Talk:2024 United Kingdom riots/Archive 1

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)

These are not "far right" protesters. Most of these people are extremely angry about what happened to their communities. The crime against these little girls was the straw that broke the camel's back. To call these people "far right" is using to dismiss legitimate anger that many normal, working-class people in the UK feel about the two tiered justice system in the country. While there may be a tiny group of far right activists in attendance, this label should not be applied to the protesters at large in Southport or in London this past weekend. To use such labels marginalizes the feelings of a large portion of the population. A government ignores its citizens at its own peril.

In addition, the article incorrectly claims that it is "misinformation" to refer to the suspect as Muslim and then to insinuate that he was not Muslim. We have no idea whether this 17 year teenager is Muslim or not. The murderer's religion was not a focal point of the protests, with the anger being more generalized to an immigrant population that does not appear to assimilate. We know nothing of this animal's motives, but we do know he the son of refugees from Rwanda and is part of an immigrant community. He was also known to law enforcement and had a history of violent behavior. All of this is concerning given the way the UK has handled these issues involving immigrant communities in the past--ignoring ignoring grooming, suppressing information about criminal activity etc. The article should redrafted to be purely fact based without a left wing bias. SteveTurman (talk) 21:33, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:DUCK WP:NONAZIS WP:SPA apply here I think. Orange sticker (talk) 21:50, 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 EDL hasn't existed for over a decade. "The EDL no longer exists and Tommy Robinson quit the organisation in 2013." Even far left campaign group loved by Labour Hope Not Hate is saying EDL does not exists https://hopenothate.org.uk/2024/07/31/press-release-hope-not-hate-respond-to-unrest-in-southport/

any suggestion or reference to EDL is making Wikipedia into a political campaign by left wing JordanH-UK (talk) 08:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Most of the article refers to "supporters of the EDL" rather than the EDL as such, which is consistent with what Hope Not Hate are saying. I've added the Hope Not Hate citation. We could look at the infobox phrasing. However, I note numerous reliable sources still just refer directly to the EDL. Bondegezou (talk) 09:15, 2 August 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)

It is not at all obvious which edit was the "bold" edit, and which the "revert" edit. I thought that this was the bold edit; it was reverted by Smartse, unreverted with the demand that anyone reverting it should take to talk if they think otherwise, reverted by TarnishedPath, and unreverted by CommunityNotesContributor. What is obvious is that we need to look for consensus.-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:17, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

@Toddy1, this is how I saw it:

1. Bold 1 (an IP editor boldly added it)
2. Revert 1 (I reverted it)
3. Bold 2 (Smartse boldly added it again, asking the question "on what basis?")
4. Revert 2 (I reverted it again, answering Smartse's question that the basis for removal was "BRD" (I was reverting a bold addition) "because it is not important, or not relating to the subject")
5. Bold 3 (TarnishedPath boldly added it again)

I hope that helps. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:38, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

6. Revert 3 (I reverted it again) CNC (talk) 21:46, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

@DeFacto, you can't exhort others to WP:BRD when you up until that point in time had failed to do the Discuss bit yourself. As per the material itself, it's covered by WP:RS so it's obviously not insignificant. However I'm willing to listen to what others have to say about their views regarding its significance. TarnishedPath^talk 00:37, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

@DeFacto: You have not explained why you thought that the suspect's parents coming from Rwanda should not be mentioned. You said that it was "immaterial" - why did you say that?-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:15, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Introduction bias

I have to say that the current introduction is misleading since it completely omits the damage done by rioters other than the police. Rioters threw bricks at a mosque, set cars and wheelies alight, and looted a shop. These are not merely small-scale side incidents and must be in the introduction alongside the attacks at police officers and their van. The current version makes it read like the riot was only against police.

I tried to correct this (see my version) and summarised it well, but this was reverted. Plarety (talk) 16:26, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

As I stated in my revert, the MOS:INTRO is a summary of the article, it's not an introduction to the riot itself. Given the current protection on this page, I recommend creating an edit request for additional content to be added to the body, such as looting a shop, that can then be considered as part of a summary of the lead. Please be aware that the lead is also determined by what is WP:DUE based on WP:BALANCE of reliable sources per MOS:LEADREL. I'm otherwise not convinced the looting is relevant for inclusion in the lead. CNC (talk) 16:59, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I otherwise wouldn't say your edit was an improvement what so ever. You removed the line "having wrongly connected the stabbing to a Muslim", which is highly relevant to the article and therefore very much due for inclusion in the lead. [4] CNC (talk) 17:02, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Well then it's best to see if an existing editor could add the remaining details of the riots in the article, fair enough. Regarding the removal of that line, I did so due to it not being in the Merseyside Police source I added, therefore sounded a lot like a tabloid surmising, which I wouldn't personally put in a summarised introduction. Plarety (talk) 17:11, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

The police source is a WP:PRIMARY source which is far from ideal if not supported by WP:SECONDARY sources. CNC (talk) 17:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Role of social media

Lots of useful info on the role of social media in this BBC piece. Bondegezou (talk) 19:49, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

inclusion of counter-protestsers

Maybe a third column in the infobox alongside the far right groups and police should be included for current growing counter-protest movements that have been involved in more recent events. Goblyn strange (talk) 14:52, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done per recent content added, have included anti-racist protesters per source CNC (talk) 15:26, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

request for edit

in the 'Analysis' section is the sentence

According to Hope not Hate, the stabbing in Southport was the catalyst, "most of these protests and riots are more broadly focused, expressive of a wider hostility to multiculturalism, anti-Muslim and anti-migrant prejudice, as well as a visceral streak of populist anti-Government sentiment".

how about adding the word 'though' before the words 'the stabbing? Potholehotline (talk) 15:16, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Done. Bondegezou (talk) 15:19, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

@Bondegezou,thank you, that was quick Potholehotline (talk) 15:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Possible article change

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The protests mentioned in the aftermath section (enough is enough london) seems to be spiking up presently, as do similar protests across the country like in Hartlepool. This article may have to be moved into a new 2024 UK Riots article if the ongoing protests become newsworthy. The present scale of the protests in london and hartlepool is unknown, but men famous enough to have an article (Martin Daubney) have already been arrested in london. DParkinson1 (talk) 19:49, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I was coming here to the same thing. Definitely looks as if this will (sadly) be a bigger story. I'm not certain what the best new title should be, however. Bondegezou (talk) 20:25, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I've added the extended detail on aftermath re: Whitehall demonstration, but I think it's too early to describe this as a "UK riots" type event. Currently there were the Southport riots followed by a demo in Whitehall, but not much else. CNC (talk) 20:39, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Reports of violence in Southport, Hartlepool, Newton Heath (Manchester), Whitehall and a major protest in Aldershot suggest that this is not a one off and that there are more Anti-Muslim and Anti-immigrant riots to come Marinne2004 (talk) 21:25, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Do you have links to reliable sources for this content? CNC (talk) 21:32, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I dont know what constitutes reliable sources but heres what i got

Hartlepool: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c727p6dxrd2o

Newton Heath: https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/protest-manchester-erupts-scenes-violence-29653735

Everyone has seen whitehall protests outside downing street

Aldershot: No reliable sources but there has been recordings of (nonviolent) protests on twitter Marinne2004 (talk) 21:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

They are indeed reliable sources, but there is no reference to Southport in either. At best these are isolated incidents, unless there is further reporting that they are connected to the Southport incident. CNC (talk) 21:55, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I think thats the point no? There is an undeniable increase in Anti-Muslim and Anti-immigration riots that arent necessarily linked to Southport but a general increase in Far right activity across the UK, which would be grounds to change the article Marinne2004 (talk) 22:14, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

That's not the point no, assuming the point would here would be original research. CNC (talk) 22:17, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

You have to read between the lines. News media outlets aren't an encyclopedia, they don't provide context of things that the public are expected to know. TurkeyAndHungry (talk) 01:12, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

'Reading between the lines' is exactly what we don't do. This is core Wikipedia policy, and not open to negotiation here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:16, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

How many articles do you think could be written using only news articles that link everything together? Do you really think that we would need a Wikipedia if news articles wrote everything at once? I hope you go through Wikipedia removing all the information that isn't linked together on one article.

Anyway, I agree that these riots should be viewed in the context of the wider populist right riots sweeping Europe, including the riot in Dublin. These all share the similar focus on ethnic minorities from Muslim countries as the antagonist.

I was saying on the other Talk Page how none of what's happening makes sense without viewing all of this through the eyes of rising Islamophobia in Europe, and the reader needs to understand the background and context of the situation these news articles are being produced in. TurkeyAndHungry (talk) 02:09, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

That is your belief, but unless independent reliable sources explicitly make the link, then Wikipedia articles should not make the link. Remember there are other linking beliefs - for example, that "Russia inspires, encourages and funds extremist groups... because they can disrupt other countries."^{The Conversation} Articles like this need to be held to the standard that everything must be verifiable.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:45, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I'd support a move to 2024 United Kingdom riots or something similar per this source and others. C F A 💬 21:58, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I think best to create a standalone article, if there is GNG and SIGCOV to support. I don't think this article should be moved to such a title personally, as it's notable on its own, and would serve as the "beginning" of such a widespread event. CNC (talk) 22:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I don’t see the case for multiple articles. These are all clearly linked (and being reported as such by RS). This article isn’t long. Let’s put all the coverage in one place. At which point, we need a name change. Bondegezou (talk) 22:30, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I also support a move to 2024 United Kingdom riots. TurkeyAndHungry (talk) 01:10, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I've had my misgivings about this article as a nearby event on a similar scale last year [5] does not have its own article so this may end up in AfD for WP:LASTING, so I think inclusion of these related events would add to the overall notability of this topic. Per @CFA, I agree but would optimistically suggest Summer 2024 UK riots Orange sticker (talk) 22:00, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

wait, that's not optimism is it? :sigh: Orange sticker (talk) 22:01, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Based on RS reporting, this article is clearly GNG and has SIGCOV, I'm not convinced about a boarder article. Personally I think it's best to "build up" the aftermath section until it's ready for splitting, if indeed it all originates from this topic. CNC (talk) 22:05, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

You can argue that this is part of the wider anti-migration sentiment sweeping Europe, including the riot in Dublin, but I doubt that you would merge all of that into one article. TurkeyAndHungry (talk) 01:14, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

The article title definitely needs to be reviewed as it is now covering the disorder across a wider geographic area including Hartlepool, Manchester and Aldershot. 2.96.227.72 (talk) 00:32, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I highly doubt that as the main scope remains Southport. Those other protests don't really have the WP:SIGCOV to justify a standalone article, so better suited a part of this one. For example 2022 Leicester unrest has a section on Birmingham events, without the need for a title change, and so far news remains quite of further protests. CNC (talk) 03:00, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Tonight's Sunderland unrest is larger than the original Southport riot. I think we have to acknowledge that in a broader article title. Bondegezou (talk) 21:48, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Does anyone still actively object to a move to a broader title, or should we start a formal WP:RM? C F A 💬 21:53, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Just saw your comment. No objection, but otherwise propose avoiding long-winded RM (unless it can be snow closed relatively quickly which isn't a guarantee). A new article would avoid this... just a thought. CNC (talk) 21:55, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, can't deny that there is SIGCOV for a broader article now despite my previous reservations. I still think it'd make more sense to split off further unrest (other protests) and continue from there however? Often the first instance of disorder, followed by a sequence of unrest/riots, is very much due it's own article based on the significance. I also think it'd be easier (less bureaucratic) to create a new article rather than than have a week-long RM to rename this one. CNC (talk) 21:53, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

We don't need a week-long RM if no one objects to a move, and this discussion looks like consensus for one anyways. I'm tempted to boldy move it then someone can revert it if they object. C F A 💬 21:56, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes would prefer a bold move rather than RM, that would of been my second choice. Quick thoughts: 2024 England Riots, similar to 2011 England riots? Can be moved to UK if comes into play later. CNC (talk) 21:58, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Apparently there have been riots in Wales too? I'm not entirely sure. [6][7] C F A 💬 22:01, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

They are just preparing police in Wales for the weekend as far as I understand. As far as maps from RS, it's just England so far. I can be a quick move to UK later if required though. CNC (talk) 22:04, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

No objection here, however I don't think this spate of riots is connected to the recent one in Harehills, so maybe needs to be more specific? July/August? Orange sticker (talk) 22:02, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Fair point. Summer 2024 England Riots then, similar to above proposal? CNC (talk) 22:05, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I think we'd be better off going with 2024 England riots then adding a hatnote to 2024 Harehills riot since these are obviously much more widespread and probably the primary topic. C F A 💬 22:08, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, my previous suggestion was unnecessarily detailed. CNC (talk) 22:09, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done. I guess we'll see what happens. C F A 💬 22:11, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2024

In the 'Riot' section write about the fires of cars belonging to the public and the wheelies. I made this sentence:

Wheelie bins of local residents and cars belonging to the public were set on fire "at random" by the rioters. Plarety (talk) 20:29, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. —Sirdog (talk) 02:24, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

“Far Right”

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

RS show these are riots. We say what RS say. No more time needs to be spent on this, I think. Cremastra (talk) 00:01, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

---

This should be called a right wing “protest” over right wing “riot” John Bois (talk) 17:56, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

WE go by sources, and not the opinions of random contributors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:01, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Most sources state it as a “protest” I’ll send you them if needed also this is completely hypothetical look at this wiki article George Floyd protests in Minneapolis–Saint Paul this event is the same as this but why is one called a protests while the other is called a riot?

by no means am I a right wing person I don’t have political view but we need to stop being biased John Bois (talk) 18:03, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Comparisons with the George Floyd protests are absurd. And irrelevant, since we don't base the content of one article on what another article says. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:07, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

You are showing clear bias by stating "Comparisons with the George Floyd protests are absurd".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fornanzo (talk • contribs) 19:00, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

How is it “absurd” those protests were worse then this (more deaths, damage, ect) I can give you multiple sources vaild sources calling this a right wing protest

once again I lean left wing in American politics but this is absolutely ridiculous that we are calling this a “riot” John Bois (talk) 18:13, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Read WP:NOTFORUM. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:15, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Your clearly showing bias here and it’s obvious

would you like to see sources call this a “protest”

Wikipedia is meant to be a non biased platform and yet we are here radicalizing the right wing this will continue to build their narrative of “media is against us” John Bois (talk) 18:19, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I’m waiting for a response, if you can’t provide one it proves my point. John Bois (talk) 18:31, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Numerous reliable sources in the article document "far right", end of. CNC (talk) 19:40, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Most sources state it as a “protest” Is that true? - no; riot is about three times as common, see below:

• Google News "Southport riot" last 7 days 184 stories
• Google News "Southport protest" last 7 days 65 stories

Please note that numbers will vary over time.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:36, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2024

"Merseyside Police attempted to quell speculation by confirming that the name being circulated was not connected to the case and was not the suspect.[16] The actual suspect was born in Cardiff and moved to the Southport area in 2013." I believe should include the suspects name. For example "Merseyside Police attempted to quell speculation by confirming that the name being circulated was not connected to the case and was not the suspect The actual suspect, named 'Axel Rudakubana', was born in Cardiff and moved to the Southport area in 2013." No idea why the name of the suspect is not included in this paragraph. 81.78.123.52 (talk) 02:16, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

References

When police issued that statement, the accused had not been named by the court. WWGB (talk) 02:32, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Remove "Far-Right" statements from page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I suggest removing all mention of "Far Right". These are just everyday normal people who are sick of the Government and other crap going on, just because they are flying flags of the country they are in doesn't mean they are "Far-Right". If you keep throwing around the "Far Right" word then when there actually is a an issue with the Far Right then no one will take notice because you've run the word thin. 145.224.66.4 (talk) 22:50, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Most reliable sources are referring to the protestors as far-right, and reporting their connections to the English Defence League. Voltaic181 (he/him) (talk) 11:39, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Going to improve sourcing on this with a note due to repeated removal of RS description. CNC (talk) 11:58, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Buzz off mate. Wikipedia runs on sources, and sources state they are far right. You want to make this sort of political comment anonymously? write in to the telegraph under a pseudonym. DParkinson1 (talk) 16:51, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Please remember to remain WP:CIVIL when assuming WP:BADFAITH. CNC (talk) 17:01, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Broken lead

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Patiently waiting for protection to return to avoid edit-warring. Since semi-protection has been removed:

• Far-right removed from MOS:FIRST
• Entire summary of Southport removed
• Undue statement from the Guardian
• Doesn't follow MOS:INTRO style
• Numerous broken cites

Lead should probably be restored to a stable version prior to improvement. CNC (talk) 23:32, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

• It's not inherently far-right. It should be in the lead, but not essentially in the first paragraph. I'm not opposed to it being in the first paragraph.
• The other version follows the style from 2011 England riots.

Apart from that your suggestions are fine. TurkeyAndHungry (talk) 23:49, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

The overwhelming majority of reliable sources are documenting these riots as far-right. As for 2011 England riots, that is a completely different subject. Overall there was never a consensus regarding the political motivation behind them, despite significant debate on the causes and context (see last paragraph of the article). CNC (talk) 23:53, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I added far-right why are you complaining? TurkeyAndHungry (talk) 23:55, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

And the reference to the 2011 England riots was about the style of the intro. That article starts with "The 2011 England riots were..." and surely it would be a good template to use for the structure of this article? TurkeyAndHungry (talk) 23:57, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@TurkeyAndHungry: Please stop reverting without discussion. You have violated the three-revert rule. Discuss here instead. C F A 💬 23:53, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I added the suggestions he wrote so put it back. TurkeyAndHungry (talk) 23:55, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

We don't need citations in the lead or unimportant attributed claims like:

The Telegraph wrote that the police had "some difficult days – and months – ahead", alluding to the expected timescale of the protests.

The lead is supposed to be a summary of the article. Feel free to add attributed comments elsewhere in the article, but they are not necessary in the lead. C F A 💬 23:57, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Should we not include the expect timescale of the riots? A casual reader from overseas may not understand the prolonged nature of these protests. TurkeyAndHungry (talk) 23:58, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean. We don't need a one-off statement by The Telegraph in the lead. It may not even be relevant to anywhere else in the article. Things don't have to be included just because they are true. C F A 💬 00:01, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Usually riots are a one-off event, possibly lasting for a handful of days. If an estimate puts it at weeks or months, then maybe it's noteworthy to include as a possible timescale of the civil unrest. TurkeyAndHungry (talk) 00:05, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, no, because it is the assessment of one news outlet. You can include it elsewhere in the article if you think it's relevant, but it definitely isn't necessary in the lead summary. C F A 💬 00:09, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

It's has already been moved away from the lead. But there are a few sources alluding to the idea that these riots are going to last all summer. TurkeyAndHungry (talk) 00:11, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Until it has become a significant part of the topic, it should not be included in the lead. It isn't the place for random facts; it should be a concise summary. C F A 💬 00:12, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Just to clarify, this is why I opened a discussion at administration noticeboard. CNC (talk) 00:08, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

You haven't actually written why you want to revert the lead even when the changes you want made have been done.

I would prefer that the article was structured similar to the 2024 Harehills riot and 2011 England riots. TurkeyAndHungry (talk) 00:16, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I can tell that's what you prefer, judging by your 6 reverts, but that doesn't mean everyone else does. C F A 💬 00:18, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Would you care to elaborate what you dislike? TurkeyAndHungry (talk) 00:21, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

"Since" as the first word (editorializing), the use of "protests" when they have been described in RS as "riots" (see above discussion), duplicate statements in the second and third paragraph, redundant statements in the last paragraph, etc. C F A 💬 00:24, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Also see:

• 2024 Harehills riot
• 2023 Dublin riot
• 2011 England riots

You should use the normal article structure used for articles related to riots. TurkeyAndHungry (talk) 00:23, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

At this point, to avoid tiresome arguments, I recommend you just read the manual of style for Wikipedia articles, specifically related to the lead: WP:LEAD, MOS:INTRO, MOS:FIRST and MOS:OPEN. The issue here is that you appear to think the lead is an introduction to the riots: it's not. It's a summary of the article, per WP:SUMMARY. CNC (talk) 00:16, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Refer to the 2024 Harehills riots and the 2011 England riots. Your style of the article is incorrect. TurkeyAndHungry (talk) 00:17, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue with you. There is currently a race between this article returning to SP and you being temporarily blocked for edit warring, so would be a WP:WASTEOFTIME. CNC (talk) 00:24, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Picture?

Has anyone found an actually free picture of the riots that could be uploaded? There are a lot of pictures out there; I'm surprised none of them are CC. Cremastra (talk) 00:08, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I've got a few from Liverpool, here's one https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Protest_in_Liverpool_on_3_August.jpg&oldid=907137789 DannyDouble (talk) 19:39, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

There are a bunch in the article now, but thanks. Cremastra (talk) 20:23, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

The actual suspect was born in Cardiff and moved to the Southport area in 2013

I have restored The actual suspect was born in Cardiff and moved to the Southport area in 2013. which was deleted without explanation by WWGB.^[8] I would not have reverted it if (a) there had been a reasonable explanation, and (b) the deletion had removed the citation along with the text it supported.

It messes up verifiability to leave stray citations in the article.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:51, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Badenoch

I added comments by Kemi Badenoch, one of the candidates in the Conservative leadership election, to the Responses section, but WWGB removed them, commenting stick to leaders and local members, wannabe leaders have no particular importance for such comments. I included Badenoch's comments because they are literally front-page news: they are the Telegraph's lead article today.[9] They were then further covered by The Times [10] and the Evening Standard [11]. We don't include or exclude content based on editor's personal criteria: we include or exclude based on what reliable sources say. Reliable sources are talking about Badenoch's intervention, so I suggest so should we. Bondegezou (talk) 08:56, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Maybe refer to her as the Shadow Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government rather than a leadership contender, which is a more transitory status? Agree her statement is worthy of inclusion. Orange sticker (talk) 09:19, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

although it's not clear who she's referring to when she says "they". Orange sticker (talk) 09:22, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't see their comments as being particularly significant, insofar as I can't see that they pass the 10 years test. TarnishedPath^talk 09:38, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I think a senior politician making inflammatory comments about integration provide important context about how febrile the state of politics, particularly relating to multiculturalism, is in the UK in 2024. Orange sticker (talk) 10:09, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

"We can't pretend UK integration has worked"[12] might be a more pertinent quote. Orange sticker (talk) 10:10, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

What exactly does integration policy have to do with the riots and the stabbing that brought about them? Sounds like you're in WP:OR grounds there. TarnishedPath^talk 13:00, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

It's tough really because even though the BBC are explicitly making the link and calling the riots "protests" related to the stabbings, I think journalists are being very irresponsible by saying they are a reaction to them, seeing as there is no logical reason to attack mosques, Muslims, people of colour or immigrants because of the tragedy in Southport. I agree with the reporting that focuses on the misinformation and incitement from those with a political agenda as the cause. But obviously I'm straying into NPOV here. Nevertheless, Badenoch's comments are getting significant coverage and show how mainstream this way of thinking is today. Orange sticker (talk) 13:31, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

It would have been better if the person deleting the comments by Badenoch (until recently a Cabinet minister) had explained their reasoning on the article talk page when they deleted the text (or better still a few hours before deleting the text). The text in question was as follows:

Conservative leadership contender Kemi Badenoch said, “They should be saying that we need a clearer strategy on integration, which we don’t have at the moment.”

I do not think that reducing what Badenoch said to one soundbite adds usefully to the article. Either we should explain properly what Badenoch is saying, or not bother. If editors cannot access the articles in The Daily Telegraph, their front page for 3 August 2024 is readable on the BBC website and this has another article quoting Badenoch on this subject. Apparently there is also an editorial on page 17.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:48, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

 Self-trout Not everything in the media needs to be reported in Wikipedia. Badenoch is not a party leader, a minister, the member for Southport any constituency affected by local protests, or an authority on the issue. Therefore, she speaks with no voice but her own. There is no benefit in publishing her thoughts any more than other politicians with personal opinions. WWGB (talk) 13:40, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

This is now about the countrywide riots, not just Southport. Orange sticker (talk) 13:46, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2024

Change The riots have been described as being Islamophobic,[11][12][13] racially-charged[14][15][16], anti-immigration,[17][18][16] and far-right.[b]

to The attacks have been described as being Islamophobic,[11][12][13] racially-charged[14][15][16], anti-immigration,[17][18][16] and far-right.[b] 73.170.137.168 (talk) 16:11, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

But why? The sources are referencing the riots, not specific attacks. CNC (talk) 17:10, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Jamedeus (talk) 19:02, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 3 August 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Boldly moved by Gammawammallama. (closed by non-admin page mover) C F A 💬 18:24, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

---

2024 England riots → 2024 UK riots – The protests have spread beyond England to include Belfast, as is well documented.

https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/2024/08/03/riot-police-separate-protest-groups-at-belfast-demonstration/

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/two-arrests-as-mla-slams-fascist-mob-after-businesses-attacked-during-belfast-trouble/a1611894031.html

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/police-in-riot-gear-deployed-in-belfast-as-anti-islam-and-anti-racism-protesters-face-off-1657767.html

In fact, it's even mentioned in this article that riots have taken place in Belfast. Belfast is not in England, guys! Gravyd2 (talk) 17:33, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree I was thinking about opening a topic on this, given the protests in Belfast. CNC (talk) 17:40, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

• Speedy support as obviously relevant although it should probably be at 2024 United Kingdom riots per MOS:ACROTITLE. C F A 💬 17:50, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wording - "cause" or "contributory factor to initiation"

An editor has changed this:

• The spread of misinformation has widely been given as the cause of the riots.

to this:

• The spread of misinformation has widely been suggested as a contributory factor to initiation of the riots.

In my opinion the change is not an improvement. The cited source put it this way:

• "...a social media misinformation campaign which led to ..."

I think it is a fair point that it was not the only cause of the riots. (Kemi Badenoch has a different theory.) Please can we have given as a cause. That is not a total revert - using "a" instead of "the" makes it clear that there might have been other causes.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:15, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I've reverted the text. The change made was an odd wording and not supported by citations. I have no objection to your suggested alternative wording. Bondegezou (talk) 14:32, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Maybe best to specify "Southport riots"? Like much of the content, it was added when the article was about Southport. It was the main cause of that, but not necessarily the main cause of the continuation of riots. Otherwise best to add further citations to reference it as the main cause of the riots overall, which probably exists. CNC (talk) 14:43, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Done.^[13] -- Toddy1 (talk) 15:56, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2024

Tamworth D2008kingwell (talk) 18:59, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. C F A 💬 19:01, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Similarly to the Rotherham riot, this Tamworth riot is also happening near a Holiday Inn Express. Chants like “who’s street, our street” and “England, England, England” can be heard. Fireworks are being thrown at the police and the hotel windows can be seen. D2008kingwell (talk) 19:06, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

BLPCRIME violation

I've never seen such a blatant violation of WP:SUSPECT.[14][[15] Does anyone know how long these edits were in place for and who included them? If it was a registered user, it should go to BLP noticeboard. CNC (talk) 12:36, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Holy crap, I see this is currently referenced in googles wiki box under Southport riot. CNC (talk) 12:41, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

So I found the edit to the lead from an IP [16]. That was ~10 hours ago prior to removal 😲 CNC (talk) 12:48, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Found another that I removed at Special:Diff/1238355316. TarnishedPath^talk 13:18, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

@MoldciusMenbug: Please read WP:BLPCRIME. Adding the name and photograph of the suspect in the Southport stabbing is a very dubious thing to do. A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction ... editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured.

You have tried to add the suspect's name to the article at least twice, and been reverted. You need consensus to add such material.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:53, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Image is a copyvio as well, have tagged as such [17]. I also don't see the benefit of adding the suspect's name. The relevant aspect of the stabbings is the misinformation about the suspect, not his name. CNC (talk) 18:58, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

The suspect is named in the first paragraph of the page of the stabbing : 2024 Southport stabbing, so what is your point ? It was explictly said in the article before you removed it that Axel Muganwa Rudakubana was simply charged, not convicted. My contribution did not break any Wikipedia policies. Your content removal seems to be motivated by political reasons. The name of the main suspect whose crime started these riots is relevant content, don't you think ? Are you arguing for removing George Floyd and Derek Chauvin's names from the 2020 BLM protest page : George Floyd protests ? MoldciusMenbug (talk) 19:13, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

"The name of the main suspect whose crime started these riots", there you go again with BLPCRIME. His name did not spark the riots, the misinformation surrounding the suspect is what caused it, per sources. Including his name would only be misleading and irrelevant, and his name was only released after the Southport riots as a quick reminder. CNC (talk) 19:19, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it did break a Wikipedia policy, WP:BLPCRIME. Please read it carefully before editing this article any further, or you risk being blocked from editing for biographies of living persons policy violations. George Floyd protests makes no sense as a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument anyways because Floyd was killed and Chauvin was convicted of third-degree murder. C F A 💬 19:24, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Chauvin's name was written on the BLM riots page years before he was convicted. You're distorting Wikipedia guidelines Wikipedia:BLPCRIME. My argument is not a false analogy and Derek Chauvin's name being on the BLM riots of 2020 page is a legitimate precedent. There are no reasonable arguments against adding the name of the suspect which has been charged for the stabbings which sparked the riots. MoldciusMenbug (talk) 20:41, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

No, you just haven't read the policy. The policy states: editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. It is a heavily weighted editorial decision that consensus is clearly against. Chauvin's case was different because his name was widely published in reliable sources and headlines used his name frequently. That is not the case for the individual involved in this. His name has been included as a passing mention in a few reliable sources, but most in-depth coverage about him is in unreliable tabloids. Sources are also not connecting directly attributing the perpetrator to the riots, a different topic altogether, which would be necessary to include his name. It has already been included in the 2024 Southport stabbing article. C F A 💬 20:48, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Why isn't this designated as a Pogrom, instead of a riot.

These people are explicitly targeting people of a certain background and burning their places of residence and shops. What level does it have to reach before this is classified as such? Midgetman433 (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

That's not up for Wikipedians to decide. I doubt even the media would purport it as such. ♦ JAGUAR  17:50, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

There would need to be evidence that the commonly-used term in reliable published sources was "pogrom".-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:00, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

You could classify the 2022 Leicester unrest as a pogrom against British Indians using the same way of thinking. Where do you want to draw the line? FishingInOcean (talk) 20:55, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

We don’t even refer to the Gordon riots as a pogrom, even though those were also targeting a specific group (Catholics).2604:2D80:7186:600:0:0:0:1397 (talk) 20:56, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

This article feels a little editorialised

The narrative in this article seems to be:

A person stabbed a few girls and the suspect was thought to be Muslim due to disinformation and so the far right decided to attack Muslims.

I think this is a very narrow view on the situation. There's a wider discussion about Islamophobia, anti-migration sentiment and socioeconomic trouble (among both rioters and Muslims), in addition to various sociocultural issues related to Muslims such as crime, multiculturalism and integration that single out Muslims.

In fact I don't actually get how you'd write this article even with the narrative biases of mainstream media currently.

The news outlets also do not seem to be painting the narrative in this article but discussing a wide range of topics, but it's hard to write them into this article due to the way this article is written.

And furthermore the article should provide some context as to why the rioters and Muslims are clashing so much. This article does not seem to cover the Muslim gangs running around town as well despite there being clear first hand evidence to anyone looking at it. FishingInOcean (talk) 19:59, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

If you can find a reference for it please do add it. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 21:03, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

"“Whilst Southport was the trigger, most of these protests and riots are more broadly focused, expressive of a wider hostility to multiculturalism, anti-Muslim and anti-migrant prejudice, as well as a visceral streak of populist anti-Government sentiment,” Mulhall added"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/08/04/uk-riots-protests-southport-stabbing-arrests/ FishingInOcean (talk) 21:19, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

It's not everything that I asked for, but it does cover some points that are not included in this article, especially the idea that the rioters know that the stabbing wasn't by a Muslim migrant, but they are rioting against Muslims for other reasons. FishingInOcean (talk) 21:20, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Labelling of protesters

The term 'far-right' should not be used to describe the protesters. It is a misrepresentation of them, these protesters aren't far-right they are concerned fathers and mothers who are protesting out of fear for their children's safety, hardly 'far-right'. Iconickid239 (talk) 18:25, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

See #Remove "Far-Right" statements from page. Wikipedia bases its articles on what reliable, independent sources say about the matter. In this case, these riots have been widely (see citations on page) described as "far-right", so that's how we described them too. C F A 💬 18:28, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

The EDL disbanded years ago and now there are opportunists, some who aren't even white, and many young, are rioting, looting and arsoning buildings. The media are drooling labelling everyone far-right, I guess for them it's easier and fits the agenda. I also haven't seen the 2 men who were stabbed or hit with a hammer on the media yet, which was done by the anti-racism crowd. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 19:42, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

[18] [19] [20] and plenty more are reporting on it. Only they all confirm no stabbing has taken place and it's unknown how the injuries occured. Wikipedia shouldn't speculate on that. Knitsey (talk) 19:54, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Even ignoring media's labeling, these rioters clearly showed their hate and fear towards Islam/Muslims, illigal immigrants and violent crimes. This is a textbook definition of "far-right". Being concerned about their children's safety is merely a convinient excuse. Sofeshue (talk) 04:41, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I have reopened this discussion per WP:NACD. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 21:16, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Non-admins can close discussions. You can re-open it, but it doesn't mean anything will be done about it. C F A 💬 21:19, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Didn't say they can't, didn't say anything will be done with it either.

Per WP:NACD

Do not close a discussion if:

• you have offered an opinion in the discussion

also need the (non-admin closure) tag.

Thanks. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 21:26, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

That (including the {{nac}} tag) is specifically for deletion discussions, not informal closes of redundant discussions on the talk page. There is already consensus for inclusion at #“Far Right” and #Remove "Far-Right" statements from page. Your POV pushing is not helping here. C F A 💬 21:30, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

How anyone would see closing a discussion they were involved in is anything other than a COI is crazy. That's cool, maybe if you didn't close this one against Wikipedia policy this would be the only discussion about it. POV pushing because I upset you reopening the discussion in line with the rules is funny and kind of just shows your POV if ya ask me. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 21:39, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

This will be my last words to keep the peace, I hope you have a good day. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 21:41, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I never said I didn't have a COI. But continuing the discussion was not going to go anywhere except pointless, unrelated WP:NOTAFORUM debates about fringe theories. I didn't "close this one against Wikipedia policy" at all. You cited an unrelated guideline about closing deletion discussions. I am well aware of how to close AfDs. An actual policy would be WP:NOTAFORUM which explicitly says Material unsuitable for talk pages may be subject to removal per the talk page guidelines. WP:POVPUSHING says POV-pushing is a term used on Wikipedia to describe the aggressive presentation of a particular point of view in an article, particularly when used to denote the undue presentation of minor or fringe ideas.. Going against reliable sources and bringing up minor fringe theories like it's easier and fits the agenda is definitely POV pushing. C F A 💬 21:46, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Donna Jones section

That last paragraph is putting far-right views out there unchallenged, in a way not found in the sources, which contain loads of reporting on how it was "totally unacceptable", "grossly irresponsible", etc. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 23:30, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2024 (2)

If you're going to quote Jones quote also others who rebuked her:

Eastleigh MP Liz Jarvis, external accused Ms Jones of "attempting to justify the criminality", describing the PCC's earlier comments as "divisive, inflammatory and grossly irresponsible".

Nazir Afzal, former chief executive of the APCC, has also criticised Ms Jones' earlier comments, calling them "totally unacceptable".

“I would have heavily advised against a current PCC, let alone the chair, appearing to justify rioting and criminality that police officers are bravely having to deal with right now," he said.

Winchester MP Danny Chambers also criticised Ms Jones, external, saying he was "deeply concerned" she believed "rioters vandalising our streets and attacking mosques are motivated by 'the need to uphold British values'."

"These extreme views make her totally unsuitable to hold this position of responsibility," he said.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czk00ykdl75o 92.18.126.226 (talk) 23:52, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure which reactions to include, but the current presentation of Jones as a kind of mouthpiece of the protesters' (presumed) grievances is tremendously UNDUE. Newimpartial (talk) 03:21, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

"Early August" in the lede

One might certainly expect (and hope) that the riots die out shortly, but should we really be writing in the past tense or listing an end date when they're ongoing? I think "Since July 30" would be better phrasing. 219.161.0.19 (talk) 05:05, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea per WP:CRYSTAL and have incorporated it in the article. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 05:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

"Alleged Muslim"

In the section 2024_United_Kingdom_riots#Further_online_disinformation, I read 'Tommy Robinson ... falsely claimed on social media that the assailant was an "alleged Muslim"'. But that's wrong. Robinson's claim was not false. The assailant had been alleged to be a Muslim, albeit by thoroughly unreliable sources. Maproom (talk) 06:52, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Withdrawing this. It's about a different incident, a few days later. Maproom (talk) 06:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

These riots aren't about misinformation and a mass stabbing

This article blames the riots on misinformation surrounding the mass stabbing. This is wrong. The reasons for the riots are much broader and encompass Islamophobia, anti-immigration sentiment and economic issues, even if the catalyst was the stabbing. WindofWasps (talk) 08:10, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

This is covered in the article. Bondegezou (talk) 10:15, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Citation style for the lead

Articles can be done, either:

1. In the style that everything has a citation, or
2. In the style that everything in the main body of the article has a citation, but the lead does not have citations because it is only summarising stuff in the main body of the article.

I had thought that the style the article was using was the latter. But now we have editors who are deleting statements from the lead that are supported by citations in the main body of the article, for example [21]. -- Toddy1 (talk) 06:23, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I've just reverted one of @NamelessLameless's edits and they changed it straight back. Please consider consulting this talk page before making bold edits. Orange sticker (talk) 07:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

The latter is to be preferred, but this is often a problem with fast-moving stories getting a lot of edits. We can tidy it up later. Bondegezou (talk) 10:17, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Travel advisories

Is it really notable that Malaysia and Nigeria have advised travellers to "avoid demonstrations"? Practically every country advises this to everyone travelling anywhere. See e.g. Canada, which makes no reference to these riots but still says "avoid areas where demonstrations and large gatherings are taking place". – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:53, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Main Page ITN

Should this be featured of the In The News section of the Main Page? Bajaria (talk) 22:47, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Would probably need a picture of the riots to go along with it. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 23:05, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

The 2011 England riots featured so it's a definite candidate. Here's a capture of the main page from 10 August 2011. This is Paul (talk) 23:19, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it'd be considered significant enough to be featured, considering the 2011 England riots notably resulted in 5 deaths. But I suppose someone could try. C F A 💬 23:21, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the riots are considered significant enough based on coverage. The significance isn't based on the severity of casualties, but merely the coverage which remains high. CNC (talk) 11:11, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree the news page needs to be shaken up.International reporting justifies.--Wuerzele (talk) 19:01, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I would object on the basis that this article isn't really flush with details currently, probably because the situation is too tense to properly report on, but that means that Wikipedia isn't capable of providing proper coverage for a ITN item. FishingInOcean (talk) 20:59, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

The article is now on ITN but just a note that if editors want to propose the inclusion of any article, or discuss whether it's ready if others are proposing it, the place for that is ITN/C, where you can see the discussion which took place Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#(Posted) United Kingdom riots. Nil Einne (talk) 12:43, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Attack on Hull Hotel

They claim the hotel in Hull houses asylum seekers, it doesn't. They targeted the wrong place. At a minimum that statement should be downgraded from a assertion of fact to an unsubstantiated claim. 194.207.139.232 (talk) 14:55, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done per the source: "a group of people targeted a hotel which houses asylum seekers." and "windows of a hotel which has been used to house migrants were smashed in Hull" [22] CNC (talk) 15:14, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

The reporting of a protesters assertion is not fact, it is reporting. 194.207.139.232 (talk) 09:33, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Those aren't protesters assertions, they are from The Guardians. CNC (talk) 12:50, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Charges, convictions and sentences

I'd like to see a running list/table of charges, convictions and sentences. Is there a preferred format for this, or a good example from another article? S C Cheese (talk) 13:34, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

'Charges' would likely raise WP:BLP concerns. As for convictions and sentences, a running list could get unwieldy, and in any case would probably be undue. We summarise events, rather than covering every last detail. Detailing any particular case would require sufficient sourcing to justify it. See 2011 England riots for an idea of what was considered appropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:50, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Across the U.K

So far the riots and really any sort of agitation has only taken place in England and Belfast. The article addresses this but should mention the lack of any across Scotland and Wales if it’s going to say “the U.K” 2A00:23C4:BC17:8A01:FD3D:5DA4:52AB:E688 (talk) 14:48, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

We say where riots have taken place and there's a nice map showing that. We don't need to explicitly say as well that nothing has happened in Scotland and Wales. Bondegezou (talk) 15:17, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Right, it’s just that it isn’t really a U.K wide phenomenon, which is the name of the article. 2A00:23C4:BC17:8A01:FD3D:5DA4:52AB:E688 (talk) 15:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Previously I described it in the first sentence as "far-right protesters have rioted in various parts of England and Norther Ireland" - but it was reverted as someone thought "you mean UK right". Probably something like "far-right protesters have rioted in various parts of England, as well as in Northern Ireland," would make things clearer here. CNC (talk) 15:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. 2A00:23C4:BC17:8A01:C15:FD94:D6AA:4827 (talk) 16:30, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Map: is image or mediawiki map preferred?

A map just got added to the article, which is great. Do we prefer a mediawiki map, like the one currently in the article, or is a static image (which is still able to be updated) preferred? Cheers, Cremastra (talk) 15:24, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

The media wiki map is best for this.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Harvard referencing of news articles

It does not make any sense that someone has changed the way the article references two news stories to Harvard referencing.

• McKiernan, Jennifer (2 August 2024). "Far-right protesters warned 'We're watching you'". BBC News. Retrieved 3 August 2024.
• Murray, Jessica; Gohil, Neha (2 August 2024). "Anti-racists mobilise to counter 'unprecedented' UK far-right rallies". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 3 August 2024.

This means that they are referenced by author and year of publication. Do you really think that they will only write one news story this year that this Wikipedia article will reference? it makes no sense.-- Toddy1 (talk) 05:53, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I have removed the Harvard referencing. I have restored the reference names - though they are no longer needed - at one time they each were being cited in several places, and now only in one place.-- Toddy1 (talk) 06:01, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

There were still cited using Harvard referencing elsewhere in the article, I've moved them to inline to match the article style. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 07:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I had not spotted that they were using both {{harvnb|McKiernan|2024}} and {{sfn|McKiernan|2024}} format for Harvard referencing.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:52, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Someone did changed another citation to a news article to Harvard referencing, complete with different template calls which makes reverting more difficult, and introduced a spelling error for the author's name (or at least a different spelling than the source used). I have reverted.

Harvard referencing by year of publication is not suitable for news stories because authors are likely to produces lots of news stories over a year - and in the case of this topic, many on the same topic.

In any case, if someone thinks they should upend how referencing is done in the article, they should get consensus.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:39, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Elon Musk going at it again : civil war inevitable

Minister https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/keir-starmer-slams-elon-musks-claims-civil-war-is-inevitable-in-uk-amid-far-right-riots_uk_66b0b575e4b0781f9246bbf4

https://fortune.com/europe/2024/08/05/british-pm-calls-out-elon-musk-over-his-claim-civil-war-is-inevitable-in-the-u-k/

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-08-05/uk-says-musk-s-civil-war-is-inevitable-post-is-unjustified

https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-pm-slams-elon-musk-for-saying-far-right-riots-inevitable/

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13710727/Keir-Starmer-slaps-Elon-Musk-civil-war-inevitable-claim-No10-attacks-controversial-billionaire-remarks-Britains-riots.html Baratiiman (talk) 17:14, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done - looks like this has already been added to the article. GnocchiFan (talk) 20:44, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Metro newspaper should be removed as a source

See WP:RSNP. Doug Weller talk 15:46, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree CNC (talk) 15:53, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Also WP:DAILYMIRROR isn't much better, needs re-sourcing and likely content changed. CNC (talk) 15:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done - I assume this was referring to this part of the article? Didn't need much content change. GnocchiFan (talk) 20:52, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Shouldnt start with "since"

But cant think of a better way/word atm, thoughts? Giant-Dwarfs^Talk 10:26, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

You mean the lead shouldn't start with "since"? I don't see a problem myself. Bondegezou (talk) 10:43, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

We'll need to change it eventually, once all of this stops. What about "Beginning on 30 July 2024..." or something like that? This is Paul (talk) 10:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

that seems nicer than since. Rynoip (talk) 21:56, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 August 2024

Small riot in Stockton-On-Tees as well. D2008kingwell (talk) 20:42, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. I couldn't find any sources corroborating this. C F A 💬 22:44, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Disinformation should be listed as a cause.

Disinformation is mentioned in the article but only misinformation is listed under 'causes'. The pair are distinctly different, both present, and ought to be treated as such. SRob092 (talk) 22:42, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done I changed "Misinformation" to "Disinformation and misinformation" as both are discussed in the body of the article as causes.  M2Ys4U ^(talk) 23:00, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Elon Musk claimin civil war inevitable

In the response section, me thinks that it ought to be stated that Elon Musk has commented on the events that "Civil War is inevitable". Source: https://saharareporters.com/2024/08/04/civil-war-inevitable-uk-says-elon-musk. https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1819933223536742771 90.176.13.57 (talk) 07:42, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

• I don't think anyone really cares about the thoughts of someone whose social media platform contributed to the problems. Black Kite (talk) 09:41, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

This is receiving RS coverage,[23] so I think we should cover it. We can wait a bit longer to see if there's more, if editors want. Bondegezou (talk) 10:15, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

There must have been thousands of reactions by notable people to the riots. It seems to me a minimum before we consider including would be coverage by multiple reliable secondary sources, and at least in an article (doesn't have to be dedicated) not just a live update. Especially when there's no clear significance to the riots. I mean if Musk had said he was going to start to crack down on people inciting riots or there will be no action or something, then there might be much more merit to include this given some connection. Since as mentioned by Black Kite, Twitter/X is one of the platforms blamed helping contribute to the riots. But if it's just a random comment, there seems to be much less reason to include. I'd note we're not covering Badenoch's statement per #Badenoch above yet to me the statement of one of the current Conservative party leadership candidates seems far more relevant than what Musk said and it looks like there was coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources (as you would expect). Nil Einne (talk) 12:34, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I remain of the view we should be covering Badenoch’s comments.

More detailed coverage on Musk in Bloomberg[24], The Independent[25], Sky News[26], Evening Standard[27] Bondegezou (talk) 12:40, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I think we need to separate relevant comments on the issue from those that are simply being covered because of who is saying them. Black Kite (talk) 12:43, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean there. Can you explain how you would operationalise your comment? I think we should, as always, follow reliable sources. Reliable sources are talking a lot about Musk's comments and the response to what he said, so we should too. Bondegezou (talk) 14:24, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Black Kite. this for example is ridiculous. Elon Musk's usual rant, condemned by all UK political parties according to RS, is leading to the following sentence being pushed into the article: Starmer has faced criticism for his response to the riots, including by businessman Elon Musk, for not condemning all sides and only focusing on the far-right.

Not everything that appears in a RS in a day where news reports everything is actually encyclopaedically worthy. aside from that fact, as written, that text violates WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:WEASEL. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:09, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Wath-upon-Dearne fire

I just want to clarify, the fascists did not set the Manvers Holiday Inn on fire. They merely attempted to by setting a bin directly next to an entrance on fire, but it failed. This can be seen in footage. 82.39.59.222 (talk) 00:38, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Stoke rumours

Specifically it seems that there has been a misrepresentation that someone hurt by a thrown rock had been attacked by a gang with machetes. I have not been following these events, so can't comment on what is actually known, and who said what on which media, and when, but it seems to have been something that helped perpetuate the disorder. It should be covered if sources can be found. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 23:00, 5 August 2024 (UTC).

You might be referring to the video of a man bleeding, reposted by Tommy Robinson on twitter, claiming the man had been stabbed. This was refuted by the police in that city [I don't remember which it was] and if someone could find a source, it should probably be in the article. SRob092 (talk) 12:01, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Full information here. Obviously it should be assumed that in the absence of corroboration by reliable RS, anything posted by Robinson is probably false, but this one definitely was. Black Kite (talk) 12:36, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

The attack on the Clumsy Swan in Birmingham should be added

The attack seems to have been perpetrated by Muslim youths who had splintered from the main protest in Birmingham so should be counted as part of the violence of the riots D6strrrrr (talk) 23:36, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Please provide reliable secondary sources Nil Einne (talk) 23:59, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: - was able to find this on the BBC after a quick search. GnocchiFan (talk) 00:23, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@GnocchiFan thank you, that was the article I was referring to. Unfortunately I have not been given permission to edit the article so will not be able to add the information myself D6strrrrr (talk) 00:39, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I've added this now, I was going to earlier but got distracted by the protests in Plymouth. harrz ^talk 00:58, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@Harrz could also add that Muslim community leaders apologised to the pub and pub-goers today according to this article by Birmingham Live:

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/moment-birmingham-muslim-activists-make-29684548.amp

Althoigh I'm not sure how relevant this information would be D6strrrrr (talk) 15:23, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Describing the counter-protesters as far-left

Just like not all of the protesters are far right, surely some of the counter-protesters are far-left?

"Far-right anti-immigration groups and far-left clash throughout UK posing major challenge for new PM." https://www.kyivpost.com/post/36872

"The pair urged supporters to coordinate with the Radical Independence Campaign, a far-Left campaign group, to “build the largest possible mobilisation on the day”." https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/08/04/snp-vigilant-glasgow-steets-riots-police-scotland/

Footage has captured the early scenes of a protest in Liverpool, where people with concerns over immigration faced off with far-left counter protesters. https://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/watch-this/anti-immigration-protestors-face-off-with-anti-fascist-group-as-riot-breaks-out-4728506 MatchAndGoo (talk) 14:29, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm sure there are far-left protesters within, but there doesn't seem to be any detailed reporting on specific groups that could be labelled as such. Mostly on Stand Up to Racism and smaller anti-fascist and anti-racist groups that all encompass a multitude of points on the political spectrum unified by being against the far-right. Being against racism and the far-right does not make one far-left. The few articles you've linked refer to whole swathes of counter protesters as far-left but don't explain why they've deemed them all this. I expect for simple framing, but this ignores ordinary folk who are amongst the counter-protestors. Lewishhh (talk) 14:43, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

"Being against racism and the far-right does not make one far-left."

Neither side views themselves as far right or far left. Both sides view themselves as fighting racism. You have ethnic minorities from the Indian and Black communities on the Islamophobic side of the protests who view the pro-Muslim side of the protests as racist.

The point is that there are far-left protesters and it should be included in the article. These protesters aren't anti-racist when they're focused on defending Muslims and waving Palestine flags (to which large segments of the Non-Muslim Israeli and Non-Muslim South Asian communities stand opposed), and there is no reason why anti-racism protests aren't a far-left issue - it's entirely up to the political spectrum of the day and pro-Muslim protesters have consistently been far-left. MatchAndGoo (talk) 14:48, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Citations needed for literally everything you've said there. Find some good sources for significant far-left involvement and we'll talk. Defending Muslims from white supremacist and Islamophobic violence is quite clearly anti-racist so not sure what you're on about. If you deem being anti-racist and anti-fascist to be exclusively far-left then the article already says they are involved. Lewishhh (talk) 14:56, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

There are three citations provided above. You need to take a NPOV on this debate because you're taking a far-left viewpoint and trying to sell it as centrist. MatchAndGoo (talk) 15:01, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

"Significant". As I've said they are a few small mentions that mostly have just referred to everyone present against the far-right as far-left with no reason. Saying NPOV is laughable with your own creative writing here, what evidence do you have for anything you've said? Deeming anti-fascism and anti-racism to be the exclusive domain of the far-left could just as easily pin you as far-right. Lewishhh (talk) 15:08, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

The terms "anti-fascism" and "anti-racism" are self-descriptors that violate NPOV. It's disputable whether the emphasis of the counter-protesters is on fighting racism/facism or defending the Muslim community.

There are three citations provided above that describe far-left agitators participating in counter-protests, and there participation is as notable as some of the organisations currently listed in the article. MatchAndGoo (talk) 15:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

If we're going to violate NPOV:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/08/06/riots-police-tackle-all-sides-equal-ferocity-two-tier/

For example, "Remarks come after masked mob waving Palestinian flags attack Birmingham pub", this is basically the domain of the far-left. MatchAndGoo (talk) 15:24, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

And the term "far-left" is mentioned in relation to these people in this article ... where? Black Kite (talk) 15:27, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

They aren't. It's to show how the other poster is violating NPOV by claiming that the protesters and rioters can't be far left because they self-identify as anti-racism and anti-faciism.

The reason why the term far-left should be included in the list of participants is in the three citations above. There are less notable participants already listed. MatchAndGoo (talk) 15:34, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense, and I haven't claimed that. I've conceded that if you can find significant reporting that explains who from "the far-left" is involved then such claims can be added. There is no such significant reporting yet, whereas there are multiple far-right groups who have been reported as being involved. Lewishhh (talk) 15:39, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

A lot of the far right groups listed as participants have minimal actual involvement in the riots. If there are citations to show that there are far-left groups taking part then they should be added too. MatchAndGoo (talk) 15:46, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

He didn't say they can't be far-left, simply that there are no reliable sources saying that they are. Without multiple reliable sources showing that they are indeed far-left, that isn't getting added to the article. WP:V and WP:BLP apply here. Black Kite (talk) 15:47, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 August 2024

Timeline\30 July: It says "summonsed to court", should be "summoned" Yeshivish613 (talk) 15:53, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

•  Not done This is an ENGVAR issue; "summonsed" is pretty universal in terms of UK English [28]. Black Kite (talk) 15:56, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Cause

Seems like the intro to this article is being misleading. Its ignoring that the real issue that caused a lot of the conflict and the misinformation was law enforcement being tight-lipped about the suspect. While there is an understandable discussion to be had regarding police procedures, the undeniable fact is that a large part of society believes that law enforcement would behave in this manner for reasons other than the age of the suspect. Law enforcement knows this and thus they should be considered a cause, or contributing factor, to the riots since they intentionally behaved in a way that would fuel misinformation, rumors, and inflame the passions of the masses. Neo nazis may be garbage humans but they're still humans and behave like humans tend to when given incomplete information in an environment that appears hostile. 2604:2D80:6305:600:40AE:C26C:BA63:C431 (talk) 06:09, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Content on Wikipedia is based on what reliable sources say. Do you have examples of reliable sources saying that?

The reliable sources I’ve seen say that the police were following the law. Bondegezou (talk) 06:36, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

The law is very prescriptive about revealing details that would identify a suspect under 18. The police must follow that requirement, so they were limited in what they could announce. It required a judge to approve the release of further details about the suspect. We can't hold police accountable when they follow the law. WWGB (talk) 06:40, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

As others have said we need sources. I suspect one reason why sources have largely ignored this theory, is that even accepting the rioters were too stupid to know what the law required initially despite it having just came up in a recent high profile case Murder of Brianna Ghey (which AFAIK didn't result in any riots despite the details being kept under wraps until after the sentencing) and I'm fairly sure was made clear by many sources well before the riots, if they paid any attention at all, they'd now know that they were not only mistaken in their belief but in fact that the courts even went out of their way, putting aside normal procedures in an attempt to placate them. But the riots didn't stop when their mistake was revealed, in fact if anything they've gotten worse. Also there's no indication that the "masses" are involved all evidence is that it's a tiny minority who's views and actions are largely detested by the masses, even those who might share some of their views on issues like immigration or Muslims. Nil Einne (talk) 07:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I think people are overlooking the reasons why they are rioting.

The narrative on the far left is that misinformation/disinformation led to the protesters to riot against Muslims. But this makes utterly no sense IMO. The rioters know that the suspect is a black man but they still hate Muslims and are going after Arabs, Persians, Pakistanis etc...

I think quite a few people on this wikipedia have said that the narrative on this article is crazier than the narrative in the media and totally divorced from the reality of the politco-social climate. MatchAndGoo (talk) 14:39, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Citations needed MatchAndGoo. Lewishhh (talk) 16:20, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Discussion about the role of Islamophobia in British society at-large

https://www.aa.com.tr/en/analysis/opinion-whats-behind-the-attacks-on-muslims-and-migrants-by-far-right-groups-in-the-uk/3295833

This is one of the first articles I've come across that directly addresses mainstream Islamophobia and how that's being used by the far-right to "justify" their rioting.

• It likens the situation of Muslims in the UK to that of the rest of Europe
• It references negative views on Muslims using surveys (and there are plenty more out there that could be added that have not been referenced in the article)
• It discusses asylum and immigration

You also have this article by The Independent:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-islamophobia-farright-riots-b2590693.html

It addresses the rising Islamophobia in the UK but doesn't really go into detail as to why there is rising Islamophobia. MatchAndGoo (talk) 17:08, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Separate section needed

I would like to see a separate section on the role of Russian-linked sites and the historical continuity of such disinformation. This riot is not occurring in a vacuum. Experts believe it is part of a longer term strategy to weaken democracy and the rule of law across the world, which gives rise to far right autocrats who are friendly to Russia. In 2020, The Washington Post and other news outlets published articles about how Russia tried to "hijack" movements such as Occupy Wall Street, the Dakota Access Pipeline protests, and Black Lives Matter for the purpose of increasing "mistrust between U.S. citizens and their government", and sowing division. In many of these campaigns, Twitter (now called X) was used to disseminate disinformation. A 2018 Senate report provides startling details.[29] Viriditas (talk) 02:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources for this content? I recently added about the UK investigation. CNC (talk) 02:12, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Still early days, but there is additional content that can be added to its own section: The Independent reported "Security sources have pointed out that both China and Russia have large teams and networks working on disinformation campaigns which fuel social division and violence in the UK and other Western democracies...McPartland pointed the finger at Moscow and Vladimir Putin's regime. Before the election, he carried out a review of cybersecurity and preparedness which Rishi Sunak's government agreed to implement but left on the shelf because of the election. He said: "Disinformation to undermine democracy is a huge part of the Russian playbook and just in May the British government expelled a Russian defence attache and accused the Russian Federal Security Service [FSB] of systemic malign cyberattacks aimed at undermining democracy. "The tragic events in Southport are being mobilised by hostile states to stir up hatred and division instead of letting the community grieve. We need much more cyber-resilience throughout our whole society and economy to defend democracy."[30] That same source says an investigation is ongoing. Opposing content can be found in the melange of formerly Marxist, now right-libertarian (very weird, only in the UK?), Koch-funded Spiked magazine, which argues that Russia should not be blamed.[31] Viriditas (talk) 02:25, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

While I do not disagree that foreign states might have tried to influence the situation, anyone who lives in the UK knows that these riots are entirely plausible in the context of British race relations. MatchAndGoo (talk) 14:41, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Russian active measures are about amplification. They use what is already occurring and maximize its impact. This is also a hallmark of right wing Trumpism in the US, which is why they call Trump the chaos candidate. The use of amplification to exacerbate preexisting social issues is a way of harnessing chaos and using it to promote one side. There’s a lot written on this. Think about a trauma victim suffering from a bleeding wound. That’s a metaphor for the social unrest in the UK. The authorities want to stop the bleeding. But a foreign state wants to make the wound larger and promote blood loss. In the US, we have what is called the politics of grievance on the right. Instead of healing these grievances, we have special interests who widen and amplify them. That’s what is happening here. The goal is to manipulate the chaos to the point where it is self-sustaining, such as massive, ongoing riots. This is done to destabilize democratic processes and procedures to the point where only an autocratic strongman who claims only they can fix it emerges with popular support. This is a very old tactic. Viriditas (talk) 18:38, 6 August 2024 (UTC)