.
My suggested wording is: "Several districts across Greater London and some other cities and towns in England."
Let's get a consensus on this please rather than continually reverting and warring. FactController (talk) 19:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- There have been over 130 arrests, (and three deaths) in Birmingham. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- I read that as "Several districts across Greater London and some other little places in England.". Mentioning London like that might be correct for the scale of the rioting there but not necessarily the severity - as said above, three people died in Birmingham. violet/riga [talk] 19:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- Spin, spin, spin. The locations in the infobox have not been given undue weight at all. They are accurate and factual. There are dozens of reliable sources attached to the article to show this. FactController, we've been over this before. You have been arguing relentlessly for two days, in relation to the title and the infobox, that the riots really only happened in London. Your justification for deleting the details about the Scottish teenagers yesterday was nothing short of disingenuous. Not one other person has shown signs of agreeing with you, yet you clearly want to force a POV on this article, by removing details of other cities in which looting and violence (and even deaths!) took place, from the infobox. I get the impression that you are trying to wear everybody down. It's reached the point that unfortunately, I have to say I think you are being disruptive. If you don't stop trying to delete other cities from the infobox I am going to take this to an administrator. Rubywine . talk 20:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- Please do not try to intimidate me with such unnecessary threats. This article still needs an awful lot of work to rid it of the bias, exaggeration, OR, undue weight and trivia that it contains. Please help, rather than hinder, that process. Remember, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. FactController (talk) 20:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- I am not trying to intimidate you. I am saying that you are being disruptive and breaching WP:NPOV. It is not up to you to decide unilaterally what constitutes undue weight or bias. You are ignoring a consensus which has already been reached and which is reflected in the title of this article.
- Moreover, your deletion of the news item about the Scottish teenagers AGAIN at 20:35 today with the comment that it is neither England nor connected to the riots is an example of this. There are two Scottish teenagers charged with encouraging other people to start rioting, and both are due for court appearances. [16] In my personal opinion, that is relevant. And I think we should also be mentioning the response of Alex Salmond in the Political Reactions section, and the criticisms that he has received for it. [17]Rubywine . talk 21:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- I am as entitled as any other editor to attempt to improve this article. The fact that the scope has been increased to cover England does not mean that each of the relatively small, and few, incidents that have occurred outside of London should be given as much weight and space in the article as that given to the whole of London. This still needs to be addressed.
- As for the couple of insignificant arrests in Scotland, even though you have now managed to trawl up a reference which uses the word "riot", it's still outside the scope of the current article - which is currently limited to riots (not arrests or charges of incitement) in England. Even if the scope did include Scotland, those incidents are too insignificant in comparison to even the smallest disturbances that have occurred in England to be worthy of inclusion - unless you plan to include all of those disturbances in England too.
- FactController (talk) 21:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- This is entirely incorrect. The scope of the article is anything related to the riots. The teenagers who made the comments on Facebook would never have been arrested if this event had not happened as they were trying to replicate the rioting. You say it's nothing to do with England but you don't know that they were trying to incite trouble in Scotland - they may well have been telling their English friends to do it. It's relevant. violet/riga [talk] 21:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- FactController (talk) 21:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- The title limits the scope to England. Even if you can find an RS to support a connection with England, the incidents are hardly a priority in comparison to all the more significant things that could be added. FactController (talk) 22:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- Well it's up for discussion at the bottom. Hopefully you'll not remove it if it gets added again. violet/riga [talk] 22:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- The title limits the scope to England. Even if you can find an RS to support a connection with England, the incidents are hardly a priority in comparison to all the more significant things that could be added. FactController (talk) 22:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Edit request - Infoxbox change please
{{edit semi-protected}} Currently the "place" field of the article's infobox contains the sensationalist value of: "Several districts across Greater London, Greater Manchester, Merseyside, West Midlands, West Yorkshire, Bristol and several other areas.".
This needs to be changed to more closely reflect the reality of the situation as expressed in the rest of the article and the first senence of the lead.
Please change the field value to: "Several districts across Greater London and localised areas of Greater Manchester, Merseyside, West Midlands, West Yorkshire, Bristol and minor outbreaks in some other English cities and towns."
(see #Unbalanced weight given to locations in infobox discussion above)
FactController (talk) 09:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Opposed. This was originally sourced to the BBC, which clearly supports the claim. --Cerejota (talk) 10:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- We're not talking objective facts here, we're talking subjective opinion - which needs to be NPOV, not copied from sensationalist headlines. Although reading it through, that single source does support my toned-down version better than it does the one currently in the article. FactController (talk) 11:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- In any case, the source should be re-added to make the text sourced, rather than naked. We can all agree sourced is better.--Cerejota (talk) 10:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Only if it supports what's writtten. Do you think that one news source is enough to support such a subjective POV? The summary should be across all sourced opinions, not just your favoured one. FactController (talk) 11:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Focus on the content, not the editor, please. We do not need a bazillion sources if the information can be verified, as it can be with just one source as per policy, it is up to you to prove the edit wrong. Also, as you can see, another editor found sources other than the BBC that say the same thing. However, I have yet to see a source provided to sustain your assertion that this event was localized to London. If you can provide us with such sources, I will gladly reconsider if they are of superior quality to those Rubywine and I provided.--Cerejota (talk) 12:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Only if it supports what's writtten. Do you think that one news source is enough to support such a subjective POV? The summary should be across all sourced opinions, not just your favoured one. FactController (talk) 11:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Not done; no consensus, so template disabled. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Opposed No riots should be downplayed as "localised" or "minor outbreaks". Agree with Cerejota re BBC source. I have restored it, and added references to UK riots: the key facts and figures and London riots: all incidents mapped in London and around the UK. Rubywine . talk 12:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- That's not our call. We are mandated to to present a NPOV derived from notable opinions. FactController (talk) 13:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Speed
Is everyone having problems with the load time for this article or is it just me? It often takes 30 seconds just to load/save and I'm having edit conflicts all the time. Other, larger articles take 3 seconds at most! violet/riga [talk] 20:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC) It's the length of the article. Alexandre8 (talk) 21:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- I had some problems this evening. For some reason the article swiched to mobile view. I could not get back to regular Wikipedia for about 10 minutes - even when I cleared my browser cache. Could it be caused by too many people editing the page concurrently? Stanley Oliver (talk) 21:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- Yup, long load times and edit conflicts all the time. ARK (talk) 21:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- The down load time is killing my computer to.Wipsenade (talk) 09:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Can someone with experience with this sort of thing, for the love of god, archive parts of this page? Colipon+(Talk) 12:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- I've just created 8 pages of archives, reducing the size of this talk page drastically. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Can someone with experience with this sort of thing, for the love of god, archive parts of this page? Colipon+(Talk) 12:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- The down load time is killing my computer to.Wipsenade (talk) 09:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
The word 'vigilante' is a non-neutral term
Calling these groups 'vigilantes' is politically loaded, and therefore, not neutral. They should be called, instead, self-defense groups. There are numerous references to the police having abandoned shops to their fate (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8692948/London-riots-Police-deserted-Zee-and-Co-shopkeeper-during-Bow-riots.html, and http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/8691918/Bristol-riots-victim-waits-more-than-18-hours-for-police-to-arrive.html, for instance) - references to these should balance the police statement that 'vigilantes' were hampering operations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.5.187.71 (talk) 20:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- Vigilante is the term being used by the media. Whether it's a positive or negative term is a matter of opinion. Nevard (talk) 05:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- The British press is hardly neutral in this matter. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral. Your dismissive tone suggests that you have made up your mind already and you don't care about neutrality. I am pointing out that the article is unbalanced, as people are supposed to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.5.187.71 (talk) 05:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Regardless of who uses it, "vigilante" is not a neutral term. I can think of no occasion where I have seen this word used to cast something in a positive light. In fact, when used as an adjective, "vigilante" is used to create a negative impression: "vigilante justice" would, I think, never be seen as a good thing. So, by using the word without any sort of qualification, Wikipedia runs the risk of being seen as taking sides. A simple change to make it clear that Wikipedia's use of the word is linked to / imitative of the media's use of the word would help, and avoiding it altogether would be better. In any absolute sense, of course, total neutrality of presentation is impossible, but we should strive to do as well as possible. Because of the social and political connotations of "vigilante", it is an ideal candidate for avoiding in a striving-for-neutrality environment like Wikipedia. Steveread999 (talk) 05:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- "I can think of no occasion where I have seen this word used to cast something in a positive light." Batman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.74.88 (talk) 10:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- It's not used positively even with Batman. Batman portrays, as is well known, the dark side of superheros. At times, he is more of an anti-hero. In the camp 60s comics, he was not referred to as a vigilante but as a caped crusader. Superheros are seen as defenders, something portrayed as different from, and much more positive than vigilantes.
- "I can think of no occasion where I have seen this word used to cast something in a positive light." Batman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.74.88 (talk) 10:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
WP:LABEL, lets be careful people... the media is not NPOV, we are. We are also WP:NOTNEWS. I like vigilante, and cannot come up with a term to refer to informal self-protection, but just because the media are a bunch of sensationalistic screamers doesn't mean we have to join the festivities.--Cerejota (talk) 10:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- A better term is, as I said at the beginning, 'self-defense groups'. It is as neutral a term as I can find. It implies nothing about the nature of the defenders or the things against which they are defending. 'Self-defense' is often used as a neutral description for martial arts courses. It seems to me that it is by far the most neutral term to use.
- I agree with Cerejota. Given their propensity for ratings-motivated sensationalism caution is necessary when adopting the language used by the media. The term "vigilante" is commonly loaded with negative baggage, including high degrees of unlawfulness and vengeance. Perhaps some more moderate language is appropriate for the main article, such as "organised resistance" or "people who have banded together for mutual protection". That said, www.thefreedictionary.com defines "vigilante" as: "One who takes or advocates the taking of law enforcement into one's own hands.", which does seem appropriate in the present context. Evidently, this issue is not clear-cut. Deterence Talk 12:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- 'One who takes or advocates the taking of law enforcement into one's own hands', is, in my opinion, not appropriate here, because, otherwise, it would mean that the term 'vigilante' could be used to describe someone who simply blocked a blow someone had aimed at his face. If, say, you are in a pub, and the chap next to you suddenly yells 'My girl says you looked at her funny' and starts to punch you, and you block the blow, would you then describe yourself as a vigilante? I don't think so. It is not, as far as I know, against the law in Britain, to defend yourself. You have to use reasonable force, but it is legal. If you think you are going to be attacked, or, at least, wish to be prepared for the possibility of attack it is also not illegal to take precautions, otherwise self-defense classes would be illegal in Britain, which they are not. In the end, it all comes down to what one means by 'taking the law into one's own hands'. If you believe that simply defending yourself and your property in the absence of any police presence is 'taking the law into your own hands', then I say you are using the term too widely. 'Vigilante' is, by and large, associated with 'unlawfulness' and 'vengeance', neither of which apply here.
- I agree with Cerejota. Given their propensity for ratings-motivated sensationalism caution is necessary when adopting the language used by the media. The term "vigilante" is commonly loaded with negative baggage, including high degrees of unlawfulness and vengeance. Perhaps some more moderate language is appropriate for the main article, such as "organised resistance" or "people who have banded together for mutual protection". That said, www.thefreedictionary.com defines "vigilante" as: "One who takes or advocates the taking of law enforcement into one's own hands.", which does seem appropriate in the present context. Evidently, this issue is not clear-cut. Deterence Talk 12:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- A better term is, as I said at the beginning, 'self-defense groups'. It is as neutral a term as I can find. It implies nothing about the nature of the defenders or the things against which they are defending. 'Self-defense' is often used as a neutral description for martial arts courses. It seems to me that it is by far the most neutral term to use.
"Self-defense groups" in the abstract is neutral, but as a long-time student of political violence I can assure you it isn't. For example, it is often connected, as term, with Death Squads Peasant_Self-Defense_Forces_of_Córdoba_and_Urabá. In the British context, it sounds like the English Defense League. Both tell us that "vigilante" is much less charged than "self-defense group". Nice try tho, we continue thinking hard we might get it. Has any RS used any other term? --Cerejota (talk) 12:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- No, the term 'self-defense group' does not sound like Death Squads or the English Defense League to anyone but you. You are just being childish. Stop pushing your left-wing views here. I'm talking about neutrality here, not your political analysis of the situation. 'People who have banded together for mutual protection' might also work, but I think it is a bit long-winded. 'Mutual protection groups' might also work. I still favour 'self-defense groups', though, for it clearly gives a feel of the nature of the group: one that is there to defend something. The idea is to be neutral and descriptive at the same time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.5.187.71 (talk) 12:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- I cannot agree that the term "Self-defense groups" conjures images of Death Squads. If anything, the term "self defence group" reminds me of the name chosen for Japan's military in the immediate aftermath of World War Two, where it was called the "Self Defence Force" at a time of extreme sensitivity. This suggests that the term is very neutral. Some may think I am stretching, here, which I would understand. Deterence Talk 12:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- As for death squads being a right-wing phenomena, that is clearly nonsense. Extremely authoritarian left-wing governments - Cuba, the Soviet Union, East Germany, Romania, Pol Pot's Cambodia, etc - were all infamous for their common use of "death squads". But, this is somewhat tangential to the matter at hand. Deterence Talk 12:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with you that death squads are not a right-wing phenomena. I was just a bit miffed that the English Defense League was brought into the discussion when it has no place here, as the debate is about the neutrality of the term 'vigilante' The only ones who ever seem to bring up the EDL as a pretext for not doing something seem to be those with left-wing views, so that's why I made the remark. You're right that it really hasn't anything to do with the discussion. So, how about either 'self-defense groups' or 'mutual protection groups'. Either, I think will work, although I still favour the first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.5.187.71 (talk) 12:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- I was about to suggest "organised Militia", but that's probably a bit strong given that the UK government banned 99.9% of the population from possessing guns as a knee-jerk reaction to the Dunblane Massacre. (I wonder how safe the gun-control advocates were feeling during the riots while the police abandoned entire neighbourhoods to burn and the civilians were left with no means to defend themselves against mobs of angry thugs roaming the streets outside their homes...) Regardless, while neither of your suggestions is perfect, they are both preferable to the emotive term "vigilante". Deterence Talk 13:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Organized militia is most certainly not neutral in the USA, where it is used by Militia movement and will immediately conjure in the readers images of the Oklahoma City bombing. So unless you want to smear the people defending their shops, it should be out of the question. In terms of death squads etc, I provided a link to a right-wing group from Colombia, it seems neither of you even bothered to read the name of the group. And my comparison to the EDL was on purpose, but not for the nefarious left-wing conspiracy dear anon has bought up, but because you do not want to imply similarity to the reader, or at least shouldn't - confusing the two is most definitive not NPOV.--Cerejota (talk) 13:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Speaking of smearing the people defending their shops, Cerejota, you do seem rather determined to smear them by the continued use of the term 'vigilante'. Two suggestions have been made here 'self-defense groups' and 'mutual protection groups'. If you favour the second, just say so. If you favour another term, just say so. Again, I think, though, you are overthinking the situation. No-one in Britain is going to associate 'self-defense groups' with the English Defense League simply because the word 'defense' is in both names. People are smarter than that. No-one outside of Britain would every associate the two because most likely hardly anyone outside of Britain even knows about the EDL, much less cares about them. And please, stop being so emotive. This is meant to be a simple discussion about the neutrality of a term. That's all. Let's keep this discussion neutral as well, shall we? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.5.187.71 (talk) 13:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- I am not seriously suggesting the use of the term "organised militia". Regardless, I was referring to the original militias of the United States from the time of the American Revolution, which were organised groups of armed civilians who banded together to protect their own communities. Remember, the first shots of the American Revolution were fired by the armed civilians of the organised militias of Lexington and Concord. Deterence Talk 13:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Funny, I'm British, and I knew exactly to which event you were referring. Perhaps I just don't think negatively enough for some here. At any rate, the term 'organised militia' isn't that bad, but I don't really it works here as most of the groups were of an informal nature. 'Ad hoc protection groups' might also work, thinking about it, as the term describes that informal nature. It's a neutral term, as far as I can tell. Or maybe even 'Ad hoc defense groups'. I don't think there's that much difference between the two. At any rate, we've spilled quite a few pixels here, let's make some sort of decision before the event gets too old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.5.187.71 (talk) 13:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'm a Kiwi (New Zealander) :-). I agree that the self defence groups that sprung-up during the UK riots are not sufficiently organised, nor sufficiently well-armed, to count as "organised militias". I also agree that the term "ad hoc" is appropriate. www.thefreedictionary.com defines "ad hoc" as, 1) "Formed for or concerned with one specific purpose", and 2) "Improvised and often impromptu". Deterence Talk 14:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- So has this been resolved? And in favour of which term? From one simple observation, a whole tree has grown, it seems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.5.187.71 (talk) 14:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Vigilante seems a fine term. When I saw it I thought citizens take the law in to their own hands. When I read the section that was what it was about. Using any other word will sound like Wikipedia is trying to be politically correct which equals censored. So what if the term is politcally charged. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 15:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'm so politically incorrect that I have a t-shirt. But, I don't see how suggesting changes to the words used in an article because their actual meaning might be literally misleading, as opposed to being merely insensitive or offensive, constitutes an exercise in political correctness. Deterence Talk 16:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Vigilante seems a fine term. When I saw it I thought citizens take the law in to their own hands. When I read the section that was what it was about. Using any other word will sound like Wikipedia is trying to be politically correct which equals censored. So what if the term is politcally charged. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 15:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- So has this been resolved? And in favour of which term? From one simple observation, a whole tree has grown, it seems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.5.187.71 (talk) 14:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'm a Kiwi (New Zealander) :-). I agree that the self defence groups that sprung-up during the UK riots are not sufficiently organised, nor sufficiently well-armed, to count as "organised militias". I also agree that the term "ad hoc" is appropriate. www.thefreedictionary.com defines "ad hoc" as, 1) "Formed for or concerned with one specific purpose", and 2) "Improvised and often impromptu". Deterence Talk 14:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Funny, I'm British, and I knew exactly to which event you were referring. Perhaps I just don't think negatively enough for some here. At any rate, the term 'organised militia' isn't that bad, but I don't really it works here as most of the groups were of an informal nature. 'Ad hoc protection groups' might also work, thinking about it, as the term describes that informal nature. It's a neutral term, as far as I can tell. Or maybe even 'Ad hoc defense groups'. I don't think there's that much difference between the two. At any rate, we've spilled quite a few pixels here, let's make some sort of decision before the event gets too old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.5.187.71 (talk) 13:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- I am not seriously suggesting the use of the term "organised militia". Regardless, I was referring to the original militias of the United States from the time of the American Revolution, which were organised groups of armed civilians who banded together to protect their own communities. Remember, the first shots of the American Revolution were fired by the armed civilians of the organised militias of Lexington and Concord. Deterence Talk 13:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Speaking of smearing the people defending their shops, Cerejota, you do seem rather determined to smear them by the continued use of the term 'vigilante'. Two suggestions have been made here 'self-defense groups' and 'mutual protection groups'. If you favour the second, just say so. If you favour another term, just say so. Again, I think, though, you are overthinking the situation. No-one in Britain is going to associate 'self-defense groups' with the English Defense League simply because the word 'defense' is in both names. People are smarter than that. No-one outside of Britain would every associate the two because most likely hardly anyone outside of Britain even knows about the EDL, much less cares about them. And please, stop being so emotive. This is meant to be a simple discussion about the neutrality of a term. That's all. Let's keep this discussion neutral as well, shall we? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.5.187.71 (talk) 13:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with you that death squads are not a right-wing phenomena. I was just a bit miffed that the English Defense League was brought into the discussion when it has no place here, as the debate is about the neutrality of the term 'vigilante' The only ones who ever seem to bring up the EDL as a pretext for not doing something seem to be those with left-wing views, so that's why I made the remark. You're right that it really hasn't anything to do with the discussion. So, how about either 'self-defense groups' or 'mutual protection groups'. Either, I think will work, although I still favour the first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.5.187.71 (talk) 12:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- No, the term 'self-defense group' does not sound like Death Squads or the English Defense League to anyone but you. You are just being childish. Stop pushing your left-wing views here. I'm talking about neutrality here, not your political analysis of the situation. 'People who have banded together for mutual protection' might also work, but I think it is a bit long-winded. 'Mutual protection groups' might also work. I still favour 'self-defense groups', though, for it clearly gives a feel of the nature of the group: one that is there to defend something. The idea is to be neutral and descriptive at the same time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.5.187.71 (talk) 12:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure why this debate is taking place. Is anyone here a lexicologist? Otherwise, vigilante as defined above would seem to be apt. Also, we're straying to a general discussion, I think. Pascal (talk) 17:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Indeed. I have not been able to find a single mention of self-defense (or even self-defence) groups in the media, in relation to these riots, whereas there are numerous references to vigilante groups. How did this discussion grow so large? Rubywine . talk 17:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- Speaking as an American, I find it very odd that anyone, especially the media, would refer to civilians defending themselves from looters and thugs as "vigilantes". That term has a very negative connotation here, and conjures up images of angry mobs breaking into jails and stringing up un-tried prisoners they thought must be guilty. I've seen more L.A. riots (up-close and personal) than I care to remember, and not once that I can recall were people defending their homes and businesses called "vigilantes" by the press. It would seem to me to be more like an insult than a neutral observation. Shirtwaist ☎ 03:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- Shirtwaist is right. The strong negative connotations of the term "vigilante" - vengeance, unlawfulness - are clear. The WP guidelines do not require Wikipedia to blindly embrace the sensationalist language of the media. Indeed, WP:NPOV demands that we exercise caution in this area. Deterence Talk 03:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- Speaking as an American, I find it very odd that anyone, especially the media, would refer to civilians defending themselves from looters and thugs as "vigilantes". That term has a very negative connotation here, and conjures up images of angry mobs breaking into jails and stringing up un-tried prisoners they thought must be guilty. I've seen more L.A. riots (up-close and personal) than I care to remember, and not once that I can recall were people defending their homes and businesses called "vigilantes" by the press. It would seem to me to be more like an insult than a neutral observation. Shirtwaist ☎ 03:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Neighbourhood Defence Groups?
I immediately declare that I am a former Enfield resident and am moving back at the end of the month. I do support these groups for the following reasons:
- There is a long-standing and, in my experience, justified history of a poor relationship between the police and the local community going back over more than 20 years. A protest march in 2010 had no real effect. The east side of Enfield is similar to the Tottenham area immediately to the south, a predominantly working class neighbourhood, with the exception that it does not have the overwhelmingly immigrant population and is much more conservative, a major armaments factory having been a major employer in the neighbourhood for many years. The west side is more affluent, including a significant Jewish neighbourhood which also has a track record of defending itself.
- The Home Secretary (Minister for the Interior) had already asked for citizen support for the Police. The Enfield group then formed, but was "kettled" by the police, making such cooperation nigh on impossible.
- The group came together after two nights of complete and utter failure by the Metropolitan Police to do anything significant to defend the town. Amongst other things, when the Sony distribution centre caught fire, the police were unaware that a hotel was immediately next door and that the measures they were undertaking would have forced the hotel guests and staff to stay indoors exposed to the fire jumping to their building.
- The term vigilante innevitably has connotations with the Death Wish series of films, which postulate a ficticious victim moving into proactive aggression. None of the groups have done so, and I am afraid I do find the use of the term personally offensive given the failure of the police to defend the neighbourhood. A vigilante group so close to the Tottenham Broadwater Farm estate which started this would have gone onto the attack. The Enfield group did not.
- On the other hand, a number of EDF members joined the group. However objectionable that may or may not be to your personal taste, it is an infraction of NPOV to comment on an individual's political affiliation, as long as it is not directly illegal and he is not engaged in politics as a politician.
- There appears to be a reverse-racist element to the accusation, as the ethnic groups, including one formed by the Turkish residents of Green Lanes immediately south of Enfield, were not accused of vigilanteism.
- English Law recognises, and indeed encourages, the right of the individual to use proportionate force to protect himself and his property: proportionate is nowhere defined. The Tony Martin case established limits to the right of an individual to defend himself in the absence of realistic police support, and in many respects the legal precedents continuously weakened this right thereafter: many argue that anything beyond verbal respresentation is inviting charges against the person defending himself. However, the Prime Minister has recently indicated that the sense of proportion should lie in the favour of the defendant, allowing him to use such force as lies to hand, not necessarily less than that he faces, but not going so far, for instance, as allowing him to shoot a retreating attacker in the back. Part of the underlying logic to this is that an attacker normally has had the opportunity to plan in advance and select his weaponry, whereas the defender has to improvisse in the face of a surprise attack.
- Prior to the establishment of the Police in the nineteenth century, English towns elected reeves responsible for the appointment of constables, often one per parish (whence the contraction of Shire-reeve into Sheriff). Prior to that the responsibility lay with the seneschal of the local Lord. This establishes a precedent for policing in thee absence of a Police force. None of these groups, however, appear to have elected or delegated authority, and are ad-hoc bodies which haave hopefully disbanded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.129.147.52 (talk) 09:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- That's very nice and all, but this isn't the place to have a general discussion about the topic. This section is for discussing the use of the term vigilantes, and is not about the vigilantes themselves. I'm pretty sure a consensus was reached. Pascal (talk) 09:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- What does "'kettled' by the police" mean? Deterence Talk 11:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- Kettling refers to the practice by police of containing large groups of people in a small area, ostensibly to prevent violence and chaos by people within the group. Usually, this leads to an increase in tension within the confined group, hence the name. Hope this helps. Pascal (talk) 13:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- What does "'kettled' by the police" mean? Deterence Talk 11:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Edit request - Stone Bottel
Please change "stone bottel" to "stone bottle" Ctrl + F + "stone bottel" 130.216.101.242 (talk) 20:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- Done, thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Edit request from 90.219.252.20, 10 August 2011
Manchester Riot Clean up was actually started by Jen Perry at 6pm on August 9th 2011 via Facebook, her page "Manchester Cleanup - Help." has had over 8,000 people supporting it, she then began to publish it on twitter along with Jeremy Myers who made a twitter to let people know about the clean up he got over 6,000 followers. Over 400 People turned up to help, Jen Perry and Jeremy Myers were both overwhelmed by the amount of people who turned up and are very proud.
90.219.252.20 (talk) 21:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- Not done: You will need to be more specific about what need changed and provide a reliable resource to verify it. Topher385 (talk) 21:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
"Sangat TV and Sikh Channel urged their viewers to protect Sikh temples, after a report that one as attacked in Birmingham.[237] On the intervening of 9 and 10 August 2011, following a series of violence, arson and rioting in London, the Sikhs of Southall volunteered to stand guard at various city Gurudwaras. As per reports as many as 200 to 300 Sikhs of mixed age groups gathered in various Gurudwaras across Southall to safeguard their place of worship from rioters.[238][239]"
"report that one as attacked"
This is meant to say report that one WAS attacked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.0.223 (talk) 02:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Fixed. violet/riga [talk] 08:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Edit request from MrBrunchtime, 11 August 2011
{{Edit semi-protected}} "wold have policy’s" -> "would have policies"
- Someone's fixed that. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Facebook incitement arrests
(copied from above)
There are two Scottish teenagers charged with encouraging other people to start rioting, and both are due for court appearances. [18] In my personal opinion, that is relevant. And I think we should also be mentioning the response of Alex Salmond in the Political Reactions section, and the criticisms that he has received for it. [19]Rubywine . talk 21:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- I fully support the inclusion of this content as relevant. It has been the subject of an edit war and the opinion of others would be very helpful. violet/riga [talk] 21:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- Let's wait for the conclusion of the court proceedings (we wouldn't want to prejudice anything would we) then if there is a link with riots in England established, and if the article has by then covered everything else of more or equal relevance, then we can reconsider it. FactController (talk) 22:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, we should maybe wait a bit. There have also been arrests for this in Cardiff, Wakefield, Wigan, Essex (I believe) and other places. This is an interesting phenomenon of the event (in addition to showing the scale of provocation), especially with regards to the debate surrounding social media, and should maybe be addressed in the sections we cover this in this article. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 00:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- We need to wait if we are to assert or imply guilt, or involvement in the riots in England (the current subject of this article). FactController (talk) 12:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- We do not - we simply state what people have been arrested/charged for. That in no way "assert[s] or impl[ies] guilt". Anyway, there are already numerous other arrests to do with this mentioned in the article... violet/riga [talk] 12:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- I said "if", as in the wording that I previously removed, which asserted and implied things that were not reliably verifiable, and which were not known facts. Do the other mentions of arrests have the same problem - so should be removed too? FactController (talk) 13:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- They are fine, so do you agree that the Scottish ones can be added? violet/riga [talk] 14:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- It depends on the wording. Put your suggested wording here for us to examine. FactController (talk) 16:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'm quite able to write things appropriately - I'll add it when I get back. violet/riga [talk] 17:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- I look forward to seeing it then . FactController (talk) 18:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- I see you've sneaked it in without bringing it here to get a consensus, or even opinion, on the wording. And you've got it wrong again. None of the references support that wording - no-one was arrested for "attempting" to do anything, the reasons didn't all involve riots. All the reports carefully avoid asserting or implying guilt. They say "allegedly" or "on suspicion of" and to "commit acts of disorder". Will you correct it, or do I have to risk a block by undoing it for you? FactController (talk) 21:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Can we be clear on this please... FactController, your objection citing BLP is irrelevant as nobody has been named or in any way identified. I believe therefore that your objection now is based only on "but this article is about England" and that people from Scotland (or Cardiff) cannot be mentioned. Surely that's not valid? violet/riga [talk] 12:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- You don't need to name someone for them to be identifiable. The sex, age, place, date, time and charge are probably adequate. FactController (talk) 12:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Please tell me the exact part of BLP to which you are referring. violet/riga [talk] 13:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- We could start with WP:BLPREMOVE. FactController (talk) 13:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Nope, not seeing a violation. violet/riga [talk] 14:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- If we assume that those implicated are still "living people", then how would we avoid a conflict with the policy? FactController (talk) 16:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Quick, remove everything related to a living person! I'm afraid your interpretation of the policy is incorrect. violet/riga [talk] 17:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- No, only stuff that violates the policy like this did originally and, unless you've dug out some RS sources to cover the previously unsupported assertions and strong implications, is likely to again. FactController (talk) 18:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Water cannon and baton rounds (again)
Slightly altered the misleading statement in the lead section that the police have now been "authorised" to use water cannon and baton rounds. The original text was inaccurate as the police did not need further authorisation, they already have the power to deploy these less-lethal weapons. As Hugh Orde has pointed out in the Graun (10 August 2011) (my italics): "While David Cameron today referred to some of the more extreme measures available to us, they are not new, and responsibility for their deployment remains entirely a matter for chief officers. There can be no confusion here at all; it is a fact that we cannot be ordered to police in a certain way..." Cameron initially took the credit for taking this 'tough stance' but later distanced himself and admitted that the police already had the necessary authority to deploy the cannons and plastic bullets. The recent announcement that the water cannon are available at 24 hours notice is purely one of logistics: all of the UK's water cannon vehicles are across the sea in Northern Ireland... hence around 24 hours away. See also the ACPO's Manual of Guidance on Keeping the Peace. Keristrasza (talk) 09:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Cameron is distancing himself from the "tough stance" that the police implemented on days 3 and 4 of the riots because he was receiving reports of how indiscriminate the police were being in their choice of targets for their brand of put-the-boot-in street-justice. Basically, all manner of innocent civilian was being targeted by police officers if they were caught in the wrong place at the wrong time - including home owners, business owners, civilians protecting their houses of worship, reporters and innocent by-standers. Deterence Talk 13:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
English spring
I think it should be proper instead of "England riot" to title the article "English spring", just like you did it in the case of North African popular riots - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring. There are too much similarities in both cases that we should not simply ignore. Thank you.
- Wikipedia doesn't "name" events such as this, it uses the name that reliable sources use. If those sources begin calling it eg English spring, the article would be changed to reflect this. Currently, however, the most commonly used name is England riots. Keristrasza (talk) 14:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Please verify your stance sir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.93.108.219 (talk) 18:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC) http://www.straight.com/article-419871/vancouver/gwynne-dyer-uk-riots-unleash-english-spring — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.93.108.219 (talk) 18:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Op/Eds or commentaries generally aren't considered reliable sources. You're not going to get very far with this point, b/c the simple fact is, there are no or very few reliable sources calling this an "English Spring". NickCT (talk) 18:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
"You're not going to get very far" sounds not so polite to me, sir. This discussion thread is full of private stances, as I can see. If UK PM is a relevant source, why it can't be Libyan PM too? Any objective answers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.93.108.219 (talk) 18:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- It's not the spring. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 18:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Encyclopedic answer, sir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.93.108.219 (talk) 19:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I think a more appropriate title would be "The Fall of England" --Tocino 22:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- The term "Arab Spring" is a glamorised name given to a once-in-a-lifetime series of pro-Democracy political revolutions that have occurred (and continue to occur - in Syria, for instance) in the Middle East. The wanton destruction and looting of teenage thugs in England don't even warrant mentioning in the same breath. Deterence Talk 02:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Some pertinent information seems to be missing
Hey guys, I'm from America where from time to time we have racial riots. So I read through the intro to this article and didn't see anything about the ethnic makeup of the rioters, so I just assumed (wrongly it turns out) that this incident was in no way racially motivated and that the rioters were not predominantly of one specific racial group. So I keep reading, and then I see the theories section that the victim was black--although it looks like a politically correct Wiki editor added something about how the rioters were made up of all races. Interesting. Ok, but maybe the rioters were made up of a proportionate mix of white, Asian and black hoodlums. Then I got to the pictures and it seems to show at least 95% of the rioters were black. So what's up? Is there a move afoot with this article to censor relevant information from the public? Because let me tell you, censoring information is not what Wikipedia is all about. JettaMann (talk) 13:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- I believe you are mistaken. There are no reliable sources yet offering a breakdown of participants into ethnic groups. The vast majority of the violent disorder - pretty much all of it except the first riot in Tottenham - has been unconnected to the death of Mark Duggan. Regarding pictures you may have seen, I have seen many pictures, eg those from Manchester, which showed only white participants in the disorder. Pictures are not facts, they are mere snapshots of a moment in time, and can be used to create a false impression as well as capture the truth... There is no censorship going on here, and no "politically correct" editing. Keristrasza (talk) 14:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, a great deal of the looters - criminal thugs, really - were black. It's just a fact, a neutral piece of information, or that's what it should be, but you know and I know, that these days, one is only allowed to mention the colour of skin of criminals if the criminals in question are white. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral, but it does have a reputation for being full of left-wing revisionist propaganda, and, looking at some of the articles and discussions, I have to say that there is more than a little truth to this. Sad, isn't it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.5.187.71 (talk) 14:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- I should add, an interesting report in today's Sydney Morning Herald, titled Stereotype of the underclass does not apply, describing the defendants in Highbury Court: "Most were teenagers or in their 20s, but a noticeable minority were older. They were predominantly white, and many had jobs." Keristrasza (talk) 14:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- If you have a reliable source - eg not Little Richardjohn et al - for your theory, then feel free to add the information. Keristrasza (talk) 14:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- I should add, an interesting report in today's Sydney Morning Herald, titled Stereotype of the underclass does not apply, describing the defendants in Highbury Court: "Most were teenagers or in their 20s, but a noticeable minority were older. They were predominantly white, and many had jobs." Keristrasza (talk) 14:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, a great deal of the looters - criminal thugs, really - were black. It's just a fact, a neutral piece of information, or that's what it should be, but you know and I know, that these days, one is only allowed to mention the colour of skin of criminals if the criminals in question are white. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral, but it does have a reputation for being full of left-wing revisionist propaganda, and, looking at some of the articles and discussions, I have to say that there is more than a little truth to this. Sad, isn't it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.5.187.71 (talk) 14:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- You know damn well that the this information will be difficult to impossible to find. That's how those who don't want the truth known control the press: they make it impossible to find out the information and then scream 'you haven't presented the clear statistics so you're wrong and we, who also haven't presented the statistics, are right, because we say that we are morally superior'. The looters, by and large, were black. If black people are offended by that fact, then they really should ask themselves why so many black people were out there looting. Instead of trying to suppress the truth, they should examine it and learn from it. No, that will never catch on: it's far easier to scream 'racism' and get do-gooders to suppress information than actually to do anything about the situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.5.187.71 (talk) 14:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Wikipedia operates on RS. If the information is impossible to find because it is supressed by the powers that be, then it's not going to be in our article. Ergo there's no point discussing it further. If you want to WP:Soapbox feel free to do it somewhere else Nil Einne (talk) 15:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- A lot of the rioters in Tottenham were black, because there's a lot of black people in Tottenham. Race certainly plays a role [...] But this was not a race riot; it included people from a range of backgrounds and ethnicities, who were without any unified ideological cause. [20], Normally we can cite race, gender, politics, sex etc as riot drivers ... this one is explicable only in its confusion [21], Race woes? Court tells a different story / Predominantly white, some from well-placed families [22] - there's plenty more.
- Most of the illegal activity was not politically motivated, nor racially motivated. It was, purely, crime, without any shred of justification.
- The media likes to try and come up with reasons, something to pin this on, something to shout about; the "race" angle is an easy one for them. We're not a tabloid, though. Chzz ► 14:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- The rioters are not attacking each other based on their race. They are rioting alongside each other. QuentinUK (talk) 07:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Ramifications to British Law
Police will be given powers to order people to remove face masks, hoods and scarves if there is a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/2011/08/11/uk-riots-david-cameron-backs-police-to-remove-yobs-face-masks-as-he-puts-cost-of-damage-at-200m-115875-23337061/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chief Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 14:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- The police already have power to order people to remove face masks, hoods and scarves. All that is posed is changing the circumstances in which they may do so are widened. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- The change to the circumstances is exactly that fact that there has been a law change it was on PMQ's, (Prime Minister Questions), live.
- Has been? I was under the impression it was only imposed. Wasn't the recalled parliament just for debate? Were laws actually passed? Nil Einne (talk) 17:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- No, it's just a proposal; or a politician's promise, if you prefer Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Has been? I was under the impression it was only imposed. Wasn't the recalled parliament just for debate? Were laws actually passed? Nil Einne (talk) 17:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- The change to the circumstances is exactly that fact that there has been a law change it was on PMQ's, (Prime Minister Questions), live.
Possible ramifications to British Law 2 - Possibility of tightening the law on the right to secure communications
right to secure communications Vs threat of people suspected of posting on-line messages that could inspire criminality http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/aug/11/david-cameron-rioters-social-media
Perhaps something on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chief Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 17:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL QuentinUK (talk) 07:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
POV re. shooting
I object to the very start of this article saying, "The fatal shooting of a 29-year-old man, Mark Duggan..." etc.
I believe this gives inappropriate bias, indicating that all the riots are directly related to the shooting. I think it is apparent that, although the shooting incident is certainly relevant, whether or not it was the direct cause of the entire thing is highly debatable.
In particular, in the lede we need to start off explaining what this article is all about. And it is not about the shooting; it's about the riots. Chzz ► 14:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, for goodness sake. It's bloody obvious that the events surrounding the shooting of Mark Duggan provided the catalyst from which the riots were spawned. There are literally thousands of WP:RSs that show this. Deterence Talk 15:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- I never said it was unconnected; merely that the article shouldn't start with it. See WP:BEGINNING. Chzz ► 17:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- I think it is fine; for comparison, our article on the 1992 Los Angeles riots quite properly starts with a mention of Rodney King as it is accepted that this event catalyzed the riots. This is what most reliable sources are saying about the London riots so it is proper that we follow the precedent I think. --John (talk) 18:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- The comparison with the LA riots of 1992, and their connection to the beating of Rodney King, is very appropriate. Deterence Talk 02:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- I agree that it is fine. Although subsequent rioting and looting has been totally criminal and copycat, Duggan's shooting - and (something which should appear somewhere in the article if it does not already) the failure of police to respond to his family's requests for information for 48 hours afterwards - was the spark that started the Tottenham riot. Rubywine . talk 11:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- Object all you want Chzz, pretty much all the reliable sources agree that was the direct precedent to the riots, and agree they started as a peaceful march turned into a localized riot that then spread like wildfire. We should present this neutrally, but I do not see how we can make this fact less prominent in the lede without a serious breach of chronological logic.--Cerejota (talk) 17:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- I agree that it is fine. Although subsequent rioting and looting has been totally criminal and copycat, Duggan's shooting - and (something which should appear somewhere in the article if it does not already) the failure of police to respond to his family's requests for information for 48 hours afterwards - was the spark that started the Tottenham riot. Rubywine . talk 11:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- The comparison with the LA riots of 1992, and their connection to the beating of Rodney King, is very appropriate. Deterence Talk 02:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- I think it is fine; for comparison, our article on the 1992 Los Angeles riots quite properly starts with a mention of Rodney King as it is accepted that this event catalyzed the riots. This is what most reliable sources are saying about the London riots so it is proper that we follow the precedent I think. --John (talk) 18:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- I never said it was unconnected; merely that the article shouldn't start with it. See WP:BEGINNING. Chzz ► 17:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Timelines
The timelines of this article need to be carefully reviewed.
Listed under 10th August is the attack on a man in Ealing when it was in fact on the 8th: [23]
The item regarding Wolverhampton with the link to the guardian article was reporting on facts from the 9th August NOT the 10th. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.151.162 (talk) 14:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Causes section
The following quote in the causes section is irrelevant because we do not have a Conservative government, but a coalition government (of which Nick Clegg is part of)
"In April 2010 Nick Clegg predicted riots would occur amidst increasing inequality under a Conservative government."
I believe this should be removed.
Also, as per the request prior to re-organising of the discussion page, I think that the causes section could do with writing out rather than being in list form.--Jonesy1289 (talk) 15:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- I removed it as a WP:Syn violation. The only source is from April 2010 so there's no established relevence to this article Nil Einne (talk) 17:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
£200 Million of cost
Under the title Property damage, it should give the estimated cost so far, more than 200 million pounds ($323 million).
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/11/us-britain-riots-cost-idUSTRE77A46920110811
Arson, criminal damage, theft as the means of damage, and by the effects of some business's closing earlier on the days that rioting occurred and those still closing early in the effected areas.
It should give details of who is picking up the bill. Government, Insurers, Police etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chief Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 16:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Lenient Sentencing
Stephen Kavanagh, Metropolitan Police's Deputy Assistant Commissioner, "some of his colleagues were disappointed with the punishments handed out so far to looters."
This should go under Police title of Reactions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chief Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 16:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Before we jump to commentary about the appropriateness of the punishments handed to the looters/rioters, we need some examination of how the police are distinguishing the looters/rioters from the innocent by-standers/home-owners/business-owners who happen to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. There are numerous reports of the police just charging in to trouble-spots and dealing to anyone they can grab. Deterence Talk 02:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Unprotected
This article has now been unprotected. If anyone here feels that it needs protecting again do let me know or discuss it here. Hopefully it'll all be fine. violet/riga [talk] 18:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Alternatively, you can file a request for protection at WP:RFP, where an WP:UNINVOLVED admin will take a look and act according to the Wikipedia Protection Policy. 62.50.199.254 (talk) 22:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Nick Clegg did predict a riot here is the proof
Sky News, April 11, 2010 Watch http://news.sky.com/home/politics/article/15599056 or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YItK1izQIwo
From 36 seconds in to 52 seconds
Nick Clegg: "There is a danger in having any government of whatever composition led by a party which doesn't have a proper mandate across the country try to push through really difficult decisions - I think a lot of people will react badly to that... [when asked about riots in the streets] I think there is a very serious risk."
In the same report 113 seconds in
David Cameron: "I think it's rather a silly thing to say, frankly."
This is not a WP:Syn violation I have not combined material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chief Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 18:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Does Nick Clegg think that the present coalition government doesn't "have a proper mandate"? Not that it matters really. Unless you can find WP:RS making the same link between what Clegg said then, and events now, it can't go into the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2833334.html. But I don't think it should go in. Fences&Windows 19:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Saw that too. I do not think we'll find him saying "i told you so" or any media organization saying "he told us so." Not yet anyway.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chief Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 19:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that counts as a prediction. Let's face it, just about every politician occasionally tries to grab a few headlines by predicting "popular resistance" and "rioting in the streets" if the policies they're passionately objecting to go ahead. Every left-wing politician in England has predicted rioting at one time or another - eventually, some of them are going to be proven "right". Deterence Talk 02:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that 'Nick Clegg' and 'left-wing' belong in the same sentence, but whatever... He may well have said this, but there is enough wiggle-room for it not being worth the media bringing up, so they won't, so we can't. A non-issue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- I wasn't trying to make the point that Nick Clegg is left-wing, but I can see how my comment could have been read that way. My point was that politicians and political activists using political rhetoric to predict that the people will rise up and riot in the streets is relatively common, especially among those left-wingers who feel that they represent the proletariat. So, perhaps a little caution is appropriate before we attribute the powers of prophecy to such "predictions" when riots do occur once in a generation. Deterence Talk 09:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that 'Nick Clegg' and 'left-wing' belong in the same sentence, but whatever... He may well have said this, but there is enough wiggle-room for it not being worth the media bringing up, so they won't, so we can't. A non-issue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that counts as a prediction. Let's face it, just about every politician occasionally tries to grab a few headlines by predicting "popular resistance" and "rioting in the streets" if the policies they're passionately objecting to go ahead. Every left-wing politician in England has predicted rioting at one time or another - eventually, some of them are going to be proven "right". Deterence Talk 02:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- Saw that too. I do not think we'll find him saying "i told you so" or any media organization saying "he told us so." Not yet anyway.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chief Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 19:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
What andy said.--Cerejota (talk) 09:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- Irrelevant. He was anticipating the 2011 London anti-cuts protest. This is something completely different. danno 21:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
underage rich White kids charged with theft during riots.
This is clearly important.
These are white, rich, juveniles engaging in looting and theft, contrary to popular assertions that all the thieves are afro carribean blacks or poor people. the source is the daily telegraph, so its reliable. These incidents need to be added to the article, not just becasue of the race of the looters, but because they are underage and rich students so its notable.Maxi Craters (talk) 03:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, it is of note that there are non-africans rioting but that would be inferring that the majority are african which is expressly forbidden above. I can't say that the ethnicities of rioters has matched the national population (specifically ~1% african). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.22.241 (talk) 05:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- Most of the riotors are wearing hoods and/or masks and the video footage is of generally poor quality. I'm not sure how anyone can ascertain an accurate count of the racial mix of the rioters from the video footage alone. Perhaps an examination of the race of those being processed by the Courts would be more accurate. Deterence Talk 10:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Judging from TV footage and press photos
Judging from TV footage and press photos-
- Tottenham and Brixton were Blacks against Whites and Asians.
- West Bromwich and Harmsworth were Whites against Asians.
- Croydon was Whites and Blacks against Whites and Orientals.
- Barking was Whites against Orientals.
- Nottingham was White against White.
whilst all the rest was multi-ethnic chaos and anarchy.Wipsenade (talk) 09:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Not sure if Iran is trolling...
- 11 August 2011, Iran ready to send peacekeepers to UK, Press TV Iran
"Commander of Iran's Basij Force says it is ready to deploy peacekeeper forces in London as the unrest in the British capital drags on despite tightened security measures. .. “Unfortunately the crimes and violence of the autocratic British kingdom continues against the country's deprived [population] and not only the advice of well-wishers has no effect on the conduct of the regime's repressive police force but we witness the deprived people of this country are being called a bunch of thieves and looters,” he regretted... “If the UN General Assembly approves, the Basij Organization is ready to send a number of Ashura and al-Zahra brigades to Liverpool and Birmingham as peacekeepers to monitor observation of human rights laws and deter use of force,” he added. "
Unsure of whether this is notable enough, but it certainly seems to be Iran rubbing it in the UK's face. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 06:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- Notable or not, that was bloody funny. With more than a hint of poignancy Deterence Talk 09:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- Iran is undoubtedly trolling and rubbing it in the UK's face. It is darkly amusing at the UK's expense, and it is notable, but since these self-styled comedians are also perpetrators of all manner of human rights violations, tortures, stonings to death, etc, then if it is included in the article, it needs some RS commentary to preserve NPOV. Rubywine . talk 11:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Oh, but there's more!
- 11 August 2011, Libya says Irish, Scottish mercenaries tame UK riots, Reuters UK
- "The rebels of Britain approach Liverpool in hit-and-run battles with Cameron's brigades and mercenaries from Ireland and Scotland. God is Greatest," said a breaking news caption on Libyan TV's morning program.
- 10 August 2011, UK riots: Cameron must go, says Libya, news24
- "Cameron and his government must leave after the popular uprising against them and the violent repression of peaceful demonstrations by police," official news agency Jana quoted Deputy Foreign Minister Khaled Kaaim as saying... "These demonstrations show that the British people reject this government which is trying to impose itself through force."
I guess right now would be the perfect time for Libya and Iran to make their PR strikes. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 09:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Convictions
We should probably trim down the arrests sections and talk about charges. A good article here detailing the greater than normal sentences being handed out for minor crimes including six months in jail for a first offence of stealing £3.50 of water.--Pontificalibus (talk) 07:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- The "offence of stealing £3.50 of water" was aggravated to a large extent by the fact that the water was stolen while the defendant was rampaging through the streets as part of a violent and destructive mob that wantonly attacked innocent people and damaged private property. The Courts are obliged, under sentencing guidelines, to take aggravating and mitigating circumstances into consideration when sentencing. Deterence Talk 09:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- Deterence, this comment and pretty much of all your recent comments are what we call soapboxing (please click to see what I mean). While it is certainly valid to challenge other editor's views, the only goal in an article's talk page is to improve the encyclopedia. Pontificalibus offered an opinion that is backed by what reliable sources are saying. I remind you that we deal in verifiability, not truth and push aside original research, which means that regardless of the reality is, or what an editor's view (no matter how learned, correct or true they are) is irrelevant when it comes to including or excluding content.
- While your observations might be accurate, it would be more correct is you provided us with a reliable source that backed your view on the greater sentences - which would be an interesting addition to the article and an alternative framework to what Pontificalibus suggests. Otherwise, all we have to go on is what Pontificalibus provided, which suggests we should follow Pontificalibus proposal of reworking the arrests section and focusing on the charges.--Cerejota (talk) 09:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- Seriously? Are you the ONLY person on the planet who hasn't figured out that the "greater than normal sentences being handed out for minor crimes" are the result of the aggravating circumstances provided by the worst rioting in England in the last 30 years? Do you REALLY need a WP:RS for that? Time for you to step away form the keyboard. Regardless, I wasn't challenging Pontificalibus's comment. I was helping him/her out by providing a little insight into the legal mechanics of the point he raised. Deterence Talk 10:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- Pontificalibus' comment implies to me that he/she did not consider it worth stating the obvious (the aggravating circumstances) within the context of this talk page, and reasonably so. Since we cannot assume that every reader is a reasonably well-informed adult, I think Cerejota is correct - there's a need to supply a reliable source to support the viewpoint. I doubt there'll be any shortage of such sources in the days and weeks to come. Also, try to be a little more courteous. Remember that not everyone is a native English speaker. Rubywine . talk 12:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- We need an WP:RS for anything that might be questioned or not understood by our readers - for example in the United States, mitigating and aggravating circumstances are significantly different in jurisprudence and law of the land than in England - in many jurisdictions crimes committed during a riot are not subject to aggravating circumstances. Likewise in many countries. Again, "While your observations might be accurate, it would be more correct is you provided us with a reliable source". Its about what you know or I know, its about verifiability, not truth. Those are the rules of the house.
- We are writing an encyclopedia article, not a news item, and we are not a paper encyclopedia; we neither make assumptions on the knowledge of our readers on any topic, nor are limited in terms of the actual space we can devote to increasing their knowledge. As this history get written - and much ado is made about people going to jail for 6 months for stealing a water bottle - it is important for our readers to have trustworthy information so they can make their own minds up. Trustworthy information is only provided by reliable sources, not the genius, or lack thereof, of random wikipedia editors such as yourself or myself. --Cerejota (talk) 16:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, I stopped reading when you said Wikipedia is not about the "truth". Deterence Talk 22:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- Why? wikipedia is not about what you think is the truth and this is a long-established policy. If you do not like that then perhaps you should consider a better forum. Reliable sources aren't hard to find. Metal lunchbox (talk) 23:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- The moment that people start to rally behind impassioned soapboxing about how the truth has no place in Wikipedia, you know something is seriously broken around here. Deterence Talk 03:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- The critical distinction that you're missing here is the one between "the truth" and "what you think is the truth". If it were so clear and simple, we would not have policy like WP:V. If this debate floats your boat you might get some joy from reading its talk page, and recent archive pages thereof. There's been a bit of a ding dong about this treasured, long standing principle going on there for quite a while now. Rubywine . talk 04:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'm an epistemological subjectivist. I should probably steer clear of discussions about the nature of truth ;-) Regardless, while WP:RSs are clearly necessary for content added to the main article, we are not required to be quite so precious about the contributions in the talk pages where helpful editors are merely giving advice and information for the sake of consensus building. Productive discussions would soon wallow in stagnation if every snippet of insight required a thesis of references. Deterence Talk 04:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- The critical distinction that you're missing here is the one between "the truth" and "what you think is the truth". If it were so clear and simple, we would not have policy like WP:V. If this debate floats your boat you might get some joy from reading its talk page, and recent archive pages thereof. There's been a bit of a ding dong about this treasured, long standing principle going on there for quite a while now. Rubywine . talk 04:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- The moment that people start to rally behind impassioned soapboxing about how the truth has no place in Wikipedia, you know something is seriously broken around here. Deterence Talk 03:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- Why? wikipedia is not about what you think is the truth and this is a long-established policy. If you do not like that then perhaps you should consider a better forum. Reliable sources aren't hard to find. Metal lunchbox (talk) 23:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, I stopped reading when you said Wikipedia is not about the "truth". Deterence Talk 22:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- Pontificalibus' comment implies to me that he/she did not consider it worth stating the obvious (the aggravating circumstances) within the context of this talk page, and reasonably so. Since we cannot assume that every reader is a reasonably well-informed adult, I think Cerejota is correct - there's a need to supply a reliable source to support the viewpoint. I doubt there'll be any shortage of such sources in the days and weeks to come. Also, try to be a little more courteous. Remember that not everyone is a native English speaker. Rubywine . talk 12:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- Seriously? Are you the ONLY person on the planet who hasn't figured out that the "greater than normal sentences being handed out for minor crimes" are the result of the aggravating circumstances provided by the worst rioting in England in the last 30 years? Do you REALLY need a WP:RS for that? Time for you to step away form the keyboard. Regardless, I wasn't challenging Pontificalibus's comment. I was helping him/her out by providing a little insight into the legal mechanics of the point he raised. Deterence Talk 10:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
How many arrested
The intro says 1100+ people have been arrested in total. The infobox says 1500+ arrested in total. Both statements quote the same source http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/10/london-riots-spark-copycat-birmingham a Guardian article which mentions 1100 but not 1500. I know the number may increase with time but both figures suggest it's the total so far and use the same source, this is incorrect. Surely it should state it was 1100 at a given date, and the 1500 if true should have a correct source and also be in the intro. Or the 1500 should be changed if not true. Carlwev (talk) 13:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Grosvenor Square
Does 1968 Grosvenor Square count? BBC Article on Grosvenor Square--Kitchen Knife (talk) 14:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Circular Causation
In "Causes", criminal behaviour is is cited as the primary reason for criminal behaviour. This is circular and contributes nothing to the section. I would expect the underlying causes to largely be the barriers to social advancement or personal betterment that these young people are faced with. They're acting like people with nothing to lose and that should be explored. 68.145.117.39 (talk) 16:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- While circular, this seems to be about right. Agathoclea (talk) 17:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- Agathoclea, by definition, circular arguments are right. They're tautologies. But, that doesn't mean they're informative. Deterence Talk 04:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Lede edit war
I highly recommend people stop edit warring on the lede. That already has caused the article to be protected once already. Please discuss the different versions and develop consensus for your changes. This edit war is silly, and is almost amounts to vandalism if no discussion happens. Lets focus on quality, please. --Cerejota (talk) 18:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Press comments summary: Fri 12 Aug 2011
What looks like a useful summary by The Independent may be of interest if anyone has time. Unfortunately links to the pieces aren't given. --Trevj (talk) 22:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Deletion of See also
AndyTheGrump, you've just deleted the See Also section on the grounds that it is being used to push POV articles. Examining it, I found the articles listed in it immediately before your reversion/deletion edit combo were
- List of people killed by law enforcement officers in the United Kingdom
- Race riots
- Riots
- Urban riots
Obviously people will take different views. There's only one of those I'd consider to be POV (Race riots) and even that one is much less problematic placed in the "See also" section than it would have been if the text had asserted that the 2011 England riots were race riots. Also for an article of this size I think a "See also" section is helpful in guiding people to other major related articles - not all of which were listed, but they could have been added later. What exactly was your problem with this section, or more particularly, with each of these links? Rubywine . talk 02:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- I suspect that some people may also see the 'List of people killed by law enforcement officers in the United Kingdom' link as problematic - the article isn't about the death of Mark Duggan as such. But no, the real problem with a 'see also' section in articles like this is that you can put almost anything into it - I removed it earlier after someone began it with the French 2005 riots article - because you could equally have included almost any other British riot in the last 50 years, along with many riots elsewhere. As our MoS notes, 'a good article might not require a "See also" section at all' - if something is obviously relevant, it should be included in the article text, as an online wikilink, and if it isn't obviously relevant, then including it in an open-ended list achieves little. It is possible that a limited 'see also' section might be justified as and when the article reaches a more mature state, but for now it will just encourage linking to topics of questionable relevance - in my opinion. We have a real problem with maintaining a NPOV in the article text as it is, without adding a push-your-POV-here section - and one, it should be noted, where one needs not make any claim to notability, relevance, or anything else to add links. In a rapidly-evolving article, anything added needs to be subject to proper scrutiny, and weighed against sources - not left open to the whims of editors. I think most of our readers are capable of typing 'riots' into a search box in any case. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- According to WP:SEEALSO, "Links included in the "See also" section may be useful for readers seeking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question." This article is primarily about rioting and looting. While Race riots, Riots and Urban riots clearly belong in the See Also section of the main article, the link to List of people killed by law enforcement officers in the United Kingdom is more appropriate for the See Also section of the article on the Death of Mark Duggan. Deterence Talk 03:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- Andy, I would agree with Deterence, although not on Race riots. It took me a while to locate the relevant article in the Manual of Style, since my search kept running into humongous "See also" sections in the MoS. Then I finally found WP:SEEALSO and discovered that you've cherry picked your quote, to say the least. The guidance is distinctly different to what you've said. Basically, I have a very different take on this. There are articles about other urban riots in recent history, and previous British riots, that don't fit naturally into the article text but do belong in a See also section. These include 2005 civil unrest in France for the very reason that it provides such a sharp contrast; which is probably why the editors of "See also" in that article saw fit to link to this one. This is a question of editorial judgement, and yes the decision about each link should be subject to scrutiny, but that's far better done on this talk page than by unilateral deletion of the entire "See also" section. It's not a matter of urgency, but I think the section should be restored. Rubywine . talk 04:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- Given that the 2011 England riots were not race riots, I agree that the link to Race riots could probably be left out of the See Also section. As for me cherry-picking my quote, I provided only the most relevant sentence from the section (for the sake of brevity) along with a link to WP:SEEALSO so editors could read it all for themselves. Deterence Talk 04:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- Andy, I would agree with Deterence, although not on Race riots. It took me a while to locate the relevant article in the Manual of Style, since my search kept running into humongous "See also" sections in the MoS. Then I finally found WP:SEEALSO and discovered that you've cherry picked your quote, to say the least. The guidance is distinctly different to what you've said. Basically, I have a very different take on this. There are articles about other urban riots in recent history, and previous British riots, that don't fit naturally into the article text but do belong in a See also section. These include 2005 civil unrest in France for the very reason that it provides such a sharp contrast; which is probably why the editors of "See also" in that article saw fit to link to this one. This is a question of editorial judgement, and yes the decision about each link should be subject to scrutiny, but that's far better done on this talk page than by unilateral deletion of the entire "See also" section. It's not a matter of urgency, but I think the section should be restored. Rubywine . talk 04:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Andy, you are serious in your edit summary? It seems like you need to recharge your AGF battery, because launching into accusations of POV pushing without evidence is surely a failure to AGF. That said, I disagree strongly with your assessment of the situation - there was no attempt on my part to push any POV. I just found it weird that unlike the bulk of the articles in wikipedia, this lacks a see also and dropped some stuff into it, including a List article I recently created.
I think that see also's, and WP:SEEALSO backs me completely, are very good ways to separate this article from a news article, in that it provides encyclopedic depth and contextualizes events in the wider world, and goes into our wealth of encyclopedic knowledge to enrich the knowledge of our readers. They should be present whenever possible and needed, which I have found to be nearly always. Your argument "ad absurdum" that we would have to include every British riot in the last 50 years is put to rest by the existence of a conveniently placed navbox that highlights the most notable events regarding riots in the United Kingdom - I think you might have missed it, but its right there in the bottom of the article. So there is no possibility of the see also becoming a problem in this sense. The other arguments seem more like a philosophical opposition to See Also's in general, rather than an specific criticism of any particular one -even when you mention particular ones. I am sure that if you have a philosophical opposition to See Alsos in general, the place to vent it is not here - but in the talk page of the appropriate MOS.
What would a "see also" include in this article? For starters, to reflect notable and reliably sourced views that compare this event to others, Such as this piece by Dominique Moïsi in the Financial Times, without giving these views undue weight in the article - precisely address issues of neutrality in a way that is encyclopedic, rather than journalistic, which is what your proposal of complete deletion of the section feels like. That said, I see the point on the inclusion of the list, but the cause of the Tottenham riot is directly related to the police killing a man - that is an issue of *this* event to, as the Tottenham riot was the riot that sparked all the other. That is information that provides historic context that has no other space to go in this article than a See Also. And any other addition we can discuss, as well as removals.
I see many problems with the article, in particular the lack conscientiousness of not discussing edits, the incredible amount of redundant sources, the lede and its utter lack of any making of sense and looking more like a tabloid lede rather than an encyclopedia lede, and of course, the NPOV battle, etc. The See also has neither been a source of problems, nor the "problems" it might create cannot be solved by discussion and consensus.
That said, I am restoring the section, and restoring the links, and will revert to my limit as per 3RR, unless substantial, non-philosophical opposition to each item is given. --Cerejota (talk) 05:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
David Starkey comments: "the whites have become black"
This contribution from historian David Starkey has received significant media coverage, eg:
- In an appearance on BBC2's Newsnight, Starkey spoke of "a profound cultural change" and said he had been re-reading Enoch Powell's rivers of blood speech. "His prophesy was absolutely right in one sense. The Tiber did not foam with blood but flames lambent, they wrapped around Tottenham and wrapped around Clapham," he said. "But it wasn't inter-community violence. This is where he was absolutely wrong." Gesturing towards one of the other guests, Owen Jones, who wrote Chavs: the Demonisation of the Working Classes, Starkey said: "What has happened is that a substantial section of the chavs that you wrote about have become black.", Ben Quinn, The Guardian, 13 August 2011
- Dr David Starkey attacked for racial explanation of London riots, Nico Hines, The Times, 13 August 2011
- "The substantial section of the chavs have become black, the whites have become black," he told Newsnight on BBC 2. "A particular sort of violent, destructive, nihilistic gangster culture has become fashion, and the black and white, boy and girl, operate in this language together." "This language is wholly false. It is a Jamaican patois that has intruded in England, which is why so many of us have this sense that we are literally living in a foreign country." "It is about black culture, that is the enormously important thing, it is not skin colour, it is culture.", Inderdeep Bains, Daily Mail, 13 August 2011