Talk:2011 England riots

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. --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)

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 --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)

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)

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)

• 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".' [13] --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.

• BBC: England riots: Maps and timeline
• Guardian: UK riots: the key facts and figures
• Telegraph: London riots: all incidents mapped in London and around the UK
• and the Independent just calls them "Riots".

Rubywine . talk 13:08, 11 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 [[14]]. --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. [15] 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. [16]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)

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)

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)

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)

Much appreciated. Deterence ^Talk 12:57, 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.

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.

"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)

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

"wold have policy’s" -> "would have policies"

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. [17] 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. [18]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 do not need to wait for the court proceedings to conclude to report arrests, in particular ones that stand out as having encyclopedic value such using new media.--Cerejota (talk) 10:42, 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)

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)

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)

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)

(edit conflict)

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. [19], Normally we can cite race, gender, politics, sex etc as riot drivers ... this one is explicable only in its confusion [20], Race woes? Court tells a different story / Predominantly white, some from well-placed families [21] - 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)

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.

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)

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: http://www.ealinggazette.co.uk/ealing-news/local-ealing-news/2011/08/09/riots-police-appeal-after-man-left-in-critical-condition-64767-29208913/

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)

£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.