Talk:2024 United Kingdom riots/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Far right label

First and foremost, I do not endorse hostility towards anyone based on their religion or country of origin. However, it's important to recognize that Wikipedia is a neutral platform where information should be presented without bias. With that in mind, the sources labeling these protests as "far-right" primarily come from left-leaning outlets, with the exception of Al Jazeera, which may not be entirely neutral since Muslims were targeted by the most extreme protesters.

It's also unfair to label these protests as “far-right” based on the actions of a minority who infiltrate and cause chaos. This is similar to how pro-Palestine protests, which sometimes also lead to riots due to a minority of protestors, are only labeled as “far-left” by right leaning media. The focus of the article should remain on the protests that followed the stabbing of the three young girls in Southport, rather than the actions of a particular fringe group within the protests.

With this said my heart goes to the three girls whose life was taken from them so early and to those who suffered discrimination due to their religion and place of origin. V.B.Speranza (talk) 17:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The sourcing could be improved, but it's not just "left-leaning" publications at all, it's literally all major outlets.

Some examples for you: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]

You'll be hard pressed to find a reliable source that hasn't referred to these riots as far-right. CNC (talk) 17:23, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Take this article from The Economist: Many of the protesters took offence at the claim that they were members of the far right, and to chants of “Nazi scum” from the counter-protesters. We’re just “ordinary people”, said John Taylor, an ex-marine who was attending a demonstration for the first time. He said he did not object to immigration itself but rather to the violent crime and cost to the taxpayer it brings when newcomers are not “vetted” properly. ... Yet chants of “Muhammad is a paedo” and “Oh, Tommy Robinson”, in support of a far-right firebrand who has repeatedly spread the “Great Replacement” conspiracy theory claiming that Muslims are being brought into Western countries to outbreed and “replace” whites, suggested that plenty in the crowd deserve the labels they have been given by Sir Keir. Is The Economist a left-leaning publication?-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:44, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Depends on where you look. However The Telegraph and The Times certainly lean right. When those publications collaborate such claims about the far-right, it's confirmation there is no bias involved. CNC (talk) 18:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

"Sir Keir" ????? Maurnxiao (talk) 20:13, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I mean, that bit of the quote's accurate. Keir Starmer is indeed a Knight Commander of the British Empire, so can be called Sir Keir. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 20:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Time Magazine, The New York Times, Politico, Reuters, Bloomberg, Sky News, The Washington Post, Euronews, The Herald and Le Monde are left leaning media… either way, every other point I made in what I said previously remains.

I don’t want to make this a political war, I give my opinion from a neutral POV and I still defend that the point of the article should stand on the majority and not the minority of protesters. V.B.Speranza (talk) 18:16, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

But the article is primarily about the riots, with the protests as part of the build-up and aftermath of those events. Which, as has been shown, media from all areas of the political spectrum has referred to as being caused by misinformation promoted by groups with far-right ideologies. Lewishhh (talk) 18:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Why are right-leaning publications reporting the same then? The Telegraph is definitively right-wing, they aren't even considered centre-right these days. You should provide reliable sources for this claim of "minority of protesters", that's certainly not how it's been reported by the majority of RS, and could do with inclusion in the analysis section for balance. As a reminder NPOV is also about WP:BALANCE, describing these riots as being far-right in the minority would be a WP:FALSEBALANCE. CNC (talk) 18:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The riots are caused by far right individuals, but the riots are caused by a minority of those who participate in the broader protest. What I’m saying here is that they label everything as far right, not just the riots, while Pro-Palestine riots earlier this year had barely any backlash by these same media outlets… V.B.Speranza (talk) 18:33, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Unless you're going to provide a reliable source, this sounds like original research. You acknowledge that they label it all as far-right, so I don't see the issue anymore. CNC (talk) 18:36, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The Daily Mail, which is depreciated so I wont be linking, is definitely classed as right wing and has multiple articles referring to Right-wing riots. Knitsey (talk) 18:44, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a neutrality problem, one that I acknowledge and have tried to address. I've done my part by pointing out bias in this article. If changes aren't made, it’s disappointing, but I understand there's only so much I can do. This issue goes beyond a single article; it’s deeply rooted across the entire platform. Wikipedia tending to favor left-leaning perspectives isn’t an opinion, it’s easily verifiable, but I can help you and just give you a couple studies on the matter.

It’s a problem that goes way back in time… and still persists to this day. V.B.Speranza (talk) 18:59, 12 August 2024 (UTC) V.B.Speranza (talk) 18:59, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

You still haven't provided a reliable source for your original research. Instead you are trying to back up your original research with sources of WP bias. This is not how WP works. CNC (talk) 13:46, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I think right now it’s fixed as they say ‘anti-immigration protests and far-right riots have proven out across the UK.’ This is a lot better as they separate the ‘we should have some limits on immigration’ from the ‘we hate everyone’ LuxembourgLover (talk) 03:36, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

And it’s been ruined… LuxembourgLover (talk) 15:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Efforts to keep this site neutral are vain... all i can do is to keep neutrality in the articles i create myself... V.B.Speranza (talk) 16:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Still no reliable sources for your claim that this article is biased then is what you're saying? CNC (talk) 21:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

On 31 July, I scrubbed the article to make sure that what it said about the far-right was backed by sources,^[14] see also Talk:2024 United Kingdom riots/Archive 1#Far right. It may also have been done by other editors since then. There might be value is someone checking that all the mentions in the article of terms such as "far-right" are supported by the sources cited for them.

But if anyone does that, they should be aware of degradation of verifiability due to over-editing. So if they find statements that are not explicitly supported by the citations next to them, it would be best to check whether other sources in the article support the statements.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:48, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

References

Law enforcement in the United Kingdom#Two-tier policing

I'd opened a talk page discussion on this page about WP:RECENTISM and lack of WP:SCOPE for hyper-focussing on this event. There's now a multiple-way discussion on misrepresentation of sources (see page history for details). I'm requesting more eyes to make sure this section doesn't become a WP:COATRACK for whatever view people have on this matter and I honestly wouldn't mind having this section removed and anything relevant carried over to this article. Unknown Temptation (talk) 15:26, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

The relevant Talk page discussion is at Talk:Law_enforcement_in_the_United_Kingdom#"Two-tier"_section. Bondegezou (talk) 10:50, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

What is the topic of this article?---Opinions wanted.

User BedVeritas1 holds the opinion that (quote) “This article is specifically about the far-right anti-immigration riots during this time period.”

My opinion is that the article should encompass the full scope of the events, not just the far-right anti-immigration riots. This includes the anti-immigration (not even fully) protesters who are not far-right and have never been associated with the BNP, EDL, etc. It's important to include the perspectives and actions of those who participated in the protests but are not associated with far-right groups like the BNP or EDL. These individuals may have different motivations and backgrounds, and their inclusion would provide a more balanced and comprehensive view of the events.

Users CNC, Orange sticker, and Lewishhh support BedVeritas1's view. My intent in creating this new topic is to gather additional perspectives from editors who may not have engaged in the earlier discussion and who do not want to read the sprawling original conversation, to ensure a broader consensus on how to approach this content. NamelessLameless (talk) 19:47, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I also agree with BedVeritas1 on this issue (as stated above). What made this topic noteworthy is the violent extremism of the far-right rioters. The anti-immigration views of the milquetoast, tea-sipping right may be relevant on Wikipedia somewhere, but not IMO in this article. Newimpartial (talk) 19:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

It is an article about the riots that were promoted by the far right. If you think that there should be an article with a much wider scope, nobody is stopping you from creating a new article.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 August 2024

Correct typo "summonsed" to "summoned" 92.21.104.171 (talk) 21:13, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

That is the correct legal term under English law. BedVeritas1 (talk) 21:15, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Far-right anti-immigrant riots, not anti-immigrant protests and far-right riots

The lede and info-box should include far-right anti-immigrant riots or protests as they're considered together and one by multiple news sources:

"An analysis of social media data by Sky News shows that the far-right anti-immigrant movement has had far greater reach and popularity across several social media platforms than the pro-immigrant anti-racist movement in the past week."

https://news.sky.com/story/far-right-outnumbers-anti-racist-movement-when-it-comes-to-social-media-posts-and-engagement-13192784

"Protesters gather against a planned far-right anti-immigration protest in Walthamstow, London on Wednesday."

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/london-high-alert-far-right-demonstrations-come-capital-rcna165567

"Far-right, anti-immigration riots"

https://www.npr.org/2024/08/04/nx-s1-5063346/uk-riots-far-right-what-to-know

"Far-right anti-immigration protests across England have turned into riots and looting."

https://news.northeastern.edu/2024/08/07/uk-riots-misinformation/

It should be noted that the single user User:NamelessLameless has made these two edits on their user page to possibly deflect from any political biases they may have while making controversial changes on articles concerning the far-right:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:NamelessLameless&diff=prev&oldid=1240028932

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:NamelessLameless&diff=prev&oldid=1240029014

They're also on the Great White Replacement Theory article wishing to connect "white demographic decline" with the far-right theory despite established editors reverting their unfounded changes.

Talk:Great Replacement#Removal of content

They have been the main user making these changes splitting "anti-immigration protestors" and "far-right rioters" over the past day, despite them being one and the same during these events according to multiple news sources. Their changes may be a way to go against the sources and insert their political biases, and as such their changes should be reverted and the article return to the way it was before their changes. BedVeritas1 (talk) 07:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for highlighting clear bias, I've undone the changes. Lewishhh (talk) 08:40, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@Lewishhh Please read my response below. NamelessLameless (talk) 16:58, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with the always using the label "Far-right anti-immigration protests". There are multiple types of people. There are many people on the right-wing spectrum that are anti-immigration: a lot of Far-right anti-immigration protesters and also a lot of right-wing anti-immigration protests.

I am the one who originally wrote the sentence "The riots were fuelled by underlying Islamophobic, racist, anti-immigrant sentiments". But in fact that isn't actually true, because some people may oppose immigration for reasons unrelated to race or religion, such as job opportunity. I search for an objective truth and one truth is that there are many people on the right-wing spectrum that are anti-immigration. Trump is anti-immigration. Elon Musk is anti-immigration. Nigel Farage is definitely anti-immigration and he's not far-right but his supporters are definitely out there. Giorgia Meloni is anti-immigration. There are a lot of flaws on this page in explaining that.

"In an objective context, such as a Wikipedia article, it's important to distinguish between different political views rather than lumping them together under one label. If the article is conflating right-wing anti-immigration views with far-right views, this could indeed be misleading and may not accurately represent the diversity of opinions within the right-wing spectrum."

The infobox has a list of far-right groups in bullet points. It seems to be trying to link everyone to those far-right groups when that isn't the case. Am I wrong?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsgTTsQIgiM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0X4uPjcEsE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-S8H4FZWU8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdanhEKXsDA

These YouTube videos provide real footage from these protesters and riots and also back up my claim that there are multiple groups.

Now let's do a breakdown on the reliable sources you have sent: the first one is not relevant. The 2nd one uses two terms as well: "anti-immigration protesters" and "far-right anti-immigration protesters". It makes a distinction, just like I was trying to do. Notice how there's a comma in the NPR article title. The NEU article also uses two terms: "anti-immigration protests" and "far-right anti-immigration protesters". So in fact these sources help my argument. NamelessLameless (talk) 16:58, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Your argument relies on OR, not on finding sources that agree with you. The majority of sources on the page are unanimous in the far-right position and nature of the ideologies behind these events. Lewishhh (talk) 17:04, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@Lewishhh I understand Wikipedia policy on Original Research (OR), and I knew you would bring it up. I addressed it in my final paragraph. (It's in bold now) Please take the time to read. NamelessLameless (talk) 18:29, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

In their 7 August explainer entitled "Why are there riots in the UK?", BBC News says: "The violence, in towns and cities across England and in Northern Ireland, has been fuelled by misinformation online, the far-right and anti-immigration sentiment". That seems clear enough, not all anti-immigration sentiment if from the far-right. I think NamelessLameless is correct about that. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:48, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@DeFacto Thank you for your input. Now I want to point out that my edit made the first sentence say "Anti-immigration protests and far-right riots", but these editors have made it say "Far-right anti-immigration protests and riots". Does that sound like an accurate statement to you? NamelessLameless (talk) 20:32, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

No, it isn't. As I understand it from the high quality sources, there were anti-immigration protests other than those that may have involved far-right protestors. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:46, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how these YouTube videos can be used as reliable sources for an online encyclopaedia.

The first source is relevant as it relates to the effects of social media on the demonstrations on each side. As another source states:

"The rallies have been advertised on far-right social media channels under the banner "Enough is enough"."

https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20240805-uk-pm-keir-starmer-slams-far-right-thuggery-after-more-anti-immigrant-violence-knife-attack

The second source does not make a distinction as it also includes "against an anti-immigration protest called by far-right activists" which shows the far-right elements of the anti-immigration riots of this time period.

In the third source, the comma doesn't change the sentence. "Far-right anti-immigration riots" is the same as "far-right, anti-immigration riots". Moreover, the source includes "On Sunday, U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer called the riots "far-right thuggery," adding that the riots will not be tolerated. "This is not protest," Starmer said on X. "It is organized, violent, thuggery and it has no place on our streets or online."".

Moreover, the article starts with "Over the past few days, the U.K. has been battered by widespread riots led by hundreds of far-right protesters." in the first paragraph.

So this is about the far-right, anti-immigration riots during this time period.

In the fourth source, as this article references, the source also discusses the far-right element of these riots hence why the photo at the top includes the caption "Far-right anti-immigration protests across England have turned into riots and looting." BedVeritas1 (talk) 08:17, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree with edit made by @Lewishhh per reliable sources documenting these far-right riots as anti-immigration. The anti-immigration protests aren't notable in themselves and are barely covered in the body unless disorder occurred. I otherwise acknowledge that (yet another) MOS:FIRST discussion is beneficial to order discuss the first sentence, in order to re-affirm consensus. CNC (talk) 23:48, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with @NamelessLameless and @DeFacto. I don't think there is much of a consensus for the current "Far-right anti-immigration protests and riots". Actually, there doesn't seem to be any consensus here at all. Not all anti-immigrant protesters are far-right, and not all anti-immigrant protesters are far-right rioters. I'm sure this isn't controversial, in fact, it's pretty straightforward in my opinion. There is absolutely a protest element to this, we can't leave out the peaceful protests and just mention riots. So with that, I think an alternative lead is needed. I prefer @NamelessLameless version of "Anti-immigration protests and far-right riots". I'm happy to discuss with other editors about my choice. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 02:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I also want to point out that the lead used to split up the two, as in "Anti-immigration protests and far-right riots". But the Infobox did not match this and so I tried to change the Infobox to match the distinction and that’s when these editors went all out to lump all the protesters into one group by changing the lead to “Far-right anti-immigration protesters”. Trying to claim that I’m making biased edits when they’re literally using the classic Straw Man Fallacy is crazy. Everyone has bias, but I try to be as objective as possible. The branding of all anti-immigration protesters as far-right is just use of the "Straw Man fallacy"---making it easier to wave their position away as a bunch of racist lunatics. The definition of the Straw Man fallacy is "the distortion of an opponent's argument to make it easier to refute". Clearly labelling everyone against immigration as far-right seeks to make their position weaker and easier to refute. And by the way it doesn’t seem to me that any reliable source has stated that all these protesters are far-right, but the Infobox and first sentence of this Wikipedia page sure suggest it. I want these editors to ask themselves whether they are actually the ones making the biased edits. NamelessLameless (talk) 07:32, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

We've seen your edits and the timing of them. This article is specifically about the far-right anti-immigration riots during this time period. I would like add another source:

"In some of the worst scenes on Sunday, masked rioters in Rotherham, northern England, smashed windows at a hotel that has been used to house asylum seekers.

At least 12 officers were injured, including one who was knocked unconscious, as they battled around 500 protesters with "far-right and anti-immigration views", South Yorkshire Police Assistant Chief Constable Lindsey Butterfield told media."

https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20240805-uk-pm-keir-starmer-slams-far-right-thuggery-after-more-anti-immigrant-violence-knife-attack

BedVeritas1 (talk) 08:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

If you want to write down history that is useful to posterity then this article shouldn’t specifically be about “far-right anti-immigration riots during this time period”. And actually it isn’t. That is your own misconception. But if you thought that way then now I can understand why you were so keen on changing the first sentence and the Infobox.

Lastly, your quote that you have provides does nothing to show that there is only a “Far-right anti-immigration camp” and not different distinct camps, so quite frankly it does nothing to help your argument that there is only one camp, if that even is your argument. NamelessLameless (talk) 09:18, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

First, I was not keen to change anything, simply to revert the article back to the way it was where the lede and infobox originally said "far right anti-immigration protests/protestors". Secondly, the article is about the far-right anti-immigration riots during this period (30 July to 5 August) as that is what so many reliable sources talk about. It doesn't relate to anti-immigration protests from before the 30th of July like the one on the 1st of June 2024.

"Date:  Saturday, June 1, 2024

Time:  Starting at 1100-1700 (local)

Demonstration:  Anti-immigration march

Route:  Victoria Railway Station to Parliament Square

Date:  Saturday, June 1, 2024

Time:  Starting at 1100 (local)

Demonstration:  Anti-racism march, countering Anti-immigration march

Route:  Downing Street to Parliament Square"

https://uk.usembassy.gov/demonstration-alert-planned-demonstration-in-london-june-1-2024/

Plus, I've already expanded on the sources and added more. In the the same source included there was also: "Prime Minister Keir Starmer on Monday vowed "swift criminal sanctions" against far-right riots in several cities that have seen widespread damage and nearly 400 arrests." These events are about the far-right anti-immigration riots. Although, as User:Orange sticker has said, "anti-immigration" could be considered a non-sequitur or even redundant, as these can simply be considered far-right riots with various aspects: racism, Islamophobia and anti-immigration sentiment. BedVeritas1 (talk) 09:30, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Your argument that “This article is specifically about the far-right anti-immigration riots during this time period.” shows a fundamental disagreement in the TOPIC of this page and an agreement on the TOPIC of this page will have to be made in order for any next constructive actions to pass. I strongly oppose your views that “This article is specifically about the far-right anti-immigration riots during this time period.” NamelessLameless (talk) 09:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

The topic of the article is the riots between 30 July and 5 August, including unrest until the 10th of August as well as counter-protestors and government against the rioters. The riots and rioters have been described as "far-right anti-immigration" by multiple reliable sources. You've sent YouTube videos as your sources. BedVeritas1 (talk) 09:50, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Far-right anti-immigration was one description maybe. But there are others in the RSes of equal or more weight too, which cannot be ignored per WP:NPOV. See "Far-right protesters attack hotel housing asylum seekers in violent weekend" in The Washington Post of 4 August, for example. The first sentence of the body of that article says: "Far-right and anti-immigrant demonstrations across Britain descended into violence over the weekend...". That's saying "far-right" and "anti-immigrant" - not your "far-right anti-immigration".

Sure news media very often have sensationalist headlines (the one on that TWP article is "Far-right protesters attack hotel housing asylum seekers in violent weekend"), but we must ignore headlines per WP:HEADLINES, which says: "News headlines—including subheadlines—are not a reliable source... Headlines are written to grab readers' attention quickly and briefly; they may be overstated or lack context, and sometimes contain exaggerations or sensationalized claims with the intention of attracting readers to an otherwise reliable article."

Wiki expects us to look at a broad cross-section of quality sources and summarise, with due weight to each view, what they all say. We must not cherry-pick a few sources which support just one of the available views and use just those in the article to portray that view in Wiki's voice. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

You're reading the words "Far-right and anti-immigrant" and concluding those are two distinct sets and not just two descriptors of the same subject. If the rioters were described as "drunk and violent" would you think that was an either/or situation? And as I've stated before, as anti-immigrant sentiment is a factor of far right ideology, it is pointless to try and make a distinction. Orange sticker (talk) 11:50, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

No, the distinction is that there are two different groups:

1. Far right groups
2. Anti-immigration (not even fully) who are not Far right and have never been associated with the BNP, EDL, etc.

NamelessLameless (talk) 19:09, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I think once you throw bricks at a mosque, chant racist slogans and set fire to police vans the line between those groups disappears, and the sources agree with me. Orange sticker (talk) 19:27, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Orange sticker, read more of that TWP article and you'll see:

• "Demonstrations organized by far-right or anti-immigration groups damaged cities across the country..."
• "... whether all those arrested were part of far-right or anti-immigration marches."

Clearly treating them as two separate groups.

And:

• "The anti-immigration demonstrators there attacked a Holiday Inn Express..."
• "Scores of violent far-right protesters..."
• "Far-right protesters threw bricks and chairs at the hotel..."

Clearly describing two different groups. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:03, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

If you are able to read that article as Clearly describing two different groups - well, I'm curious how you could reach that conclusion. Is an "anti-immigrant demonstration" prompted by disinformation from far-right figures "anti-immigrant" or "far-right"? Concerning events in Rotherham, the idea that "anti-immigrant demonstrators" entered the hotel while "far-right protestors" stood by throwing bricks and chairs at the hotel - well, that division of responsibility rather strains credibility, doesn't it? The article makes much more sense if the far-right and anti-immigrant demonstrators are understood as the same body of protestors. Newimpartial (talk) 20:18, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

The topic of the article is clearly the riots and the unrest surrounding them. Many users have contributed to it but none until you seem to have disputed it. Lewishhh (talk) 09:52, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I dispute the balance in it. We need to cover all views. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:NPOV also requires that we assign weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. Orange sticker (talk) 11:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Orange sticker Yeah and that's funny you bring this up because right now you and some other editors are assigning ZERO weight to the fact that there are anti-immigration (not even fully) who are not Far right and have never been associated with the BNP, EDL, etc. I repeat: Zero. 0. Nada. Nothing. NamelessLameless (talk) 19:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

NamelessL, are you suggesting that anti-immigration protesters who are not Far right and have never been associated with the far right have participated in the riots and racist attacks that this article is about? If so, what is the reliable sourcing for this? Newimpartial (talk) 19:27, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Newimpartial, have you read "Far-right protesters attack hotel housing asylum seekers in violent weekend" in The Washington Post of 4 August that I mentioned above? It clearly distinguishes between the two groups. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:10, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

To answer your question, my reply about that article is here. Newimpartial (talk) 20:21, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

You keep referring to the BNP, EDL, etc. as if one has to be affiliated with groups such as those to hold far-right opinions or take part in far-right politic influenced actions. This is obviously not the case. Lewishhh (talk) 23:21, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

As above, the topic is quite clear and has never been in dispute before, so if you want to discuss that I recommend you open a new topic rather than clutter this discussion with alternative proposals. For reference it evolved out of the Southport riots (moved to a new title) once the riots had spread. It did not evolve out of an Anti-immigrant protests in the United Kingdom article, because this is quite simply not notable. CNC (talk) 10:00, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

You could argue that the logical fallacy here (non-sequitur) is applying "anti-immigration" label, as it's hard to see how actions such as smashing the windows of a mosque have anything to do with immigration. However, along with the "far right" label, that is what the vast majority of reliable sources are using so trying to reframe the motivations of the rioters is original research. Islamophobia, racism, anti-immigrant sentiment and the use of violence are all aspects of far right ideology. Orange sticker (talk) 08:42, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes—actually I was getting around to talking about that label. I will respond in full about the “anti-immigration” label tomorrow. NamelessLameless (talk) 09:23, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

It's a good point, I'm not opposed to the first sentence returning to "Far-right riots..." without mention of anti-immigration for this reason. The first sentence shouldn't be overloaded and instead briefly introduce the subject, but it's starting to look that way. If the line "The riots were driven by underlying Islamophobic, racist, anti-immigrant sentiments, fuelled by disinformation about the identity of the attacker." was moved up to the opening paragraph, then this could cover the issue of not providing enough context in the opening paragraph overall. CNC (talk) 09:52, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I think this would be reasonable. BedVeritas1 (talk) 09:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I think we should still be careful to ensure WP:NPOV despite the fact that its hard to find sources in the British press and media who do. Hopefully as time passes more sober analysis will be available that looks more seriously and impartially at the motivations. As the "anti-immigration" aspect received WP:SIGCOV I don't think it's controversial at this point to include it alongside the various other catalysts and misinformation. Orange sticker (talk) 10:02, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

There's a good article here which starts to link together the various manufactured moral panics that have lead to certain outbreaks of violence. Orange sticker (talk) 10:18, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

This is a good article, and it does note that there's a difference between those who are anti-immigration but not far-right. However, it still calls these rioters and protestors far-right and it shows the difference when there are anti-immigration counterprotestors (although this is only one article showing one person who is an anti-immigration counterprotestor protesting against the far-right).

"Among the crowds of counter-protestors who had turned out to defend the Abdullah Quilliam Mosque, we suddenly spot a familiar face beneath a black and yellow cap: Lewis. The man who fell into a world of conspiratorialism during the pandemic is now standing on the opposite side of the road from the far-right and says he wants to respect the imam’s calls for peace. He agrees that immigration levels into Britain are too high at the moment but thinks that “violence is not the answer”. The asylum seekers “only want what’s best for their families — I would do the same,” he says. “We can talk about borders but I don’t understand the hate”."

So it's still accurate to say, with the many reliable sources included in this Wikipedia article, these were far-right anti-immigration riots. Of course, as you've said, anti-immigration can be considered a non-sequitur and these riots can be thought of as more far-right Islamophobic and racist riots in multiple cases considering attacks on Black and Asian people as well as burning down mosques. So I would think CNC's suggestion is reasonable in simply calling these riots "far-right riots" and show the main and common causes (racism, Islamophobia, anti-immigration, disinformation) as well as showing (when more analysis is made in the future) how these riots differ from other anti-immigration protests. BedVeritas1 (talk) 10:33, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

This seems like a good approach. Lewishhh (talk) 10:08, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

As CNC has said, there have been multiple reliable sources about the far-right anti-immigration riots (which is what this article is focusing on). There haven't been notable peaceful anti-immigration protests, certain not enough to overshadow the far-right anti-immigration riots, during this time period. BedVeritas1 (talk) 08:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

End of Riots

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.

---

It looks like the rioting has started to evaporate over this week with very low levels of unrest the last few days. If there aren't reports of rioting this weekend I think we should date the riots to the 7th,8th of August if people agree with that? I think we should evaluate this on Monday, as we should have a clearer picture by then. Jasp7676 (talk) 13:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Was thinking the same thing. A note could also be added that there were isolated incidents or otherwise that continued, similar to 2011 England riots infobox. Aside from Northern Ireland, it otherwise seems that the last riots were 5 August. CNC (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I think that would be the best course of action, otherwise the article runs on saying there is still rioting over a week after it stopped and it starts to become misinforming. e (talk) 14:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

- It's Monday and we now have a clearer picture that definitely supports changing the page to the 5th of August or thereabouts, if someone wants to implement that onto the page that would be great. @CommunityNotesContributor and EEEEEE1:Jasp7676 (talk) 11:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done - settled on 5th Aug as end date but added that there were sporadic incidents after that. Mark and inwardly digest (talk) 13:28, 13 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.

5 or 7 August as the end date of riots?

There were still widespread mass protests (albeit counter ones) on 7 August, and some minor protests did happen, just not like on 3-4 August. It seems like a more natural end to me as opposed to the 5th.

Looking at the size of the 7 August summary on the article, it doesn't feel like it belongs in the "aftermath" section.

Thoughts? Icantthinkofausernames (talk) 15:13, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I believe the thought process is that the page is about the riots, and that the counter-protests are a response to, and in the aftermath of, those. Lewishhh (talk) 15:29, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

There was already previously unopposed consensus established regarding this. CNC (talk) 21:52, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I do agree that the counter protestors came out in large numbers on the 7th of August BUT in my opinion they are clearly not rioters and therefore should not be counted as such. I think they are part of the response/aftermath section as they weren't violent/rioting or part of the same movement. Therefore I think we should keep the date at the 5th of August Jasp7676 (talk) 20:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)