Jump to content

Talk:2024 United Kingdom riots

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mentioning England and Northern Ireland in the lead

[edit]

As referenced above, there is a dispute whether the lead should mention the two UK countries that specifically had riots, I think the following formats had at least been used:

or a combined approach:

  • in the United Kingdom.[a]

Notes

  1. ^ Specifically two of the four countries of the United Kingdom, with riots present in England and Northern Ireland, but absent in Scotland and Wales.

IMO, at a minimum, as the title is "2024 United Kingdom riots", as most sources use just United Kingdom/UK, then at minimum that should be used (disqualifying the first option) Personally fine with mentioning "England and Northern Ireland" additionally but seems it was constantly removed by others at some point. But remains in the infobox.

Thanks DankJae 14:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to the first sentence of the lead being either:
  • From 30 July to 5 August 2024[a] far-right, anti-immigration protests and riots occurred in the United Kingdom.[b]
  • From 30 July to 5 August 2024[a] far-right, anti-immigration protests and riots occurred in England and Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom.[b]
Where [a] and [b] are as now (i.e. [a] explains the dates and [b] is a list of towns). Both ways are good. I do not want on a footnote explaining that "riots present in England and Northern Ireland, but absent in Scotland and Wales". We have already got two useful footnotes for the first sentence; a third is too much.
The information that the riots were in England and Northern Ireland is already present in the second paragraph of the lead, so it is not really necessary to have it in the first sentence of the first paragraph. But if accepting the words "in England and Northern Ireland" in that sentence will placate some editors, then I am happy for it to be there.-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:58, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted Erzan's deletion of the word "occurred" from the sentence.[1] Having a verb in the sentence is compulsory.-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:13, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also to point out I'm not opposing to this extended inclusion in the first sentence either, there are so many more important things to argue over, and my British bias may well unhelpful here. My reply below was simply to clarify the guidelines in first sentence, opening paragraph, and lead, in the hope other editors can make more informed opinions over inclusion or not. CNC (talk) 18:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tbh I find it odd that the list of towns note doesn't at least describe where Belfast is or separate it among all the other places in England. So it possibly could be added to the towns footnote. But I understand the note is used on both "United Kingdom" (lead) and "England and Northern Ireland" (infobox), so such addition would mean the infobox would have to use UK instead. As they are all places in the UK alphabetically, technically that is all that's needed. DankJae 21:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The note could also be amended to be organised by country, ie "England: ..., Northern Ireland: ....". It's something I considered before, but never seemed necessary due to lack of locations in NI compared to England. CNC (talk) 21:54, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since we are decribing the first sentence, the relevant guidelines MOS:FIRST apply, as opposed to the more general guidelines on MOS:OPEN or MOS:LEAD. Thus based on MOS:LEADCLUTTER there is an argument that this clutters the first sentence, even if entirely due in the opening paragraph. Given the riots were predominantly in England, with less significant events in Northern Ireland, I think the second sentence covers this without needing to specify in the first sentence. The location "United Kingdom" otherwise confirms to the reader that they have reached the correct article they were looking for, without needing to specify which countries within the UK. CNC (talk) 18:20, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Kennethmac2000:, who participated in the dispute. DankJae 21:20, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping! Kennethmac2000 (talk) 10:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also pinging @Erzan for same reason as above. CNC (talk) 21:57, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The lead mentioning the UK and then the infobox adding more info is tidy and straightforward. Plus it's backed up by the sources and how these events are being described across the UK and even wider European media. Erzan (talk) 22:42, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How the riots were described by UK and wider European media is why the page is called 2024 United Kingdom riots and not 2024 England and Northern Ireland riots. However, that doesn't take away from the need for precision in the lede.
As another example, while Rishi Sunak was UK prime minister, he announced a plan for a new education qualification called the Advanced British Standard (aka the "British baccalaureate"). Since education is wholly devolved, this only applied to England, despite the reference to "British" in the name. The English-language Wikipedia article on the Advanced British Standard therefore, correctly, begins, "The Advanced British Standard was a proposed replacement for the system of A-levels and T-levels in England." Kennethmac2000 (talk) 10:29, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The info box and map makes it very clear where they occurred. Erzan (talk) 09:21, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, the second sentence does not cover it. Firstly, it doesn't mention Northern Ireland. Secondly, it leaves the reader to have to infer that some/most/all(?) of the riots took place in England, rather than stating this explicitly.
It would be possible to construct a reasonable second sentence - eg, "The riots, which took place in England and Northern Ireland, and, in England's case, were the largest incident of social unrest since 2011, ..." - but I suspect we'd end up in the same discussion about that, so perhaps it's as well to stick to the first sentence. Kennethmac2000 (talk) 10:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we think about other potential scenarios, what would we do?
Eg:
- If the riots were in Scotland and Northern Ireland (but not England or Wales), would we really not mention that fact very early in the lede?
- If the riots were in Catalonia, the Basque Country and Navarre (but not any other autonomous community), would we really not mention that fact early in the lede?
- If the riots were in California and Florida (but no other state), would we really not mention that fact early in the lede?
If the argument is, "Yes, OK, I take your point, but England is by far the biggest part of the United Kingdom, so this is different", I don't think that's a valid argument to be honest. Kennethmac2000 (talk) 10:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have made a number of comments, but I notice there have been no further comments since then. I assume that means most people don't have a particularly strong view.
I would therefore propose that we go with one of the following options:
Kennethmac2000 (talk) 09:33, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it makes sense to say the riots were in England and NI, but we have to remember that some readers will not necessarily know that England and NI are parts of the UK, so I like your second option, maybe tweaked to "in England and Northern Ireland, within the United Kingdom," Bondegezou (talk) 09:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources overwhelming call it the UK riots and the rest of the article repeatedly states where they occurred. The lead is already a little messy and mentioning different national and regional names doesn't make it clearer, it makes it will make even less clear for non-UK readers.

Erzan (talk) 09:19, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that is why the page is called 2024 United Kingdom riots. The lede should then describe the subject matter with more precision - as it no doubt would if riots had taken place only in certain states or autonomous communities in Germany, the US or Spain. To refer to an analogous article, the Advanced British Standard article is called that, despite the fact that the qualification under discussion would only have existed in England. The first sentence clarifies that fact. Did you actually read my previous arguments? It is difficult to debate this if you are just going to assert that the lede is a little messy without engaging with the substance.
Can you propose a compromise? Kennethmac2000 (talk) 19:14, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These were riots in the UK, the geography of the events were across most of the UK and every source I can find describe it as riots in the UK. The info box, map and rest of the article goes into detail. So I support the status quo for it's accuracy and simplicity. Erzan (talk) 08:24, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The riots were spread across most of England, yes. However, the four constituent nations/countries of the UK are of interest in their own right, regardless of their respective population sizes, so I think England and Northern Ireland merit being explicitly mentioned in the lede.
I think this mention should be in the first sentence, but I am willing to compromise at somewhere in the first paragraph. Would you like to propose something? Kennethmac2000 (talk) 13:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I propose the status quo and for the reasons previously given. Erzan (talk) 14:52, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't accept that, for all of the reasons I have previously given (as you are already aware). I am therefore suggesting that we devise a compromise, which lands somewhere in the middle. Are you willing to propose one? If not, I am happy to make one directly in the article. Kennethmac2000 (talk) 10:00, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Summary

Concerning having "in England and Northern Ireland, within the United Kingdom" instead of "in the United Kingdom" in the first sentence of the lead:

  • Acceptable
  1. DankJae
  2. Toddy1
  3. Kennethmac2000
  4. Bondegezou
  • Unacceptable
  1. Erzan
  • Not opposing
  1. CNC

-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:14, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

fwiw I think it's tautological, and MOS:REDUNDANCY seems to suggest being as brief a possible. Also 'within' should be 'in' if it's going to be kept. Orange sticker (talk) 12:42, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is what i was trying to say and was directly engaging. Now it has been pushed into an edit war. Erzan (talk) 12:48, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you but it's clear the consensus is for the alternative, so it's not for us to change to our preference. Orange sticker (talk) 12:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BOOMERANG would apply as well. Any admin looking at a brewing editwar would probably look at all parties involved. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 12:55, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's tautological. Saying they were in England and NI gives more detail, but readers don't necessarily know those are part of the UK, so you need both. It's like saying something happened in New Jersey, USA.
On the general point, there does appear to be a consensus for this edit. Erzan, I would suggest you should revert yourself. Bondegezou (talk) 09:23, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not only is is self evident due to the article title, I think it's safe to assume readers know where these places are, and there aren't any other places with the same names. Orange sticker (talk) 09:35, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For more detail is this not what the info box is for and has been used for? And the rest of the article repeatedly mentions the places? I was asksd to come and discuss and there is no good faith engagement with what I raised. Erzan (talk) 09:51, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ezran, you came, you discussed, but in this case most editors disagreed with you. You should respect that. You are free to keep discussing the matter here, but I think your revert of Kennethmac2000 earlier today was questionable. Bondegezou (talk) 11:30, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Inviting someone to discuss and editing the page within 72hrs is not good faith engagement. Erzan (talk) 13:12, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You were pinged on 26 August; now is 4 September; that is nine days later, not 72 hours.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:50, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even 72 hours is more than enough for a such a minor MOS dispute imo. @Erzan I think you're best just letting this one go. Orange sticker (talk) 13:55, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To hopefully avoid an edit war, I first wanted to check: do I have support from most folks here to reapply the edit I made yesterday? Kennethmac2000 (talk) 09:28, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've been searching for a guideline on this with no luck, however I also can't find any examples of either England or Northern Ireland needing the 'within United Kingdom' disambiguation either, certainly not when both are together. So I'd still like to urge everyone to reconsider but I respect the consensus. Orange sticker (talk) 09:50, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Orange sticker, there is likely no specific guideline on a purely content dispute on whether something is as important for the lead, MOS:LEAD, and the first sentence MOS:FIRST.

This discussion is just whether the additional information on where in the UK these riots occurred should also be mentioned in the first sentence. As the title has United Kingdom, that should at least be mentioned in it, so readers know they're at the correct article, hence "within the United Kingdom". As some editors wish that the specific parts of the UK are added in the first sentence for these riots as them only being in two UK countries has been raised/considered an important detail. I do see value with having it somewhere. Fine with adding it in the first paragraph, if agreed here is it best to. But also fine having it in the second paragraph more prominently (and largest unrest in England moved down from the first paragraph), and leaving UK for the first paragraph.

Sources do group the riots as "UK", but in text usually expand to "England and Northern Ireland". As well as the lack of riots in Scotland and Wales also mentioned in media. DankJae 11:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While we're being pedantic(!) on Wikipedia and in general we don't say England or Northern Ireland are 'in' the UK, but parts of it. Same as you wouldn't say your arm is in your body, I guess. Orange sticker (talk) 12:34, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. We've had plenty of discussion, let's just make the change. Bondegezou (talk) 13:13, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't find that DankJae's assessment pedantic personally, but instead an accurate assessment of mos guidelines in reference to the topic, and it's very similar to what I stated before about this being in the first sentence. I still don't see the inclusion as necessary, based on MOS:FIRST, but instead worth including in the MOS:OPEN. When not everyone agrees that this should be in the first sentence, but there is consensus for it to be in the opening paragraph, this doesn't seem that complicated to me. To me it's more questionable having "following a mass stabbing in Southport" within the first sentence, as it doesn't help to explain the what, were or when of the topic; it is clearly context about the topic that should instead be in the first paragraph based on mos guidelines. CNC (talk) 17:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have made this edit [2], given there does appear to general support for it (even if not from me). Personally it was more about removing unnecessary context from the first sentence that instead belongs in the first paragraph. CNC (talk) 17:50, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Farage

[edit]

Should Nigel Farage, Tommy Robinson or any other individual figures be listed in the infobox as riot perpetrators due to potential incitement on social media? 92.10.201.219 (talk) 02:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the only individual where that would make sense is Robinson, but WP:BLP and WP:BLPCRIME apply. Bondegezou (talk) 07:39, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a preposterous suggestion. Encouraging a riot is a crime under British law, for which people have already been convicted and jailed for this event. You can't say that someone encouraged a riot unless they're convicted of it, any more than you can call someone a drug dealer or child abuser. That's it. We have a legal system to decide things like this. Any idea of Wikipedia being a useful source for facts goes out the window if we say people committed crimes because we feel like they did, or we just don't like them. Unknown Temptation (talk) 22:00, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unsubstantiated use of the term 'far-right'

[edit]

I don't think it's useful or helpful to have so much unfounded use of the term 'far-right' within the Article, from everything I can find the political affiliations of those involved hasn't been publicly released, and the only current defence I've seen of using the phrase is that it's used by media outlets, which is equally worthless as those are also unsubstantiated.

If we look at the breakdown of where the riots happened according to the map infobox on this very article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:2024_United_Kingdom_riots_map) and then look at the political parties elected in those areas highlighted in Hard Blue (Riots and disorder) and Soft Red (Attacks on hotels housing asylum seekers) we get this aggregate:

Labour Party: 72.22% (~72%) Conservative Party: 13.89% (~14%) DUP: 8.33% (~8%) Mixed/Non-Parliamentary Areas: 5.56% (~6%)

Since we have FPTP it's not necessarily that helpful, so we can look at the voter share percentages instead, which gives us the following distribution:

Labour "Soft Red": Average ~44.5% "Hard Blue": Average ~47.0% Conservatives: "Soft Red": Average ~29.2% "Hard Blue": Average ~25.6% Liberal Democrats: "Soft Red": Average ~13.0% "Hard Blue": Average ~12.7% Reform UK: "Soft Red": Average ~8.5% "Hard Blue": Average ~8.4% Greens: "Soft Red": Average ~4.8% "Hard Blue": Average ~6.3%

As you can see the majority of the places that had these Riots had strong Labour majorities, so doesn't it feel a bit odd to suggest that the protestors were 'far-right'? And surely if these protestors were generally fuelled by a far-right sentiment we would have seen more of them occur in areas with very high Reform and Conservative voteshares? I'm well aware that it's an incredibly weak metric, that just because a majority or a plurality of people in a constituency voted one way, I can in no way assume that it's reflected proportionally in people participating in a protest, that being said, I haven't seen any real evidence of the political alignment or self-identification of those arrested or more broadly, those who protested.

This is pure conjecture but I think it's obvious to anyone who watched the riots closely that the vast majority of those attending were apolitical yobs, disaffected angry people, and yes, just perhaps, a few far-right agitators. But in all honesty describing the riots on the whole as being 'far-right' is at best disingenuous, and at worst, a symptom of the general strong left leaning tendencies of regular Wikipedia editors and contributors, especially those with moderators privileges.

Lets keep this website as a source of genuine and well accredited information, please? It's better for everyone that way. Jessrabbitx (talk) 23:43, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not unsubstantiated, though, as I explained to you already. It's reflecting the terminology being used in almost all media outlets. And that's what Wikipedia does. If we were to override the consensus among reliable sources because we according to our own analysis think they shouldn't use that terminology, that would be unsubstantiated and biased. It would be original research. We have policies about this, and they don't say it's "worthless" to point to media consensus, they say that's exactly how Wikipedia works and is meant to work. AntiDionysius (talk) 00:07, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also when it's been pointed out to you that we are studiously sticking to what reliable sources say and avoiding our own interpretations, I don't think baseless claims that the Wikipedia editor base (and in particular the admin cohort) is politically biased are either relevant or constructive. AntiDionysius (talk) 00:08, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose you're right, I wasn't familiar with how Wikipedia operates, so my apologies, this talk section can be removed. I think there's a broader debate to be had about the reliability and impartiality of British news sources, is there a talk page for what constitutes reliable sources? I would be interested in reading it. Jessrabbitx (talk) 00:33, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jessrabbitx See WP:RS which is a content guidline and WP:RSN where people discuss reliable sources. Doug Weller talk 09:44, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that amongst the sources our article uses for 'far right' is the Daily Telegraph, which has used the term in multiple articles cited. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:13, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is that reasoning? That rioters attacking Asian peoples in the UK were found in regions where Asians were?
By that logic, since the riots happened in places where asians were, the rioters were therefore asian.
By that same logic, since the riots happened in places where asylum seekers sought refuge, the rioters included asylum seekers.
Also WP:OR applies. Find a reliable source with that analysis, then we can entertain it. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:40, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTALBALL

[edit]

How is "police said there might later be hundreds more" added to the lead not considered blatant speculation: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place."? [3] Are we really suggesting that because police said that there will be further arrests, that this is almost certain to take place?! This doesn't appear to be a summary of the body per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY either. I removed this before and it has been restored with attribution.[4] How does attribution make this less speculative, or otherwise due for the lead for that matter? CNC (talk) 17:56, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. we are WP:NOTNEWS. We should present this as an encyclopedic topic, not as speculation on future events. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:09, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm, seems like a very clear case of crystal ball and I'd support its removal AntiDionysius (talk) 22:56, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_United_Kingdom_riots&oldid=1247761738"