Talk:2024 Southport riot

Explaining background to the riot

Does the text need to make clearer what the rioters erroneously believed, i.e. that the attacker was Muslim? Rolling Stone put it succinctly: "The far-right protestors have latched onto the idea that the attacker is Muslim as a way to criticize immigration, a hot button issue in the U.K." Should we have something similar? See also PA saying, "The MCB says Islamaphobic backlash began with a false rumour on the internet which was then stoked by misinformation from a Russian news site, which wrongfully associated the crime with Muslims." Bondegezou (talk) 09:47, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I think as more information becomes clear, a section on "misinformation" will be appropriate. There was certainly a lot going around on social media, if we find evidence that this clearly lead to certain actions last night I think that's relevant. Orange sticker (talk) 10:44, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Riot, plural vs singular

The use of plural word 'riots' is throughout this article, including the title. I think that's an incorrect usage. Many acts of violence yes, but the plural is usually reserved for multiple events in time or space. I don't think that's the case here. Any thoughts? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:32, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree, however it's probably too soon to declare this event over. More events are being planned in Merseyside, sadly. Orange sticker (talk) 10:45, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Came here to say the same thing. It should be moved to 2024 Southport riot. @Orange sticker: If something else happens, then it can be changed accordingly, but we shouldn't be pre-empting that. SmartSE (talk) 11:01, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done. WWGB (talk) 11:30, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Value in 10 or 20 years?

I'm not sure that these two sentences pass the 10 year test:

• Prime minister Keir Starmer wrote that rioters would feel the full force of the law.
• Home secretary Yvette Cooper condemned the riots as appalling and requested a criminal investigation.

Do we honestly think it is likely that in ten or twenty years time it will appear relevant that these two politicians thought it necessary to say that the police would carry on doing their normal jobs in these circumstances? I don't, and I don't think it's even relevant, or due, for 5 minutes.

Are we taking our readers for fools? -- DeFacto (talk). 11:45, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I've added quotes from them as well from the same sources. What I disagreed with, was you removing comments from the two most senior politicians as UNDUE when it obviously is, or else the sources would not report what they said. SmartSE (talk) 12:00, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I think the issue here is WP:NOTNEWS. Orange sticker (talk) 12:17, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

You think irrelevant and superficial remarks become significant if they are from the mouths of politicians? -- DeFacto (talk). 12:57, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Far right

@Bondegezou: If as you say, at least 2 citations explicitly say far right, please could you add citations to the statement so that we can verify them.

The citation from The Guardian 20:05 30 July 2024 that has been used to support "far right", says that Far-right activists on social media have been promoting a protest that has started in Southport now. But it does not explicitly say that the protesters were far right. (It is by the way, far more sinister that the far right were promoting the riot than that they were taking part in it.)

There used to be a citation from The Independent that was claimed to have EDF in the title - but the title was not the one on the website, and the article mentioned Farage not the EDF.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:56, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Just to quickly say it's the EDL not EDF. I'm guessing this [1] is the article you mean. Orange sticker (talk) 14:01, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

That is interesting - the citation template that used to be in the article was {{Cite web |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/southport-stabbing-suspect-riot-mosque-attack-victims-name-b2588634.html |title=Southport stabbing latest: 39 police officers hurt as van set on fire by suspected EDL supporters |date=31 July 2024 |publisher=[[Independent]] |access-date=31 July 2024}} Your URL leads to an article that really does mention the EDL, where as the other one did not.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:10, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

The Independent reference did back that up earlier, but they have changed the article that the URL links to. Anyway, NYT, Aljazeera, AP are all reporting it. SmartSE (talk) 14:13, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

The article is evolving rapidly! Earlier today, but not now, it included this Rolling Stone piece that explicitly says "far right". The Manchester Evening News also says "far right". (The Sun say the same, but they're not reliable.) Bondegezou (talk) 15:27, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS isn't reliable for politics. HuffPost and Manchester Evening news are the sources describing direct involvement from far-right activists, but could probably do with better before lead inclusion. CNC (talk) 15:31, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Ignore that, just realised there are plenty of sources describing far-right riots, will add. CNC (talk) 15:49, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Added far-right description with this edit per multiple sources [2]. CNC (talk) 15:58, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

BRD

Moved from User talk

 – DeFacto

[3] It's not BRRD is it? It should be you opening a discussion to explain why you're removing reliably sourced content just because you feel it is immaterial. SmartSE (talk) 14:56, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

It was boldly added by someone else, and I reverted it as being immaterial. The next step is usually for anyone who thinks they can justify its existence to start a discussion to try and get a consensus to restore it. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:17, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I do not know whether it is important or not that the BBC said that the arrested man's parents had emigrated from Rwanda to the UK. The BBC evidently thought it important enough to mention. I think one would need to know a lot more about (a) the arrested man, and (b) what people had been claiming about the arrested man, to make a judgment. Whether one omits it, or includes it, one can be accused of framing. Wikipedia:Framing says: "Rather than framing an issue a certain way ourselves, we should describe how others have framed it." That supports keeping the statement in the article at this time.-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:23, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I think it's unnecessary detail, maybe worthy of inclusion in the stabbing article, but not here. "second generation immigrant" would be more than enough rather than including a history of the suspect's parents' immigration. CNC (talk) 15:34, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I think the relevance here is the riot focussed on a mosque, some of the false information that circulated tried to imply the suspect was Muslim, however there is no evidence for that. His parents being from Rwanda could be seen as indicating that there is much more likelihood he is Christian, however that is all speculation. I'm sure I've read an article questioning the wisdom behind releasing the nationality of his parents, but I can't find it now. But yes, the off-wiki framing of this is very strange so it's not surprising it's leading to problems here. Orange sticker (talk) 15:43, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

We follow what reliable sources do. Lots of reliable sources have reported that his parents came from Rwanda, so I think we can to. It's relevant here because the riots were predicated on a misidentification of the attacker, so reliable sources have wanted to be clear on matters relating to the actual attacker's ethnicity and relationship to immigration. Bondegezou (talk) 15:59, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath, please explain why you seem to be replacing the long-established bold-revert-discuss cycle into the novel bold-revert-restore-discuss cycle in the edit summary of this edit. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:28, 31 July 2024 (UTC)