Talk:2011 England riots/Archive 9

Page move from London->England, may need England->UK

Archived : two subsections

"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 [[1]]. --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. [2] 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. [3]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)

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. [4] 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. [5]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)

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

Resolved

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)

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)

Causes section

Resolved

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)