Talk:2024 United Kingdom riots

Nigel Farage

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

I think the only individual where that would make sense is Robinson, but WP:BLP and WP:BLPCRIME apply. Bondegezou (talk) 07:39, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

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

Unsubstantiated use of the term 'far-right'

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's not unsubstantiated, though, as I explained to you already. It's reflecting the terminology being used in almost all media outlets. And that's what Wikipedia does. If we were to override the consensus among reliable sources because we according to our own analysis think they shouldn't use that terminology, that would be unsubstantiated and biased. It would be original research. We have policies about this, and they don't say it's "worthless" to point to media consensus, they say that's exactly how Wikipedia works and is meant to work. AntiDionysius (talk) 00:07, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Also when it's been pointed out to you that we are studiously sticking to what reliable sources say and avoiding our own interpretations, I don't think baseless claims that the Wikipedia editor base (and in particular the admin cohort) is politically biased are either relevant or constructive. AntiDionysius (talk) 00:08, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I suppose you're right, I wasn't familiar with how Wikipedia operates, so my apologies, this talk section can be removed. I think there's a broader debate to be had about the reliability and impartiality of British news sources, is there a talk page for what constitutes reliable sources? I would be interested in reading it. Jessrabbitx (talk) 00:33, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

@Jessrabbitx See WP:RS which is a content guidline and WP:RSN where people discuss reliable sources. Doug Weller talk 09:44, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

It should be noted that amongst the sources our article uses for 'far right' is the Daily Telegraph, which has used the term in multiple articles cited. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:13, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

What is that reasoning? That rioters attacking Asian peoples in the UK were found in regions where Asians were?

By that logic, since the riots happened in places where asians were, the rioters were therefore asian.

By that same logic, since the riots happened in places where asylum seekers sought refuge, the rioters included asylum seekers.

Also WP:OR applies. Find a reliable source with that analysis, then we can entertain it. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:40, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

This is WP:OR and also really bad science. Yes someone can be less than 20% of the local population and still be responsible for the events and there are sources to verify that and Wikipedia always follows the sources as long as they are reliable. Jorahm (talk) 17:04, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTALBALL

How is "police said there might later be hundreds more" added to the lead not considered blatant speculation: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place."? [1] Are we really suggesting that because police said that there will be further arrests, that this is almost certain to take place?! This doesn't appear to be a summary of the body per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY either. I removed this before and it has been restored with attribution.[2] How does attribution make this less speculative, or otherwise due for the lead for that matter? CNC (talk) 17:56, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Endorse. we are WP:NOTNEWS. We should present this as an encyclopedic topic, not as speculation on future events. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:09, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

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

Indeed this seems like speculation even though it is sourced and the ideal course of action is to wait for the events to actually transpire. Jorahm (talk) 17:03, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

"Farage riots" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Farage riots has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 6 § Farage riots until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 08:51, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

cause

a pakistani citizen spread to false info. he has literally been arrested and charged. how does wiki not know this. or are you spreading false info. and ask a coptic christian about " islam phobia " 92.232.58.50 (talk) 10:09, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia only "knows" this because of the BBC report here. Are you saying that the report is false? Are you suggesting that the BBC has "islam phobia"? There is no mention of Islam in that report. Another recent BBC report here discusses a false post on LinkedIn by "local man" Eddie Murray who, as far as I know, isn't a Pakistani citizen or a Muslim. Perhaps that should be added? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:44, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

This is already mentioned in the article. Lewishhh (talk) 11:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it says: "In Pakistan, officials charged a man with cyber terrorism after he was linked with the Channel3Now website, which spread false claims about the Southport attacker. He was later acquitted as local police did not find evidence identifying him as the originator of the false claims", with three WP:RS sources. It doesn't identify him as a Pakistani citizen. And it says he was later acquitted. So not sure what the problem is here. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:53, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Subsectioning

The Investigations, arrests and prosecutions section is currently written in a chronological order. I suggest it be sub sectioned into charges/prosecutions for online activity and for direct involvement with the riots. Would anyone be opposed/ is there a reason why this section is currently chronological? Mason7512 (talk) 19:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Inclusion of National Front and Terrorgram in the info box

The referenced sources for these two extreme far right/terrorist groups, under 'Far-right anti-immigration protesters', contain no mention of either group taking part in the protests or riots themselves. They mention that groups like the two mentioned spread misinformation, but then so did certain News Channels, and allegedly the Russian Federation themselves. Spreading misinformation within their channels, and being a part of the 'Far-right anti-immigration protestors' and rioters in the context of the info box, aren't the same thing. I suggest they should be removed, unless sources that specifically state that these groups took part in the riots themselves, can be found. I feel like someone had a field day and just added every group mentioned in online news articles and added it in the info box. TheBestEditorInEngland (talk) 16:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Maybe some of these groups should go into "Supported by" sub-category, as it applies to more than just NF. It's accurate that some are responsible for spreading misinformation to incite riots, rather than direct involvement like EDL/PA. CNC (talk) 17:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I would agree with implementing a "Supported by" sub-category to the info box for this purpose. The same can be said about Active Club England and British movement in regards to what I first said above, at least from what I can see on non-paywalled sources referenced. There were supporters of EDL present at the riots, and at least one member of PA attended one also. I think a supported by sub-category would prevent a lot of confusion and could include Russia's alleged involvement also. I suggest it is added unless anyone has any objections. TheBestEditorInEngland (talk) 17:19, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, just needs someone someone to go through sources and move groups to supported by sub-category. It would also help to better specify groups directly involved rather than just fanning the flames. Thanks for suggestion. CNC (talk) 17:23, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

False claims

Martinevans123 the reason I reverted your edit. See NYT archived article: "The suspect, Axel Rudakubana, was born in Britain, but in the hours after the attack, disinformation about his identity — including the false claim that he was an undocumented migrant — spread rapidly online." There are plenty of sources for this also. CNC (talk) 19:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

My issue is with those sources. The lead section has this:

"The riots were fuelled by false claims circulated by far-right groups that the perpetrator of the attack was a Muslim and an asylum seeker."

I think the statement is quite correct, as he's not a Muslim or an asylum seeker (and they also used a false Arabic-sounding name). But looking at those three sources, the first two do not say "false claims" and the third (NYT) is behind a paywall. So they seem a bit useless and/or misleading? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

p.s. and that NYT source doesn't say anything about him not being a Muslim? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:47, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Potentially useless per MOS:LEADCITE (see background section for sourcing). CNC (talk) 19:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I have no issue with relocating or removing those three sources. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Again, read the content: "Tommy Robinson falsely claimed on social media that an "alleged Muslim" had been involved in an incident in which three women had been stabbed." (emphasis added). CNC (talk) 19:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

In which source does that appear? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

It's not my responsibility to point you to sources for summary of body per mos:leadcite. That's a polite way of saying please use the copy and search function on your device to identify the quoted content in question. CNC (talk) 19:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh. So I assume not one those existing three at the end of the sentence then? That's a polite way of saying those sources are useless. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:00, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

It's a combination of sources for the claim (Muslim misinfo + Robinson spread): "Speculation on social media following the attack suggested three people had been stabbed and the attacker was a Muslim. Police Scotland said the man arrested is a white man from the local area." [3]

"Among them was a post by far-right figure Robinson (below), who posted on Twitter/X on Saturday night that an “alleged Muslim” had just been involved in the stabbing of “at least three women” in Stirling." [4]

Could be wrong but the WaPo source seems redundant for the claim. Might back out of this pointless discussion and let someone else takeover btw. Too much of the same nonsense. CNC (talk) 20:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm saying the three sources don't support the claims and are thus redundant. Why exactly is that "nonsense"? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

2 of the 3 sources in the body support the claim, so are far from useless. Ignore my "nonsense" comment. It's based on too many users who have passed through this talk page who are not here to build. Given you appear to be here for building an encyclopedia, I retract my previous comment. CNC (talk) 20:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I now see that the BBC source says this: "His account promoted false claims that the alleged Southport attacker had been an asylum seeker, recently arrived in the UK by boat." So I guess that does support. But I'm still struggling to see where the Reuters source mentions false claims that the perpetrator was a Muslim and an asylum seeker. The NYT source I still can't see. Maybe it's good enough on its own? But I suspect many readers also won't be able to see it. If the claim are all supported in the main body anyway, the sources are in not needed there in the lead section. But will provide further ammunition for drive-by deletions. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

References