Talk:2024 United Kingdom riots

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 August 2024

Request that "They followed a mass stabbing in Southport ..." is changed to "They followed misinformation about a mass stabbing in Southport ..." Also, on the Main Page, the "In the News" headline to be changed from "Following a mass stabbing in Southport, far-right protesters riot in England and Northern Ireland" to "Following misinformation about a mass stabbing in Southport, far-right protesters riot in England and Northern Ireland.

These edits will reinforce that the misinformation about the stabbing is significant. 82.33.74.10 (talk) 07:52, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I support this change. Orange sticker (talk) 08:38, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Though I support the sentiment, I do not support the proposed change of wording. The 2nd-4th sentences of the lead are as follows:

2. They followed a mass stabbing in Southport on 29 July, in which three children were killed.
3. The attacker was falsely alleged on social media to be a Muslim, an asylum seeker or both.
4. The first riot started in Southport and later many protests and or riots spread across the country.

I think the existing wording properly explains the chain of events: the stabbing --> the lies on social media --> the riots. -- Toddy1 (talk) 09:58, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Suggesting a change to the ITN wording should be posted at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors#Errors with "In the news" not here. That page currently lacks edit protections so you can post such a request yourself. If it's felt that this isn't an error or more extended discussion is needed, I think someone there should direct you where, if anywhere you can continue discussion, but it's unlikely to be here since it's not something which concerns this article. It might also be helpful to check out the discussion leading to the posting Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/August 2024#(Posted) United Kingdom riots although I only see a brief suggestion the article should mention misinformation without any specific opposition. Nil Einne (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Edit has been contested by Toddy1 which makes it ineligible for it to remain in the queue of requested edits since it is not non-controversial. Consensus is needed. The main page concerns brought up are moot considering the news item has passed but, as mentioned, would be addressed at a different venue. —Sirdog (talk) 22:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Too much use of the term anti-fascist?

Hopefully we ae all anti--fascists here, but if we took part in the protests would that be how we described ourselves? It seems to blanket a term and in the lead it's pretty poorly sourced, mainly local papers. It's an all too easy label for journalists to use. Yes, it's sourced, and the text I removed as unsourced the editor has agreed had the wrong source and may be reinstating it with the one they meant to use. Still, is it really suitable to label everyone in a demonstration as anti-fascist? Doug Weller talk 12:18, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this in reference to, but the sourcing for anti-fasicst counter-protesters is relatively well referenced from looking at just the first page of google searches for reliable sources and could be improved for the lead here: [1][2][3][4][5][6]. I otherwise agree labelling all counter-protesters as anti-fascist would be inaccurate, unless the source determines this based on a specific counter-protest for example. I'm happy to replace the lead sourcing for this, as granted the local news / morning star isn't great. CNC (talk) 12:29, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

If that's how sources describe them it would be disingenuous to describe them as anything else, and as far as I can see all uses of the term are referenced, bar the mention of the disorder in Blackpool. Orange sticker (talk) 12:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I've now added a source for Blackpool. Happy for the term to be removed if deemed invalid though. Lewishhh (talk) 13:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Antifa (disambiguation) suggests that in some circles, "anti-fascist" really means far left. (Which is what I understand it to mean.) We do not know whether journalists meant that when they described counter-protesters as "anti-fascist".

If WP:EXTRAORDINARY applies, then we should want multiple high-quality sources that are clear as to what they meant by "anti-fascist", before we start using such a loaded term to describe the counter-protesters.-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:02, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

The word Antifa is not used in this article. Orange sticker (talk) 15:08, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

For non-US media, and specifically UK media, anti-fascist simply means opposition to fascism, hence there is rarely reference of Antifa alongside it, therefore I don't see EXTRAORDINARY applying here. Describing the counter-protesters as being opposed to fascism is far from a loaded term in and out of itself. Also As a point of reference we are writing this article in British English, and therefore British terminology applies here, and US terminology (and its implications) do not. CNC (talk) 15:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

With the greatest respect, with British-English, the literal meaning may be incorrect. I was once caught out like that when someone told me to send them something "at my earliest convenience"; they thought I was an idiot because I did not send it immediately.-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:01, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I think there's a basis for using "anti-fascist" to characterise some of counter-protestors, partly through self-identification and partly because it seems quite pedantic to have a strong position that anti-immigrant mobs aren't "fascist" in any sense. Concur with CNC on avoiding "antifa" though, and distinguishing between British anti-fascism and German style antifascist ideology which is a more complex subject than people turning out in the streets to oppose right wing mobs. Battleofalma (talk) 09:03, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Citations in the lead

One style of doing articles is to have everything cited. Another style is to have everything cited in the main body of the article, and possibly also the infobox, but not to have citations in the lead - and that can work provided that people make sure that everything in the lead is said in the body of the article.

I am rather concerned by this pair of edits by Беарофчечьня [Bear-of-chechnya] that removed the citation from the 3rd paragraph of the lead (the one that starts: "The riots began on 30 July when ..."). That leaves the 1st and 2nd paragraphs of the lead with lots of citations and the 3rd and 4th paragraphs uncited.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Nobody commented, so I have restored the citations to the 3rd paragraph of the lead.^[7] If you think those citations should be removed, please provide an explanation here.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:19, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

You also removed newly-added content from another section, which I have restored. WWGB (talk) 07:54, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you are right I did - that was not intentional. Thanks for restoring it.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:39, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

@Toddy1, the norm is to write and cite everything in the body of the article first, then to summarise the most important info in the lead, and therefore it should never need references - per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY.

For the same reason, entries in the infobox shouldn't require cluttering with references either - per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:44, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

We can greatly improve the lead by removing the listing of all involved groups with associated references. After all, "Editors should avoid lengthy paragraphs and overly specific descriptions – greater detail is saved for the body of the article". The involved groups are already nearby in the infobox anyway. WWGB (talk) 11:03, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

WWGB, if you think that the article style should be to have everything cited in the main body of the article, but not to have citations in the lead, I do not mind - but if someone wants to implement that, they should remove all the citations from the lead. Having two paragraphs in the lead in one style, and two in the opposite style does not work. -- Toddy1 (talk) 17:01, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Per MOS:LEADCITE it does work. It isn't about having citations in the lead or not, as some of it binary include or exclude type format. This is why it usually makes sense to have contentious claims cited, that are likely to be challenged, but not for others. For example I don't see the need for citations in the timeline summary paragraph, but it helps for others. Ideally with Template:Leadcite comment added to the top of the lead it would solve the issue, but nobody ever reads that, and contentious claims get removed or incorrectly tagged with citation needed which just get's disruptive. If all the citations were to be removed, contentious lead content would inevitably get challenged, and thus citations would likely need to be returned. Have seen enough times what happens when contentious articles have all citations removed from the lead, and it usually results in many being returned to avoid further challenges. CNC (talk) 11:37, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Outright false statement in the lede lol

This is what you get when you try to synthesize sources haha. The article previously stated The British government under Keir Starmer accused Russia of spreading disinformation to stoke the unrest. That is not true. The source cited actually states:

Asked whether foreign states were behind the spread of disinformation online, Sir Keir’s official spokesman said that “clearly, we have seen bot activity online, much of which may well be amplified with the involvement of state actors amplifying some of the disinformation and misinformation that we’ve seen”.

"He refused to single out a particular state responsible but said that disinformation “can be linked to state-backed activity” and said that the NCA and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology were “looking at it”.

This wasn't mentioned elsewhere in the article and wasn't supported by the other two sources so I've removed the sentence. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 17:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

The anti-immigration aspect of the riots are too emphasised (WP:UNDUE)

There was a discussion in a few newspapers about the connection between declining foreign students and immigrant healthcare workers, and the climate of anti-immigration sentiment.

However these rioters aren't rioting against foreign students or healthcare workers. In fact, there is actually very little aggression against foreign students and healthcare workers. So why is there an argument being formed that anti-immigration sentiment is causing said people to stop immigrating to the UK?

I think one of the major causes is because editorialisation in articles such as this tends to over-emphasis the immigration aspect in lieu of the more acute issues relating to migration and islamophobia. I think most of the public would have noticed that the only ethnic minority systematically targeted by the rioters were Muslims, despite knowing that the suspect in the stabbing was a black man, which further pushes the idea that this isn't a generic anti-immigration riots. They are rioting against several issues but not all immigrants.

The citations/sources available to prominently include "anti-immigration" are weak. Yes, you can find a plethora of sources stating "anti-immigration", but you can also find a plethora of sources using numerous other titles.

And finally I am not suggesting that anti-immigration sentiment didn't play a role, but rather that there are other issues at play and that anti-immigration sentiment was only a small part of it. Ronaldmcflurry (talk) 19:45, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

One of the references regarding anti-immigration sentiment literally mentions healthcare workers lol

Earlier, a woman joining the anti-immigration protest, who asked not to be named, said: “There’s too many immigrants here. You can’t get a doctor’s appointment and they’re prioritising foreigners over our own people. It needs to stop.” (The Times)

Your qualms with what the sources report should be taken up with them, not with Wikipedia. Our job is only to represent what independent reliable sources have reported about the subject.

the only ethnic minority systematically targeted by the rioters were Muslims...[therefore] this isn't a generic anti-immigration riots

When calling the riots anti-immigration, reliable sources have described how rioters targeted immigrants, asylum seekers, immigrant businesses, and immigration law firms; chanted specifically anti-immigrant/anti-immigration slogans; and were fueled by anti-immigration disinformation. Just because Muslims were targeted doesn't make the protests not anti-immigration nor does the label anti-immigration necessarily mean opposition to all immigrants (though that is a view shared by many in the participants/organisers). ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 21:59, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

The first quote does not discuss healthcare workers. It talks about foreigners getting priority over locals when it comes to appointments. Sources do not focus on the anti-immigration aspect per se since you can find plenty of articles that use terms other than "anti-immigration" to describe the riots including "far-right riots" or "race riots" among others.

And the second point alludes to my reasoning. "Just because Muslims were targeted doesn't make the protests not anti-immigration nor does the label anti-immigration." The focus on the anti-immigration aspect is WP:UNDUE precisely because of what you wrote. A percentage of the protesters may hold views that are anti-immigration, but a percentage of the protesters hold other views as well. Who is Wikipedia to say that the anti-immigration label should take priority over other labels such as [pro-]racist, islamophobic, far-right etc.. labels?

I'm not saying that we shouldn't use the term "anti-immigration" to describe the riots. But we shouldn't use the term as a title or single-term to describe the riots. It should be used along with other descriptors as it has been in the infobox. Ronaldmcflurry (talk) 11:11, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

So what is your proposition, that we remove it from the lede (so it says "far-right protests and riots") and have it included only where multiple motives are listed (anti-immigration, Islamaphobia, racism, xenophobia, etc.)? Lewishhh (talk) 11:18, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes Ronaldmcflurry (talk) 13:10, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I've said in previous topics on this talk page that the phrase "far right, anti-immigration" is tautology as one is a trait of the other so I don't object to this edit at all (nor removing it from the Parties heading in the infobox). However, I'm concerned that @Ronaldmcflurry saying The citations/sources available to prominently include "anti-immigration" are weak is incorrect and so I am wary of any further edits to reduce the prominence of "anti-immigration" in the article. The article may benefit from making sure racist and Islamophobic actions are correctly labelled throughout. Orange sticker (talk) 13:22, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Related to the above discussion, it would be worth having a note with a list of references to these riots being described as both far-right and anti-immigration (even just using the references already in the article, as it doesn't need strengthening per say). I know the previous far-right note was considered unnecessary, but it seems like every other day there is a new editor claiming that this description is undue, and this could save on carbon dioxide usage. CNC (talk) 14:36, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

In Liverpool, a Polish shop was targeted.[8] Orange sticker (talk) 08:27, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Numerous ethnic minorities were affected by the riots but it's a jump to say they were targeted because of their ethnicity rather than just because their shop was in the right place and the right time (and even in that article it mentions a library next door being burnt down).

The article also included a quote saying: "“This wasn’t about politics or immigrants, it was a night out.”". Ronaldmcflurry (talk) 11:14, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Your quote is the viewpoint of one of the victims, another says, "“Of course, the flames were fanned by the far-right at first ... But then people just came out to see what was happening and got swept along with it. Social media just whipped everyone up into a frenzy.". But we're not here to cherry-pick. Unsurprisingly, riots that targeted hotels housing asylums seekers and charities supporting them, chants of "stop the boats" [9] and "send them back" [10] are being widely reported as anti-immigration.[11] So it is certainly not WP:UNDUE to include this in the article, alongside other motivations such as Islamophobia. Orange sticker (talk) 11:48, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I am referring to these being referred to as "far-right anti-immigration riots". It's undue weight to say they are anti-immigration so prominently. Ronaldmcflurry (talk) 13:10, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Ok I'll bite to see if we can move things forward. I see you have learnt about undue weight, so please also learn about false balance if you haven't already. You describe "a plethora of sources using numerous other titles", but in order to taken seriously, you need to provide these, as no one is going to simply take your word for it. Then when you do, we will see whether reliable sources describe these predominantly as anti-immigration and far-right. CNC (talk) 14:42, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

In Hull, three Romanian men were attacked and sentences were recently given to the attackers. The Judge in the case called that day's riots "12 hours of racist, hate-fuelled mob violence". He doesn't say the attack on these men was incedental to this (in the wrong place at the wrong time, to paraphrase you). It's very obvious that it wasn't only Muslims or Asians that were targeted – although these groups have been targeted more so than others due to the false claims made about the attacker – and no white, British-born people have been targeted in this manner.

But in any case, this is a moot point as we go by how reliable sources describe these riots. GnocchiFan (talk) 16:03, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we should waste our time entertaining original research here. Either editors come here with reliable sources to support their claims, otherwise this just WP:NOTAFORUM based WP:SOAPBOXING at his point. CNC (talk) 11:51, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

It's original research to give undue weight to the idea these were anti-immigration riots/protests. Ronaldmcflurry (talk) 13:09, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources say anti-immigration. Your claim that this is UNDUE is no reason to ignore that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:54, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling As these posts are the only ones so far from this editor, they may not understand our policies yet. Doug Weller talk 14:01, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Locations

There are places mentioned in the text that aren't included in the locations, e.g. Darlington and Oxford for starters. 2A00:23C8:4F2B:EA00:6420:4CC0:97EF:65D4 (talk) 17:55, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Unaffiliated locals in the infobox

An editor has edited the code for the infobox moving * Unaffiliated locals<ref name="BBC-Clashes-2024-08-04"/><ref name="Cheshire-20242"/> from "side3" (counter-protesters) to "side1" (far-right anti-immigration protesters). His/her edit summary was: A huge number of local people who are not members of organizations participated in the rallies.^[12] The citations are as follows:

• "Clashes break out between rival groups after protest". BBC News. 4 August 2024. Archived from the original on 6 August 2024. Retrieved 4 August 2024.
• Cheshire, Tom (4 August 2024). "Bristol witnessed a 'running battle' as protesters clashed – with bottles and punches thrown". Sky News. Archived from the original on 3 August 2024. Retrieved 4 August 2024.

There is no mention in the text of either citation of anything that would support having a mention of "unaffiliated locals" in the infobox on either side.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:01, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Edits that messed up the citations

I have reverted to the version of 17:04, 25 August 2024‎ (UTC). Edits since then left the article with two kinds of reference errors:^[13]

• Duplicate references, where the edit process has duplicated existing reference definitions and given the duplicate a new name
• Undefined references, where the edit process has left existing reference names undefined.

If would be best if the people whose edits were reverted discussed whatever if was they were trying to achieve on the talk page, so that they can get consensus, and (if appropriate) have their edits implemented in a way that does not cause errors.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:32, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I have implemented a change made by Kennethmac2000 at 08:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC),^[14] which seems to have been in response to DankJae's edit summary 17:57, 25 August 2024 (UTC).^[15] Saying that the riots occurred in England and Northern Ireland ought to be completely non-controversial and did no damage to the article.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:47, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Mentioning England and Northern Ireland in the lead

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:

• in England and Northern Ireland
• in England and Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom
• in the United Kingdom
• in the United Kingdom (primarily/specifically England and Northern Ireland)
• in two of the four countries of the United Kingdom

or a combined approach:

• in the United Kingdom.

Notes

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)

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)

I have reverted Erzan's deletion of the word "occurred" from the sentence.^[16] Having a verb in the sentence is compulsory.-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:13, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Pinging @Kennethmac2000:, who participated in the dispute. DankJae 21:20, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping! Kennethmac2000 (talk) 10:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Also pinging @Erzan for same reason as above. CNC (talk) 21:57, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

The info box and map makes it very clear where they occurred. Erzan (talk) 09:21, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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:

• in England and Northern Ireland
• in England and Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom
• in the United Kingdom (specifically, England and Northern Ireland)
• in two of the four countries of the United Kingdom
• in two of the four countries of the United Kingdom (England and Northern Ireland)

Kennethmac2000 (talk) 09:33, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Yes. I propose the status quo and for the reasons previously given. Erzan (talk) 14:52, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Inviting someone to discuss and editing the page within 72hrs is not good faith engagement. Erzan (talk) 13:12, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Yes.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

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)

@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)

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)

Yes. We've had plenty of discussion, let's just make the change. Bondegezou (talk) 13:13, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

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)

Have made this edit [17], 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)

Nigel Farage

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)

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)

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)

Unsubstantiated use of the term 'far-right'

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

WP:CRYSTALBALL

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."? [18] 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.[19] How does attribution make this less speculative, or otherwise due for the lead for that matter? CNC (talk) 17:56, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

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)

Mmm, seems like a very clear case of crystal ball and I'd support its removal AntiDionysius (talk) 22:56, 5 September 2024 (UTC)