Talk:2011 England riots/Archive 6

Double redirects via 2011 London riots

FYI, there are a bunch of double redirects (redirects going into 2011 London riots), as can be seen here. I fixed a big one that Google News was linking to, but the others need fixing too, preferably by a bot. —AySz88\^-^ 18:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Should all be fixed now - this really must be done when a page is moved, especially a high traffic one like this. violet/riga _^[talk] 18:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Source for Wolverhampton firework incident

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qy7uoJRGmAw 94.0.216.181 (talk) 19:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

That's not a valid citation; please see WP:RS. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

4th Night of Riots

According to this the riots are occurring again in Birmingham. Will there be a night section for 9 August, or will information go somewhere different? -Marcusmax(speak) 19:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Clear POV Misjudgment – Polite?

Near the beginning, under a subheading entitled, "Protest march" we find the following text with three in-line citations at the end of the second sentence:

On 6 August, a protest was held, initially peacefully, beginning at Broadwater Farm and finishing at Tottenham police station.[30] The protest was organised by friends and relatives of Duggan to make polite requests for justice for the family.[7][31][32]

I immediately smelled a rat at the use of the word "polite." A polite protest is nearly an oxymoron (okay, maybe Canadians could pull one off.) So I read each of the three in-line citations in their entirety. The concept of polite is neither explicitly nor implicitly suggested in any of these sourced press articles. Indeed, any description of the marchers uniformly uses the word protest along with burn, loot, throwing missiles, etc. One of the articles did mention several people laying down in the street. No article mentioned any family members or relatives. One article did mention one friend of the family. I fully expect that the owners, excuse me, the moderators of this page to ignore this POV violation. I would have liked the 300 "protesters" to have made a polite inquiry in place of the violence that actually occurred. But this is not what happened. In no way does the word "polite" were present a neutral point of view of what did happen. In no way do the in-line citations support that characterization. It needs to be changed or just omitted.--Da5id403 (talk) 20:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done —Half Price 20:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

According to The Guardian the original protest was peaceful and civil but got hi-jacked by an influx of rioters:

Some who were present described seeing a younger, more aggressive crowd arrive around dusk, some carrying weapons. "These people were prepared," said Bill Dow, a bystander. "They had fireworks and petrol cans."

ARK (talk) 21:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Further free images

Here are a few which could be incorporated either now or in the future: Carpetright store after Tottenham riots.jpg, 2011 London riot police push rioters in Camden.jpg, 2011 London riot police in Lewisham.jpg. --Trevj (talk) 20:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I found this one on Flickr that I particularly like, though I will leave it to the editors here to decide if or how they would like to use it Building damaged by 2011 riots in Clapham.jpg. Daniel Case (talk) 21:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, my contribution to this: uploaded several from different angles, you can choose whatever seems to be most impressive: Sherwood Gardens Riots 08, Sherwood Gardens Riots 02, Sherwood Gardens Riots 04, Sherwood Gardens Riots 05. They had 4 cars set alight in one place and they were not removed the following day, so got lucky with shots. Senseiich (talk) 21:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Riot locations for map

class=notpageimage|

Location of all events mentioned in article for August 6 and August 7: Red = August 6, Yellow = August 7

class=notpageimage|

Location of all events mentioned in article for August 8

I'm looking to get a map generated per the request at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Map workshop#England riots. Or perhaps more accurately, a set of maps - a London-specific and a national map. It will be much easier for me if there's a simple list of London Boroughs and other cities affected (with a source for each please!).

Also, the map to the right uses {{location map+}} to show two of the locations mentioned. The wiki-markup should be easy enough to extend to show dozens of points. I can assist if its unclear how to encode the data.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Wonderful idea, there are sections within the article already about which London boroughs and districts have been affected. You can view them by date:

• 6 August
• 7 August
• 8 August
• 9 August

I wonder if it makes sense to do a separate map per date, otherwise the map might be overpopulated. -Marcusmax(speak) 21:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm inclined to seperate by date. The reason I have requested boroughs, as opposed locations is that better translates to filling in the areas on the appropriate blank map. At a quick read through I couldn't identify which boroughs have been affected from the list of locations. I'll go through more thoroughly later and try to update map to right (seperating dates if necessary).--Nilfanion (talk) 22:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I've updated the map to include all locations mentioned in the article (that have articles) for the 6th and 7th. There are some very close together of course, because Enfield Town and Enfield Town railway station are both mentioned - therefore Selecting pruning may be sensible.

This process can be continued onto the 8th and 9th, but as the events start to get much more widespread then it will take a lot more effort to analyse the coordinates.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not particularly happy about the inclusion criteria either (being mentioned in article), I'd rather be using the sources directly. I suggest setting up a table on a subpage such as Talk:2011 England riots/map to include date, location, and latitude/longitude. That will make map generation easier.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Great work here. I'm reluctant to include it in the article until we have one showing other locations outside of London to go with it. The subpage co-ordination idea is a good one. violet/riga _^[talk] 23:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The England wide map would work on same principle - just using {{location map England}} instead. As it stands, the map to right could be used to illustrate the sections on August 6 and August 7, which are London only.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Added map to right showing all non-London locations on August 8. The points in Scotland demonstrate why we need to work out proper inclusion criteria "arresting teenagers for inciting disorder on Facebook" is not the same as "rioters throwing missiles", we also should be using the point location of the actions not that of the locality (if that makes sense).--Nilfanion (talk) 10:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I've split this discussion off to a subpage at Talk:2011 England riots/map, as that will better enable creation/discussion of the maps without clashing with everything else here.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Carpetright

We now have the Carpetright store on a video, and a picture in the infobox; yet nothing about it in the article. It's significant, both as a prominent older building (1930; Co-Op) and because of the number of homes that were lost when it burned. Can anyone add something, or at least suggest sources, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Dagenham did not have any fires of any description!

I live in dagenham have friends and family in the police force and fire services and NO fires were in Dagenham

The 'London Borough of Barking and Dagenham' is the local authority and not an umbrella name of the area. They are two seperate towns with different postcodes.

Barking had 3 major fires in the late hours of the 8th August 2011 and the early hours of 9th August 2011, however Dagenham is a seperate town altogether and did not experience any violence or arson whatsoever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.171.129.78 (talk) 21:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Archiving sections, using auto-archive, and moving/hiding valid criticism of this article

I made a couple of comments yesterday on name changing this article which are still valid, and it's been scroll-archived despite being a very short section. Why scroll it up when it's still 100% relevant? We need to read the arguments that people give. I've noticed that the general page archive has been set to 3 days too. Over-archiving can actually lead to needless repetition and useful debate getting lost - so please be careful there too. I've actually had all my criticism regarding this article quite-quickly 'moved' in some way, and have not been allowed to properly review the 'speedy keep' on this article either. Which means that I'm still searching for somewhere to debate this article's suitability for Wikipedia without being called "disruptive" - ie which is not in a dusty corner somewhere where we all know that nothing ever happens. AfD is supposed to be made for the job (ie the debate takes place elsewhere and the article remains alive), but in all my years on Wikipedia I've never seen it being controlled like this.

Can people please respect that not every Wikipedian feels that Wikipedia has a 'duty' to report on breaking news, or indeed does anything but risk real damage in taking this roll upon itself. The various contributors here are not trained journalists (ie for live news). All the arguments I've heard pro this article are to do with 'NO censorship' (that old chestnut) and people "needing and expecting to know". The answer to people's search for news is obviously to go to professional news outlets and look there instead. Everyone is covering it - far too many to do this properly on the fly, even if it was a suitable and harmless thing for Wikipedia to do. Recycling news - and dealing intelligently with weight and 'context removal' esp - is dangerous in these kind of circumstances, and the argument that the internet is partly leading the way (and fanning the flames) is surely as valid for Wikipedia as it is for Twitter or the Guardian. But Wikipedia is not supposed to be a news agency or a social networking site. I can see no excuse for this article apart from being part of a wider move for Wikipedia to become a current events site, and the massive amount of page views is far more alarming than something to be proud of in my opinion. And despite what I keep seeing suggested, I am a long-standing and genuine Wikipedian too (if rather 'old school' it seems) - so I simply have a right to say this. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for restating your views. Hopefully we can move on and you will now accept the inclusion of this article. violet/riga _^[talk] 22:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

You've already had attention on this matter on your talk page and elsewhere; and on the former have been told where you should raise the meta issues; and that's not here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

It's all about whether we can accept that others can read it too though isn't it? Please don't scroll this again - if you leave this here then obviously I will. If not - then what do you expect? Violet - you have been going out of your way to keep telling me to "just accept" the inclusion of the article - despite all the 'speedy keeps' of AfD procedures which are designed to take discussion elsewhere (so this stays running) and bring in non-participant opinion - which takes a least a little time, which they have simply not been allowed to have. I've been part of plenty of AfD's and I've never seen anything quite like this before, as it seems to reflect a kind of 'media intensity' (which is partly my problem): but clearly a 'meta'-related (as you say) RFC is the thing to do at this juncture. I'm not going to just "accept" anything simply because you keep telling me too though, so please stop that now thanks. When I start the RFC I'll put a simple notice in this talk,nothing more. Please show me some respect here. I'll say again - the 'likely-hood' (perceived or otherwise) of an outcome does not preclude debate, comment or action. Regards, Matt Lewis (talk) 00:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

3 days is appropriate for an article of this sort, perhaps even too long. It already has 92 threads. While premature archiving can be a problem, so is insufficient archiving since it's very common people will repeat the same thing even when it's already being discussed simply because no one sees the thread when there are so many. Further, in an article which is developing as fast as this, the chance that something will still be relevant if no one has replied to it in 3 days is slim. BTW, the chance that this article is going to be deleted is zero. And remember that this isn't the place for random rants at the way wikipedia works. Therefore there is no point starting any discussions relating to deleting this article. AFDs are routinely snow keeped and the people opening them told to bugger off in similar cases like this, if you haven't experience it I guess you haven't been around wikipedia as much as you believe. (I would note many of the people who told you to stop have had no real involvement with this article.) Personally I do feel we sometimes are too newsy particularly in the way it often leaves poorly developed articles (which make it sound like the incident just happened) when interest dies down but this is not something easy to change and in this case, trying to delete the article is frankly dumb if you have any experience with wikipedia (it's far better to try to control the chaos as best as can be done). Nil Einne (talk) 09:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Plastic bullets authorised on British mainland

Resolved

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/09/uk-riots-police-tough-lockdown?intcmp=239

Perhaps a section on police tactics is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.75.115 (talk) 22:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The mention of the use of baton rounds was noted in the article earlier today. Although this is nothing new: police forces in England and Wales have been authorised to use them for the last 10 years. Keristrasza (talk) 22:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry i thought they were different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.75.115 (talk) 22:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Nema problema, my comment was not intended - and please don't take it - as a "brush off." This is still early days, and I'm sure that the police tactics will receive more scrutiny and coverage in reliable sources in the days and weeks to come. Keristrasza (talk) 22:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Vigilante groups set up to combat rioting in areas of london

Resolved

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/vigilante-groups-aim-to-combat-riots-2334910.html

This should be added too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.75.115 (talk • contribs)

Added.--A bit iffy (talk) 00:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Question moved here from my talk page

I'm not sure why you're removing that sourced info in 2011 England riots but it's become an edit war - please assert your reasons on the talk page because as far as I can see it's a valid addition to the article. violet/riga _^[talk] 22:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Moved here by: FactController (talk) 22:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Violet/Riga. FactController, I have read the BBC article about the Scottish teenagers and what you call the interpretation and I can't see any difference. However I am not in the mood for an argument. Have it your way.

It would appear that I have unintentionally broken the three-revert rule today, and quite badly so, because I thought it applied to three reverts of one editor's submissions, not three reverts on one page. So I think I'm going to be banned forever. Oh well. I didn't mean to break the rules. Bye now. Rubywine . talk 22:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I removed it primarily because it was an innaccurate representation of the content of the report. Re-read the report and compare it to the interpretation that was written in this article, particularly with regard to the WP:BLP policy. FactController (talk) 22:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it's late but I really can't see what you're getting at. It seems to be accurate to me. Furthermore, BLP can't really apply to someone whose name isn't even known yet, only their age and approximate location. violet/riga _^[talk] 22:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The person is identifiable by the time, place and context. The report stated that the arrest was for "allegedly inciting others to commit acts of disorder". Note the use of the words "allegedly" and "disorder". FactController (talk) 23:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

No, the person is not identifiable based on that tiny bit of info. The article states that these people have been arrested for incitement which is technically different to us stating that they certainly have done it. violet/riga _^[talk] 23:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The person is identifiable. Even if they weren't, we need to stick faithfully to the cited reports. If the report says "allegedly" we cannot assert guilt. If the report says "disorder" we cannot assert "riots". FactController (talk) 07:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you've watched too much CSI - they are not identifiable. Yes we must stick to the facts but we are allowed to use synonyms. Further, if you have a problem with it correct it, don't remove it. violet/riga _^[talk] 09:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

CSI? The onus is on the original editor to get it right. If it is wrong we should correct it or delete it. I chose to delete it because in its accurate state, the remark is outside the scope of this article. FactController (talk) 15:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Causes

Could probably split this section into "local issues" and "socio-economic issues" (or similar), citing the respective elements in more detail rather than list form.--Jonesy1289 (talk) 23:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)