Jump to content

Talk:2011 England riots

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TicketMan (talk | contribs) at 07:18, 10 August 2011 (→Social Networkings role). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Have these civil disturbances actually been classed 'officially' as a riot?

http://www.insuranceage.co.uk/insurance-age/news/2100321/concern-industry-foot-riots — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.237.251 (talk) 10:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Parties to the civil conflict

Why is it assumed that "local residents" and "business owners" are opposed to "burglars, looters et al"? Surely, by the use of common sense, these categories of people cannot be used to represent each "party" in the conflict.--194.98.70.12 (talk) 09:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this article is terribly biased in favour of the state's version of events. As soon as I have enough time I'm planning on adding some balance.--Life in General (Talk) 09:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. Lenerd (talk) 15:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greater prominence to the public opinion of the police please

None of the events taking place a--386-DX (talk) 09:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)re anything more than criminality - there is universal condemnation from all Londoners, regardless of ethnicity. As social networks are playing a huge role in making the mindless arson and theft possible, please place this link at the top of your discussion page, so that people can rally their mutual support as easily as these thugs. <http://www.facebook.com/?ref=home#!/pages/Supporting-the-Met-Police-against-the-London-rioters/152937041453243> 79.70.237.186 (talk) 00:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)twl79.70.237.186 (talk) 00:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly haven't spoken to many Londoners... nobody has been killed by the protestors, whereas since 1998 the Met Police have killed at least 333 Londoners. Londoners are not unaware of this, especially the ones who live in the affected neighborhoods. Your linking to this emotion-ridden Facebook group has nothing to do with the scholarly purview of this article. Falco528 (talk) 05:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Police haven't killed 333 Londoners. The vast majority of those who die in custody are not killed by police. Looting and burning down shops and flats is not protesting - it is reckless, destructive criminality. Jim Michael (talk) 13:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The powder keg nature of the situation is what is being under-reported. I agree there should be some information regarding why so many people would be willing to stoop to such criminality to make a point. However, I couldn't find any significant non-editorial links to help out with this imbalance.68.145.117.39 (talk) 21:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

29-year-old father-of-four?

How about Gangster and drug dealer who shot at the cop first and then was shot? 50.9.109.170 (talk) 10:01, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read if there was any drug related issues, only that this was part of Operation Trident (Metropolitan_Police). The 'father of four' seems to be an emotive insertion to garner sympathy for Duggan. The initial reports indicated he shot first and was subsequently killed, which would reduce somewhat the sympathy factor. I'd recommend simply stating his name, and age. At present this isn't anything to do with 'discrimination' so I'm not sure why the talk pages say this is linked to WikiProject Discrimination? I've seen images showing looters who were of different races and does the fact this man was black have anything to do with him being shot? I think the link to the discrimination project isn't warranted and is merely a parallel to the Broadwater farm riots. --Canhazanonymous (talk) 10:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Duggan, who had previously been sent to prison, was carrying a gun, which has been recovered from the scene. He was not shot because he was black, nor because he was an irresponsible, over breeding deadbeat dad. No-one is shot because of the number of children they have, it is merely being used in an emotive way by his supporters / admirers; 'father-of-four' is irrelevant to the case. 188.28.77.247 (talk) 02:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Latest news suggests that initial police ballistic tests have shown that the bullet that lodged in the police radio (supposedly shot by Duggan) was police-issue. Therefore he didn't shoot a policeman, something that corresponds with accounts from people who knew him best. Don't make assumptions and get dragged into debate - this is an encyclopaedia. The fact is he was 29 and he was a father of 4. I bet there wasn't this debate around Ian Tomlinson's page at the start. Tommer312 (talk) 09:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Duggan was carrying a gun, something that law-abiding civilians do not usually do. To define Duggan primarily as a family man and a father-of-four is ridiculous - he did not live with any of his children. 188.28.113.53 (talk) 14:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See point 12 in this discussion page regarding the hollow point bullet. --Canhazanonymous (talk) 15:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@188.28: I don't claim to know anything about the issue, but it would seem to me that he was a father of four regardless of whether or not he lived with his children, and that as far as I know, there is no law in Britain against carrying a gun. Let's just state that he was a 29-year-old black man. That is the accurate, verifiable, relevant information. His children are irrelevant. ☻☻☻Sithman VIII !!☻☻☻ 03:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"no law in Britain against carrying a gun"?!? FYI, Britain has some of the most draconian firearms legislation in the world, and it is an absolute offense (except for police, military etc) to be in possession of a pistol under any circumstances (it's not possible for a civilian to legally own one, let alone carry it around). Occasionally one even hears of people being prosecuted for finding a weapon dumped by criminals and taking it to the police - it's stupid, but the way the law is framed merely picking it up is a crime regardless of your intent. 93.97.184.230 (talk) 08:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, there is forensic evidence that he did not fire a single bullet in the altercation.[1] Falco528 (talk) 05:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He certainly was carrying a gun, as a non-police issue gun was recovered from him. Even if the bullet in the officer's radio was fired by an officer, that doesn't tell us whether or not Duggan fired his gun and missed or not. Jim Michael (talk) 13:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Multi-ethnic nature of incident"

The current article states: "The incident is being investigated by the Independent Police Complaints Commission due to the multi-ethnic nature of the incident" I'm sorry, but that is utter garbage. All incidents involving police use of firearms are investigated. --86.136.203.178 (talk) 10:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless

Cant see the point of an article of a current event which is unfolding by the minute, and where so much is still unclear, rumour or supposition.Unraed (talk) 12:15, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We managed to cover the 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks as they were ongoing.©Geni 12:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But what is the point? If you want to know the latest on what is happening in such an event the news media or Google News give you all that. What is the point in s selective, sporadic re-posting of bits and pieces of news or supposition or rumour on Wiki, often by people with some bias or other but whose truthfulness or objectivity is completely impossible to judge? I cannot see how this adds value and it differs from the rest of Wiki where one person's expert knowledge can help illuminate an issue for others without that knowledge. How is my understanding of what is happening in Tottenham right now helped by someone I do not know cutting and pasting bits from Google News that appeal to their prejudices? Unraed (talk) 13:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not cutting and pasting, I created this article just as I was watching it from Sky News. Jaguar (talk) 13:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You will never stop live Wikipedia reporting on unfolding events. Either sit back and enjoy the ride and stop reading until the dust settles. WWGB (talk) 13:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just my 2 cents... Wikipedia seems to be the BEST source for events as they unfold. I just saw the headlines, dug through a half dozen AP stories, and was severely dissapointed with the lack of detail. I never gave it much thought, but a news story is written in a substantially different manner than an encyclopedia entry. I found this entry to be very well written and organised - much better than the "news"
Because that is how Wiki is at its very best. As above, the Mumbai bombings were reported "as live" on Wikipedia, with the article cited as one of the best news gathering events outside a newsroom. CNN spoke highly of what editors here achieved. In only a few hours, Wikipedia editors have collated news and opinion in English and five other languages, so you don't have to trawl the news sites if you don't want to. "Pointless" ? Only if you misunderstand the project as a whole. This is Wikipedia at its very best. doktorb wordsdeeds 13:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I think Wikipedia generally does a very good job of reporting these kinds of events. There are two advantages for the reader over other news outlets. First all the useful information is gathered in one place, so you don't need to spend time trawling round different news sites trying to find the facts. Second, useless information is usually filtered out - opinons, conjectures and speculations are usually edited out pretty quickly. A good example would be the recent death of Amy Winehouse. There was all kind of sensationalism and speculation as to the cause of death based on no evidence. The Wikipedia article simply stated that the cause of death was as yet unknown and gave a couple of citations. Having said all that - I think Wikipedia's superiority for news events is a result of the awfully poor quality of the output of most major news organisations rather than a result of how great Wikipedia is. Samsite (talk) 14:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Afd tagged

Ken Livingstone's statement

Can be found here:

http://www.labourlist.org/ken-livingstone-statement-on-tottenham-riots

I red it.82.14.54.17 (talk) 15:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pluralised riot in title

Just the one riot has taken place. Suggest a move to "2011 Tottenham riot". --TBM10 (talk) 13:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tottenham AND Wood Green. WWGB (talk) 13:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, "North London riots" then? --TBM10 (talk) 14:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK. that's cool.82.14.54.17 (talk) 15:53, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
names already been updated again to '2011 London riots' after major incidents on the southern outskirts, and there have since been related incidents outside the London area... let's just hope the name doesn't need changing again... 77.101.91.203 (talk) 20:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Background

How about adding something like the following to the Background section?

History

This unrest played out against a larger background of fraught relations between the police and the black community.[2] Commentators have especially drawn parallels to the Broadwater Farm riot of 1985.[3]

ARK (talk) 16:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay -- I've added this to the article as Causes ARK (talk) 18:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea.86.24.10.103 (talk) 19:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the news coverage, this is being caused black and white youths, to say it's all due to racial tension is completely misleading. Your citation for "fraught relations between the police and the black community" provides no evidence for such an assertion, only idle speculation which is rapidly proving to be incorrect. 91.143.178.131 (talk) 08:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a far more balanced commentary: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/08/london-riots-brixton-editorial Pjcard (talk) 10:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The opening sentence to the Background section - Described as "the worst disturbances of their kind since the 1995 Brixton riots",[1] - is a ridiculous understatement. This quote is from 7 Aug and refers only to the initial riot in Tottenham. The subsequent spread of the violence means that the current wave of rioting is far, far worse than the 1995 Brixton riot. This quote is now an irrelevant and inappropriate way to begin this section. The only legitimate historical comparison is with the 1981 riots in many parts of the UK, although the latest ones are more widespread and serious.Petroff (talk) 05:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please edit my reference

Hi, On item six in the sources you list the source as Sky News. This is wrong. it is in fact my blog at www.spiderplantland.co.uk - could this be changed? Sorry I am not enough of an expert to know how! Thanks

Hi -- Wikipedia has a number of community guidelines to ensure that articles meet certain quality standards. One of those guidelines is Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, which more or less rules out blog posts as sources. Ironically, I think, your blog post has remained in the article because is was misidentified as Sky News. Please expect the reference to your blog to be substituted with a reference to a source that is uncontroversially 'reliable'. Best, ARK (talk) 17:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Something definitely wrong with Wikipedia...events need a few days

Shouldn't a few days pass, maybe even a week before an article is started or fully underway before. Wikipedia isnt, or should be a current news reporting website. Its what it says in its name...an encyclopedia.....but hey, person who start it need to race to be first to add to their cred, get em on that CV/ resume...hey and a wikipedia writing medal for roughing it in the battlefield.69.196.135.42 (talk) 19:02, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no minimum amount of time that needs to elapse after an event in order for an article to be created about it. If reliable sources report it and it is notable, we can write an article about it. Jim Michael (talk) 19:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no minimum time for an article to start. A discussion was held to delete this article (see the very top) and it was voted upon to Keep. Your sarcasm adds nothing to anything doktorb wordsdeeds 19:46, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know this isn't encyclopaedic and in keeping with the general vision of Wikipedia - but I live in London, my partner works in one area and I in another, I need to know what's happening and this article is currently functioning as a user-updated rolling source of updates relevant to the area I live in, and is the best source of these updates as news networks are providing more general coverage. So right now, this article is serving a purpose. Even it's not Wikipedia's purpose. Write an article about it when it's over, but some people are relying on this source right now. What would actually be achieved by deleting it? Nothing but snobbery.

--86.24.10.103 (talk) 19:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties

In the Casualties section of the infobox, it says 68 deaths in total!! 68 deaths? In a riot in England? I don't believe it. Are you sure this is correct? GeorgeGriffiths (talk) 19:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"A person suffering from injuries or who has been killed due to an accident or through an act of violence". [1] This clearly means 'injured'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It says 68 casualties, not deaths. As far as we know, no-one has died during the riots. Jim Michael (talk) 21:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move: Discussion

See "Requested move" and "Requested move: part 2"

I don't propose this officially, but would like opinions on moving this article to "2011 North London riots" or "2011 North London unrest", with developing stories and expanded news coverage now shifting from the initial Saturday events. Any opinions or views? I can see why - as it's now not just within the London Borough of Tottenham, why editors may wish to move this somewhere else. doktorb wordsdeeds 19:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tottenham is not a London Borough, it's part of Haringey, which also contains Wood Green. Enfield Town, however, is not even on the border of the Borough of Enfield with Haringey, it's quite some distance away, and is in fact five miles from the Tottenham epicentre. Clearly the current page name is too restrictive, and does not reflect the geography of the eventsNick Cooper (talk) 21:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The current title needs to be changed as the riots have extended to Wood Green and Enfield. Have there been any other riots in London this year? If not, move to 2011 London riots. No need for North if there is no need to distinguish between these riots and any others in London this year. Jim Michael (talk) 21:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Though the riots started in Tottenham, they have now spread to Wood Green and Enfield. The title is becoming progressively less appropriate. However, it is helpful to readers for the title to define the scope. 2011 London riots is too imprecise. I therefore support a page move to 2011 North London riots. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for the name to settle of its own accord in the public discourse, then adjust accordingly. ARK (talk) 22:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"North London riots" is also imprecise, given that violent disorder has now also been reported in the south and the east of London. Keristrasza (talk) 08:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed; it is now. The BBC news is headlining all its reports as "London Riots". This is now reflected in the following RS: [2][3][4][5]. We should now move the page to 2011 London riots. Bridgeplayer (talk) 13:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this could be moved to '2011 London riots'. Current bets are on Croydon being hit, so maybe '2011 Greater London riots' --Canhazanonymous (talk) 15:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With the expansion of events to encompass most major English cities the question will obviously be raised as to whether the name should be broadened to '2011 English riots' or similar - however I feel that the president of letting the English press take the lead on naming the events is a good one - aka the 'let the BBC choose the name' solution. The press is currently flitting between London riots and England riots - I think they'll truly decide after tonights events, when it should become clear if the non-London rioting escalates to a sufficient seriousness to draw comparison with the events of London77.101.91.203 (talk) 09:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bullet in radio was 'police issue'?

The Guardian is reporting [6] that initial tests on the bullet found lodged in a police radio was a police-issue dum-dum type, and not fired by the shooting victim, as claimed. This doesn't of course prove that he didn't have a weapon, but it is worth noting. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:15, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be based on nothing more than the bullet being a hollow point, and the fact that the police use hollow points. Civilians aren't supposed to have access to hollow points, but then they're not supposed to have access to handgiuns, either, so there seems to be some spectacular conclusion leaping going on.... Nick Cooper (talk) 21:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
most of the limitations on hollow points are on millitary use. I understand they are fairly popular for certian civilian aplications in the US. However if we assume that the guardian are not completely incompetent then other factors such as caliber will also match. Yes it's possible that someone else happened to have the same bullets as the police but ultimately its not our call. The guardian is running this on their front page tomorrow thus at some point we will have to mention it.©Geni 22:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As the wording is "dum dum type hollowed out bullets" .. we don't have to 'assume' the Guardian reporters are completely incompetent. Nevard (talk) 19:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised Met use hollow-point, but they have openly done so since 11th May 2011 (probably actually since Operation Kratos + Jean Charles de Menezes). More fatal, less collaeral damage ! Military ban is Hague Convention ? Officially called 'expanding bullets' : 'dum-dum' refers to DIY ammo that has been drilled or x-sawed. Given a DIY modified 'ex-inert' gun, modded ammo would not be surprising. --195.137.93.171 (talk) 01:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although Hollow point ammunition used by the met does ricochet less than standard ammunition it should be noted that firing bullets into a metal container... like a car... at near point blank range... is pretty much a perfect ricochet situation. Its quite possible that the bullet in the radio was fired by a police officer in the direction of the suspect.77.101.91.203 (talk) 09:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's apparent that the "police-issue" observation comes solely from it being a hollow-point bullet, and that should be clarified. John2510 (talk) 14:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It may well prove to be a police bullet, but jumping to that conclusion based on it being a hollow-point is ridiculous (and irresponsible, given the context). The actual bullistics should match it to a gun pretty quickly. They should be more interested in the caliber than whether it's a hollow-point or not. If the police use .38's and and it's a 9mm hollow-point... John2510 (talk) 14:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

24 hour clock

I think that we should consistently use the 24 hour clock so 7.05 pm becomes 19:05. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, also use British English, not just for colour and flavour, but also because of this WP:TIES.--Cerejota (talk) 01:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peasants

Thank you to whoever changed, "A series of disturbances by peasants in Tottenham followed the protest march on 6 August" to "A series of disturbances by people in Tottenham followed the protest march on 6 August." Whoever was responsible for the "peasants" remark is not fit to be contributing to Wikipedia, or to pass any comment on anything. Findlay777 (talk) 23:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid the article is high enough profile to be the target of vandalism.©Geni 23:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting peasants aren't people? ;) But seriously, not cool --Canhazanonymous (talk) 15:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both words could be retained if the phrase "disturbances by people, possibly peasants" was used.

See Peasant: "A peasant is an agricultural worker who generally works land owned or rented by/from a noble." Peasants in Tottenham, Hackney, Peckham? I wasn't aware that it's all farmland round there. "The Peasants". Stanley Oliver (talk) 21:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It may have been vandalism, but that was still pretty damn funny. And I sympathise with those who wish to disparage the rioters and their criminal behaviour. Thanks for the laugh. 116.255.8.84 (talk) 20:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to 2011 London riots. I think everyone supports this though some people asked for a postponement - no real reason for waiting as it can be moved again if, unlikely, it is commonly referred to as something else. Almost all news agencies are using this name now. violet/riga [talk] 17:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Tottenham riots → 2011 London riots – Riots now extend far beyond tottenham, with extensive looting and damage in Brixton, South London, as well as a 7 mile area of North London. AndrewTindall (talk) 01:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This Sky News report certainly suggests disturbances in several areas of London, mostly apparently looting of shops. However, at the moment, the WP:RS are still calling it the "Tottenham riots". When they change their usage, so should we. Until then, the article should keep the same name. -- The Anome (talk) 01:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Anome (or at least, what the above post said before I was edit conflicted). The fact that they began with the shooting in Tottenham may well lead to them being remembered as the Tottenham riots, despite taking place in places from Enfield to Brixton. If it ever is renamed, "riots" should remain lower case. —WFC— TFL notices 01:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It should definitely be moved, this source clearly states the riots are across a large section of London http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-14439970 12bigbrother12 (talk) 02:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BBC calling it "London riot" on news front page... Hyper3 (talk) 06:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support a move to 2011 London riots. This is no longer confined to Tottenham. Many RS now reflecting the spread of the disorder to south and east London as well as other parts of the north. Graun reads: "London riots spread south of Thames" and points to the rioting in Brixton, Enfield, Islington and Walthamstow. The Torygraph also reads: "London riots: live" and goes on: "This is our live coverage of the riots and disturbances in London, which on Sunday night brought looting and disruption to large areas of the capital." Channel 4 news go with "London riots spread." BBC: Met Police on London riots." USA Today: "Police arrest more than 160 in London riots." etc etc. Keristrasza (talk) 08:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2011 I'm so Cockney I'm riddled with it riots? Lugnuts (talk) 07:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Riots" should definitely be lower-case, as it is not a proper noun. HandsomeFella (talk) 08:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2011 London riots I've just seen stuff on Brixton as I logged on. I thin Enfield was hit again.Wipsenade (talk) 09:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Playing devil's advocate, but the only riots have taken place in Tottenham. The rest has just been looting and theft. How about 2011 London looting?! Brad78 (talk) 10:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Policing operation across London

Police press release on tonight's activities - http://www.met.police.uk/pressbureau/Bur08/page01.htm - gives a nice breakdown of the different areas affected. Nanonic (talk) 02:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this is a blog (not an RS) of the activities tonight. Might be useful as a launching point to search for RS. Nanonic (talk) 03:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

East London

Why is there no mention of Walthamstow, Leyton & Strafrord being raided? The rioters did some considerable damage to those areas too--82.10.203.103 (talk) 02:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then add this to the article yourself. You will need to supply cites to reliable sources to back up your assertions -- see the article for the standard format for these cites. -- The Anome (talk) 02:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've not heard any mention of anything kicking off in Stratford or Leyton and I've been keeping half an eye on the news in case it decides to spread to other areas of Walthamstow.Mr Larrington (talk) 12:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Walthamstow [[11]] was added an hour ago. :-}82.2.72.189 (talk) 11:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At what point does a 'disturbance' become part of these riots? The Argos in Dalston (part of the Borough of Hackney) was raided last night. Should this be mentioned? --62.49.203.34 (talk) 11:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know at what point does a 'disturbance' become part of these riots, but untill this is sorted it is best to add all lootings and attacks on shops, police, press and goverment/corporate property. Yes, you can add about the The Argos in Dalston.82.2.72.189 (talk) 13:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dalston is in.82.27.25.189 (talk) 16:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Riot dates

"6 August - 7 August" - There is no way of knowing the rioting will end on 7 August, I propose we change "7 August" to "Present" until riots end.

Black man

"The disturbances were preceded by the fatal shooting of 29-year-old black man Mark Duggan by police..." why does the colour of his skin need to be mentioned? Is there an undisputed endemic race problem amongst police? By this token every time a "white" man is mentioned the term must be used as well. The white Old Etonian Lord Mayor for instance. If it says "by a white policeman" there would be some undertones of an entrenced battle between black and white. There still appears to be the thinking that "black people" are downtrodden and always the victims of injustice.

Most of the rioters are black criminals who are reacting to the death of Duggan, also a black criminal, or using it as an excuse to riot. If the police had instead shot a white criminal, it is highly unlikely that it would have been followed by riots. Perhaps that makes it relevant to the article. 188.28.77.247 (talk) 09:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's no evidence to suggest Duggan or the rioters were criminals. Let's wait until the facts are established and verified.
There is a history of racial tension, especially with the police, in the area so it is relevant. Also, when people (especially non-Britons) read about a Londoner I think they'd tend to assume he's white at first, so there's of course no need to describe others as "white". Considering the racial undertones in the actual case of Mark Duggan's shooting I think it should stay. Also, just FYI, you are aware that the Lord Mayor is not an Old Etonian - Boris Johnson is the Mayor of London, not the Lord Mayor of London. Tommer312 (talk) 09:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd think that the fact of the rioters torching vehicles and buildings and looting shops probably qualifies them as criminals.Mr Larrington (talk) 12:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We are not the ones who should be making suggestions of racial trouble and should only mention it if there are reputable sources that are making the link. As it stands identifying him as a "black man" infers that this is an issue. violet/riga [talk] 11:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realise there were two separate entities Mayor of London and Lord Mayor of London, for my information, that's really helpful, good to know that always confused me when Ken's name came up as Lord Mayor. Boris Johnson is a white man and a white Old Etonian, foreign people assume that people from London are white, you have to be joking! The rioters are "black criminals" are these worse than "white criminals" could ever be?

I don't know of any case of a riot after police shot a white person. There have been many cases of riots after police shot black people. I think that makes Duggan's race relevant to the article and the reader's understanding of the course of events. 188.28.113.53 (talk) 14:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly, but it's not our interpretation that is important - we need a comment about this from a reliable source. violet/riga [talk] 14:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you know many things but to say you don't know of any riot started after police shot a white man demonstrates a lack of life experience, because you don't know of anything does not mean it doesn't exist. Riots are not exclusively caused by police shooting "black" or "white" men. Look up the Wikipedia article on riots to see their causes.

It's always odd to see people use phrases like "Most of the rioters are black criminals". Did you take a census? Were you there? Having seen several pictures taken from the trouble spots I've seen black and white predominately young looking men. I think it would be fair to categorize most of the rioters and looters as 'youths' but to pin a race on them would be difficult at best. --Canhazanonymous (talk) 16:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the majority of them from looking at the pictures are black. it would logically be so since the man who died seems to be the reason it started

The UK has a history of white supremacy, like any European nation. Tensions are exacerbated by recent enormous austerity measures. This is pointless to debate and explains why it's relevant that the victims of police violence have been overwhelmingly black. Falco528 (talk) 05:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why are we making such outrageous statements, white supremacy is a nebulous concept, by following this logic it would imply that China is yellow supremacist, who makes public statements like that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.74.133.65 (talk) 07:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Duggan

BLP policies don't apply to dead people. We have plenty of Death of... articles, so could follow that format as a biography is not appropriate. --Pontificalibus (talk) 11:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The 1E part of BLP can effectively apply whether living or dead (think about whether Duggan would have passed BLP1E if he'd only been shot and injured - answer - no). Note also WP:BDP, given that we have very little reliable info at this moment. I think the current redirect from Mark Duggan to here is a good idea and should cover all bases for the time being. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's mention of this article as a dab at the top of that page - that should suffice. violet/riga [talk] 11:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't look here before, but I just boldly redirected Mark Duggan here, moving a footballer of the same name to a different article. Yesterday that article had a massive spike in hits, obviously as people were wanting to find out information about him. FWIW, I think that there should probably be a Death of Mark Duggan article at some point. Sorry my connection died just as I was about to post... SmartSE (talk) 14:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unless there is significantly more information/controversy awaiting us about Duggan I really doubt that a separate article will be required. violet/riga [talk] 14:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Organising

There are lots of sources online now for the Blackberry Messenger broadcasts that were sent over the last few days to organise people in certain areas including http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/08/london-riots-tottenham-duggan-blog#block-61 . Nanonic (talk) 13:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UKBlackberry have just tweeted "We feel for those impacted by the riots in London. We have engaged with the authorities to assist in any way we can." - covered in the Guardian live feed above. Nanonic (talk) 14:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is getting more ridiculous by the minute

In the lede, we read that having 'kicked off' (hardly an encyclopaedic term) in Tottenham, the riots have spread as far as Croydon. So what happened in Croydon? Somebody smashed some school windows, and there were 3 incidents involving thefts from cars. Without casting aspersions on Croydon, I have to suggest that this not only doesn't sound much like a riot, but that it doesn't sound that atypical for the area on any other day. I'll delete the Croydon non-riot from the article, and ask that people try to be a little less keen on hyping up minor events. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, 'kicked off' is not an encyclopaedic term.86.16.0.158 (talk) 15:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is - what next - someone asking Boris Johnson to go there and say "look here you chaps it's hardly fair is it all this rioting, go home and have a jolly good rest."

What about the protests in London this is the closest article that comes up about the demonstrations in England and it's about Tottenham. WTF is going on... Every news network in the world reports there are problems in London, even the British media do:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/08/context-london-riots
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/08/08/501364/main20089369.shtml
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8689076/London-riots-Twitter-users-face-arrest-for-inciting-looters.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/08/london-riots-met-promises-more-police-streets
http://www.heralddeparis.com/london-violence-needless-opportunistic-theft/143750
And here are some Tottenham sources:
http://techland.time.com/2011/08/08/tottenham-protesters-used-twitter-blackberry-messenger-to-mobilize-riots/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/08/tottenham-riots-destroyed-more-just-buildings
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2023596/Tottenham-riot-Why-shouldnt-David-Cameron-ask-Bill-Bratton-run-Met.html
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3739222/Dad-Stephen-Seeman-Tottenham-riot-mob-tried-to-torch-car-with-baby-inside.html?OTC-RSS&ATTR=News
I have to agree that this article is ridiculous, but for entirely different reasons, because it seams to downplay the events rather than containing an accurate description of them (WP:SPADE).--87.202.64.218 (talk) 16:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Misrepresenting sources, as was done with Croydon, isn't an 'accurate description' of anything. Yes, there are ongoing disturbances, but we need to report them properly, not invent them where they haven't occurred. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
However, there is serious trouble in Croydon - [12]. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - but the source being cited was for events over the weekend - and I can't be held accountable for deleting stuff that hadn't happened at the time I did it ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BBC headline, "London riots: Croydon 'is a war zone'". Doesn't look like a teddy bears' picnic to me. Ericoides (talk) 21:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the good citizens of Croydon were upset by AndyTheGrump's comment - "minor events" - and decided to have it large. Stanley Oliver (talk) 21:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who is in charge here, this page is as disorganised as the riot itself!

Preliminary bullet tests

Earlier today I added the word "allegedly" to this part of the article, since the only proof at the moment that the bullet was police-issue is an informal, unreliable article from the Guardian based on word-of-mouth. I am readding the word allegedly; please do not remove this until other sources appear to confirm it. The results should be available tomorrow, so wait 'til then. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  16:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The guardian is one of the UK's more reliable newspapers and ran the article on its front page with 4 reporter by-lines. That would be one heck of a risk to take if they weren't pretty darn sure. Still your avoidance of the electric fence is noted.©Geni 18:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is not an encyclopaedia's role to be one of the first to post a story, it is our job to provide accurate and validated information. Newspapers make their profits off risks, the bigger the risk the bigger the sales. This information could change the whole swing of the situation so it's important to get it right. Until either other sources confirm what the Guardian have said, or until the ballistic tests are confirmed later today, it is important to regard the information as fiction until proen a fact. I, personally, find it very hard to believe, especially given the lack of evidence, so it's important to confirm it before we publish it. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  23:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No the gardian makes it's profit off auto trader. The paper hasn't made a profit in years. On the other hand it does do investigative journalism and treating that as fiction while viewing statments by the IPCC as gospel is a questionable approach.©Geni 16:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not just the shooting?

Is there more to this than just the shooting? The influence of "high unemployment and cuts in public services" [13][14] has been in and out of the article a few times now. Any other reliable commentary about this? violet/riga [talk] 18:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions, especially fringe opinions, should not be presented as facts. We should wait for the results of the inevitable inquiry before attempting to state what the "causes" are. Sure we can discuss subjective opinions in the article, but they should be presented as just that - as personal opinions, and equal airing given to all notable opinions. FactController (talk) 18:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To meet NPOV we shouldn't be asserting the only reason as being the shooting if that is not the case. The first link is The Vancouver Sun which should be a reliable source said this:
Anger at high unemployment and cuts in public services, coupled with resentment of the police, contributed to an explosion of violence and looting in a deprived London neighbourhood, residents said on Sunday.
Now that is simply getting it from what residents say, but it's still getting towards some level of reliability. violet/riga [talk] 19:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This has been put back in the infobox and has two further sources. It should be in the lead but I don't want to be having an edit war. violet/riga [talk] 19:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can I add that I am not entirely supportive of this explanation given the timeline of events, but it may have been a driving force behind why things escalated. Importantly it is being reported in these four sources as a factor so that is why I think it should be included. violet/riga [talk] 19:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An opinion nevertheless, so should be presented as such, and if presented should be in context and should be balanced with others. Are the four sources reliable? I agree too that we shouldn't be asserting that the shooting was a "cause" either. FactController (talk) 19:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Birmingham riots?

Tonight the riots have spread to Birmingham [15], and the connection to the London riots seems pretty clear. Could the scope of this article be expanded to cover these riots too? JordanH1400 (talk) 19:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You would have to say that it's more than just a coincidence but until reputable sources start making the link we will need to leave it out. It might be worth mentioning as a side note later on assuming (and hoping) that this is a one-off minor incident. violet/riga [talk] 19:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that using the source cited to claim that there were 'riots' in Birmingham might be stretching things in any case. Disorder maybe, but no riot. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There has also been violence in Croydon and Leeds as well as Birmingham. This is no longer just London. The page name should be changed to England or UK 2011 riots.--82.16.221.138 (talk) 22:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Minor offshoots at most. If anything further develops then we can consider moving it. violet/riga [talk] 19:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm aware, Croydon is still in London, or have the looters run off with the whole town? ;-) More to the point, until reliable sources suggest that there is rioting going on elsewhere, we should leave the title as is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Croydon is part of the Greater London Area

Yes sorry about saying Croydon but there are confirmed reports from numerous news sources about Leeds and Birmingham. Infact the rather famous Bullring shopping centre has been broken into.--82.16.221.138 (talk) 22:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The BBC and Sky are reporting unrest in Liverpool. Proper citation for Bristol from BBC Shops and cars damaged in Bristol disorder

Race riots in the United Kingdom category

Category:Race riots in the United Kingdom should not be included in this article. There is no mention whatsoever of anything to do with racism or race-related trouble at any point in the text. Until this is included and properly sourced it cannot be in this category. violet/riga [talk] 19:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree.--A bit iffy (talk) 21:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

um, of course these are race riots. It is just uncomfortable that they are, so people prefer to make contorted politically correct statements about social inequality. Obviously all race riots are born from social inequality. If there is no social inequality between races, there won't be any riots. That doesn't change the fact that it's a race riot. If you search "race riots" on google news, you will find lots of references, including many reporting contorted statements how they are not race riots. The lady doth protest too much, here, but at the least it will be easy to agree that the question whether these are race riots has been "controversial". Where "controversial" means that some politically correct effort has been invested into proving how race riots are not, in fact, race riots. Simply not mentioning the topic because it is awkward is not what Wikipedia is about. --dab (𒁳) 13:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article title - confusion

I think this title might confuse some into thinking it's related to or is about the riots earlier in the year regarding university fees. Since it's a completely different issue, it might be worth changing the name. --Kurr 21:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See 2010 UK student protests - that was last year. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You might be thinking of the 2011 anti-cuts protest in London. --TBM10 (talk) 21:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Misinformation, rumours and terrible editing

I've given up trying to control and improve this article. It is in danger of being completely over-run with misinformation and rumours, all added using poor MoS and with total disregard to notability. The comment in the Lead Paragraph about a Primark shop in Ilford being set on fire is a classic example. This article needs to be protected so that only registered users can edit it! --TBM10 (talk) 21:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree, generally poor editing. But the poor editing is generally getting fixed. At the moment, in my opinion, there isn't such a serious problem that requires a lockdown.--A bit iffy (talk) 21:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ilford info is correct, however no cameras or news footage has really reviewed Ilford yet - however remove for the time being— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.42.58 (talk • contribs)

Also, where the article states:

Barnet: Sporadic night time riots in Barnet.[58] Streatham: Sporadic night time riots in Streatham.[58] Clapham: Sporadic night time riots in Clapham.[58] Islington: Sporadic night time riots in Islington.[58]

There is no evidence or report of this. Simply talking up the problem.

Yup, not in the source - I've removed them AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fires and looting in the places listed above - and many more. Handy map of confirmed riot locations: "Google Maps - London riots / UK riots: verified areas". Stanley Oliver (talk) 23:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that qualifies as WP:RS - it is entirely unclear where it is sourced from. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear where it is sourced from - just click a riot icon to see the source. In many cases the source is WP:RS - others; perhaps not. Stanley Oliver (talk) 01:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has now pasted this back into the article again after it was removed because the source does not report as denoted:

Streatham: Sporadic night time riots in Streatham [80] Clapham: Sporadic night time riots in Clapham [80]. Islington: Sporadic night time riots in Islington.[80] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.72.134 (talk) 22:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Social Networkings role

Not much at all on facebook/twitters/blackberries role in this in terms of word of mouth.

Facebook support group for the Met http://www.facebook.com/?ref=home#!/pages/Supporting-the-Met-Police-against-the-London-rioters/152937041453243 I think this deserves a mention to definately raise awareness.

Number of members needs to be amended on a continuous basis

Looters showing the 'spoils of war' on social networking sites (assuming this is a genuine picture) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2023667/London-riots-Looter-posts-photo-booty-Facebook.html?ito=feeds-newsxml --Canhazanonymous (talk) 00:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence it's a genuine picture, and the Daily Mail is not a reliable source. No evidence that people were coordinating riots on Twitter either - I saw that pic on Twitter, but only posted by someone else who claimed it was a riot pic. This sounds like just a "Daily Mail blames the Internet" story, not at all suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Mdwh (talk) 22:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's citation for Public reaction section: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Supporting-the-Met-Police-against-the-London-rioters/152937041453243 . This page called "Supporting the Met Police against the London rioters " and it has more than 850,000 people. Please fix it. --92.37.204.161 (talk) 22:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree thare is no indication the photo in question is genuine, bu to suggest that the Daily Mail is not a reliable source is absurd - it is as relevant as any other newspaper which are widely quoted in thousands if not millions of articles on WP. In addition, regardless of the authenticity of the picture, the caption is still relevant - police believe such pictures (genuine or otherwise) are an incitement to further looting. TicketMan - Talk - contribs 07:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection

Too many well-meaning edits that are throwing in trivial examples of what has happened, but more importantly too much vandalism from a number of different IP addresses. Blocked as indef until things settle - might be a while. violet/riga [talk] 21:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fatality in Croydon

Reports of shooting in Croydon, not seen on news sites yet but tweeted by ITV News ITV News Reports that a man has been shot in the head and killed in Croydon tonight. --AndrewTindall (talk) 22:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still nothing I've seen yet. violet/riga [talk] 22:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sky now reporting a non-fatal shooting in Croydon. likely to be this same incident.--AndrewTindall (talk) 22:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Confirmed non fatal BBCs live feed states "2335: Police at the scene of the Croydon disturbances are investigating a "non-fatal" shooting, according to a source.

No more details are immediately available. " BBC London riots live feed --Canhazanonymous (talk) 23:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


A 26-year-old man shot in a car in Croydon last night has died in hospital, Scotland Yard says. [BBC] --AndrewTindall (talk) 11:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 798blue798, 8 August 2011

bromely has been attacked. reeves corner has been burnt down. This dredfull attack is scaring chilldren that dont deseve to go through such devistation to their home. 798blue798 (talk) 22:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is being updated as and when we get sources. If you have any links to help us then do please post them here. violet/riga [talk] 22:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Local press on rioting in Bromley: http://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/9184210.UPDATE__Richer_Sounds_smashed_in__Bromley_High_Street_and_Bromley_South_closed/. Fences&Windows 23:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Request - Sock

It should be noted that the gun that was supposedly Duggan's was found wrapped up in a sock in his car. Patrick Barkham and Jon Henley (August 8, 2011). "Mark Duggan: profile of Tottenham police shooting victim". The Guardian. Retrieved 8 August 2011.

I can't seem to find anything that supports that in that article. violet/riga [talk] 22:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This link http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/07/tottenham-riots-relatives-dead-manSuperNewToWiki (talk) 22:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

corrected broken link for guardian --Canhazanonymous (talk) 23:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


"Stafford Scott, a community leader who was outside the police station, said:
"We do not believe that Mark was bad enough or mad enough to come out of a car and
want to shoot at armed police officers.
Our information … is that the gun found there was found in a sock,
meaning it wasn't prepared for action."
"

However this is not NPOV - contrast this report of a previous incident in the same area

The loaded firearm was concealed in a sock behind the wheel of the car –
guns are often hidden in socks because
people carrying them are less likely to leave fingerprints,
whilst when firing the sock can catch a bullet casing.

--195.137.93.171 (talk) 01:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that the injured officer may have been undercover - in plain clothes.--195.137.93.171 (talk) 02:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

London map

So, where are the locations?--93.137.203.29 (talk) 12:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are several maps of London on sites with crisis points shown. We outside of the UK would like to see where is that happening, compared to where is the center of London if possible. Thanks, --93.137.203.29 (talk) 22:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a link to London borough - not perfect but it may be helpful. I considered adding more places on the map that currently only shows Tottenham but they are too close together to make it look right. Someone else might wish to try with a large version of the map. violet/riga [talk] 22:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Handy map of confirmed riot locations: "London riots / UK riots: verified areas". Stanley Oliver (talk) 23:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that qualifies as WP:RS - it is entirely unclear where it is sourced from. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is no longer being updated, but directs to a Guardian page - "'UK riots: every verified incident". Raevn (talk) 23:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
here's the map:

Please see #Riot locations for map below, similar thread to this. A list of coordinates is what is needed really.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request -Leeds incident unrelated please remove

This BBC report makes it clear that the Leeds incident is unrelated to the subject of this article. I have tried to delete it from the article twice, but my attempts have both been reverted. Are we going to include in this article all local and unrelated incidents that occurr tonight - anywhere? FactController (talk) 23:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just chastised a dog, does that count? violet/riga [talk] 23:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Bugger all to do with the riots. I don't seem to be able to edit the article anymore :( --Canhazanonymous (talk) 23:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC) leeds was an unrelated incident just coincidental pls remove[reply]

Liverpool?

BBC News just reported that some problems are happening in Liverpool now. Nothing worth adding yet but perhaps in the future. violet/riga [talk] 23:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sky News have shown video footage but currently unverified.

"0059: Merseyside Police confirm they are dealing with a number of incidents in South Liverpool, including cars being set alight. Members of the public have been advised to avoid Smithdown Road, Lodge Lane and Upper Parliament Street. In a statement, Merseyside Police's Andy Ward said: "Officer have tonight dealt with a small number of incidents of violence across the city. We will not tolerate any violence on the streets of Liverpool and have taken swift and robust action in response." via BBCs live feed --Canhazanonymous (talk) 00:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to add it to the article if you can find and reference a reliable source, I've a feeling that tomorrow this page will be moved to "2011 United Kingdom riots" :( 12bigbrother12 (talk) 00:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think we'll have "2011 England riots" before then! violet/riga [talk] 00:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can't add it. I think the protection level is too high for me :P --Canhazanonymous (talk) 00:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs to be renamed to '2011 United Kingdom riots' 2.102.43.214 (talk) 00:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not really Toxteth. The areas seems to be Edge Hill, Wavertree all to the North of Toxteth by a few yards.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 01:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article name should be changed

See "Requested move" and "Requested move: part 2"

The riots are no longer contained to London. They've spread to Birmingham and possibly Liverpool. This article therefore needs to be moved. 2.27.5.50 (talk) 00:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Might I suggest 'The Duggan riots'

I know it seems too likely to be related rather than a coincidence but we should wait until those events are confirmed as linked to those in London before renaming the article. If a rename is essential then I'd suggest 2011 England riots. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  00:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment it is mostly within London and the news agencies are still referring to it as the "London riots". Hopefully we won't have any further problems elsewhere but I guess we'll have to wait and see. violet/riga [talk] 00:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Birmingham, Liverpool, perhaps Bristol and Manchester. Riots don't happen randomly they are connected. This isn't just London anymore the name should be changed to '2011 England Riots' and if it spreads to Wales/Scotland/NI then '2011 UK riots'.--82.16.221.138 (talk) 00:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed they are certainly connected, but we are informed by our sources which still refer to it as the London riots. If/when the other sites start to change we can review the name again. violet/riga [talk] 00:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article up for deletion - please debate there and do not remove template

Speedily kept
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a proposed deltion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was: speedy keep.

I've put this article up for deletion as I do not believe Wikipedia should have a current events news article such as this (Calling it '2011 London riots' etc). Please debate there. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vote keep. This was debated earlier. --Canhazanonymous (talk) 00:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stop wasting our time, this will be speedily kept. 12bigbrother12 (talk) 00:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) You should probably be aware of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Tottenham riots. Also, you may want to read up on the inclusion guidelines. Do not make the mistake of thinking WP:NOTNEWS is a blanket guideline that means we do not cover events that are covered by news sources; please actually read the guidelines before trying to implement them. Best wishes, SpitfireTally-ho! 00:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to debate whether Wikipedia should cover current events in general, this isn't the way to do it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Someone wants to make a WP:POINT. If he undoes my Speedy Keep I won't revert - it's not really appropriate. I'm sure that it will be done [edit: ie someone else will speedy it] by someone else soon enough though. violet/riga [talk] 00:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with debate? The admin Violet/riga is a a contributor here - he/she gave it a speedy keep - no one else did. I seemed to me to be a deliberate stifling of debate, so I will undo it (I'll try again - it didn't seem to work - perhaps you could help Violet?). The article will merely have a delete template - no great shakes. Nobody must try and prevent debate - a speedy keep is not for this kind of thing (only for acts of Afd use-abuse really). Please remember that people here are not journalists, and the article is potentially damaging - and whether Wikipedia can do this right now needs serious debate. The whole question of media coverage is in question. In my view it is not Wikipedia's place to report breaking news like this, no matter how exciting it may be. Things are apparently happening in Liverpool now - let's just calm down shall we? This is (or was) an enyclopedia. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong is that you are trying to make an argument about general policy in the wrong place, and against a clear consensus. Personally I have some sympathy with the idea that Wikipedia shouldn't be so quick with breaking news - but you cannot change policy here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) You're right, speedy keeps are partly for AfD abuse. For instance, if someone was nominating a high profile article for deletion so as to advance a personal agenda without any standing in existing policy. Go to a village pump if you really want to discuss this. SpitfireTally-ho! 00:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How am I abusing it? I think the article should be deleted so I started an Article For Deletion AFD! How is that a difficult concept? Despite the huge pressure I was immediately put under, I did give sound reasons. This ([16]) is a link to the 'speedy keep' - which is huge abuse of both of the Speedy Keep rule and of admin powers IMO. Debate has simply been stifled here - in the very place designed for it: Article For Deletion. People have no right to tell me to take it elsewhere. Readers should have a place to go to discuss this ACTUAL ARTICLE. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They already have. The result was keep last time, and I've no reason to think it will change. Why do you think it will? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Who are "they"? A tiny group of involved admin? Or anything bigger? Me - I just like to do the ethical thing, especially when it's in-line with what Wikipedia is supposed to be about. I've had a load of shit tonight for this - I meant to go to bed two hours ago. Matt Lewis (talk) 02:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think he's just angry that this didn't get deleted. Let him sleep, he might feel better in the morning. In my personal opinion this should be kept. Wikipedia does updates very close to the time of happening for nearly every single other major event that happens in the world and so it should for this event too. --82.16.221.138 (talk) 02:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could we please get that deletion tag taken down? This is getting really childish and should be taken to the appropriate place. Personguy2 (talk) 03:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a proposed deletion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

UK riots 2011

See "Requested move" and "Requested move: part 2"

This is spreading and seems to be getting worse. This is not just a London issue now. Liverpool, Leeds, Birmingham, Bristol, Manchester. Where next? I hope it does not spread into Wales.

Don't worry, it won't be as bad as this:

A.D. 981. In this year was St. Petroc's-stow plundered; and in the same year was much harm done everywhere by the sea-coast, both upon Devonshire and Wales.

Count Iblis (talk) 01:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Name of article probably should be changed to English or UK Riots 2011. August 8-9, 2011, rioting is not confined to Greater London, but extends to Birmingham, Liverpool and Bristol. Lahaun (talk) 02:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Riots have been reported in many cities outside of London. I think the article should be re-named to UK riots 2011. Nations United (talk) 02:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
UK Riots? How about Wikipedia UK Riots 2011 TM? Lets see how far we can fan it. Jesus. Matt Lewis (talk) 02:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not UK, they are only in England. Take the lead from 1981 England riots. WWGB (talk) 02:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By the morning I feel that the media will be calling this the England riots as it is so widespread now and clearly not just in London. If it spread to Scotland/Wales/NI then we can change is to UK riots but for now I think changing it to '2011 England Riots' is a smart move.--82.16.221.138 (talk) 02:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
David Cameron will probably put a stop to it. In the Cobra meeting on 9 AM today (when the rioters will still be fast asleep), the decision will be taken to deploy large numbers of police forces or even the army to make it impossible for people to start to riot. Count Iblis (talk) 03:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Who are you people to decide when disruption (in Liverpool for example) becomes a 'riot'? Who are you people to decide when enough has happened to call it "UK riots"? For god's sake just let whatever is to happen unfold. Do not be part of it. WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A NEWSPAPER. Matt Lewis (talk) 03:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

England riots 2011 is also an acceptable name to me. I'm just saying that it's obviously extended further than London, so it should be re-named to fit the actual event. If the violence in London has been called riots, then the violence in Birmingham, Liverpool, and Bristol should also be called riots. And by the way, it seems that news websites have changed their headlines to "UK violence" and "violence spreads across England", so it's not just my personal opinion. Nations United (talk) 03:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have just seen some footage and damage from Birmingham last night on the BBC News channel, showing fires and a row of shops looted. In addition to the reported "unrest in Nottingham and Bristol" and the riots that led to cars being burned out in Liverpool that we could change this to UK riots as it seems more accurate. I've no doubt that it will be changed tonight because the riots seem to be spreading outwards on a nightly basis. 12bigbrother12 (talk) 07:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, renaming to 2011 UK riots or some similar title. Guardian now reporting disturbances in Kent as well as the cities mentioned upthread. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/blog/2011/aug/09/london-riots-violence-looting-live#block-24 yorkshiresky (talk) 08:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support renaming to 2011 England riots, which is what the BBC are now reporting it as. --AndrewTindall (talk) 10:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support renaming to 2011 UK riots. The fact that civil unrest has spread to Birmingham, Manchester and other cities is extremely significant, and has the potential to shape the police response. (I won't say for sure, per WP:CRYSTAL.) The rioting is now a national issue, and the article should reflect that. --Delta1989 (talk/contributions) 16:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arrests and injuries

I've been looking around the news websites and many said many of the rioters were arrested and injured. Should we add the arrests and injures as the riots progress or leave it be? Thanks. -- Luke Talk 02:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rather pointless. Arrest figures are likely to be out-of-date and questionable, and injuries even more so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bulleted list item

Root causes?

Root cause? A large number of young black thugs with nothing better to do.

Is there any more information out there about the root causes of the riots?

People don't generally just go out and start burning buildings unless they feel that are the victims of some sort of injustice?

Are there any RS which speak about the root causes? I think it would really help clarify what's going on.

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 02:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How far do you want to go back? The general election? The industrial revolution? The neolithic revolution? That is an unanswerable question (except for evolutionary psychologists, who have an answer for everything. Or if they haven't, they'll come up with one to order...) AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Enough to provide some real context as to what's going on here and why these people are so angry. One line stating that there are "tense relations" between the police and black community doesn't really explain things, does it? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 03:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a short, but completely adequate article by a prominent scholar that addressses all of these questions: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/08/context-london-riots Falco528 (talk) 05:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from Saturday's events in Tottenham, the root cause of all this is blanket coverage by the media, especially the BBC News Channel. This article does nothing to help the situation either. If we had a news blackout it would disappear overnight. Pure copycat action with people with nothing better to do. It looks as if it is going to bucket down with rain later today, which should put a damper on things. World stock markets plunging, yet the BBC gave precious little coverage to that last night. Dsergeant (talk) 06:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If we look back to the riots of the early 1980's we find that there are similar economic problems (massive cuts especially to youth serviecs, bad economic growth etc.) even if the same racial problems are not there. There are always underlying causes to rioting and they usually aren't hard to find.--82.16.221.138 (talk) 07:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Neolithic revolution? How about just reporting what quotable sources throw up as possible causes?

a tragic event in a longer history of the Metropolitan police's treatment of ordinary Londoners, especially those from black and minority ethnic backgrounds[17]
A feature of many deprived communities in the UK is a poor level of parenting[18]
British commentators – on Left and Right – are suggesting that poverty and racism were the motors to the riot in Tottenham and that the British government has a moral responsibility to deal with them. [19]
we are happy to let black people speak about politics, just so long as they have flames or body bags as their backdrop.[20]

So, the consensus seems to be that these are race riots, fuelled by the "sense of deprivation" among the "black community" in Britain. Of course the politically correct way of putting it is that these people are not to blame for their rioting: their rioting and looting is apparently a valid expression of discontent, and the people who are really to blame are the police and the politicians. At least that's what I read out of the above pieces. --dab (𒁳) 14:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to say that it looks much better now with a "causes" section explaining what's going on here. Cheers to everyone who contributed. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 01:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LA Riots Reference?

Resolved

After looking at the two riot situations, the cause and ongoing situation seems to be unfolding in a similar way to that of the 1992 Los Angeles riots, so perhaps a See Also reference to that might be suitable to place in the article?

and similar stuff occurred in France back in 2005 --93.137.203.29 (talk) 07:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
deja vu, when looking at the photos 2005 civil unrest in France --93.137.203.29 (talk) 07:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done both added.--Pontificalibus (talk) 08:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

16-year old girl 'set upon' by police Saturday 6th - video

I was beginning to think there may even be two totally different incidents that fit the above description : the protest 'vigil' ( from Broad Farm to Tottenham Police Station ? ) waited for hours for a police response to relatives, a girl approached the police line outside the station to talk and was assaulted. On the other hand, a girl approached the police with rock/rocks/champagne bottle in hand, which she threw at them, provoking a 'use of force' response. In the video about the only thing that is clear is a McDonalds on a corner. There is one directly opposite the police station so that video seems to be legitimate.

Puzzling that the blog says "UPDATE! Video ... has surfaced on YouTube." when the blogger and YouTube uploader seem to be one and the same person. Does anyone have an earlier source ? Or photos ? ( no flashes on the video ! ) Can I upload stills - barely worth it due to low quality ! Blog says "Content by Alexander Higgins is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License." -what does that mean ? Given he seems to be in New Jersey, I doubt he is the copyright holder ! IIRC we in UK don't have 'Fair Use' like in US ?

--195.137.93.171 (talk) 08:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccuracy in Historical Context

Resolved

Quote from the Wikipedia Article:

General disaffection among the youth due to widespread austerity measures was another exacerbating factor, as well as the 333 people, mostly black, who have died in Metropolitan Police custody since 1998, without a single officer convicted of a crime.[19]

The reference [19] is to a guardian article, which in turn refers to a report on deaths in police custody. The actual report states: Those who died in custody were mostly white (75%), male (90%) and aged between 25 and 44.

The claim of 333 people, mostly black is therefore incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.204.126 (talk) 08:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a study by the Independent Police Complaints Commission. "Mostly black" is rubbish. http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/news/Pages/pr_031210_deathsincustodystudy.aspx?auto=True&l1link=pages/news.aspx&l1title=News%20and%20press&l2link=news/Pages/default.aspx&l2title=Press%20ReleasesPetroff (talk) 09:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

fixed, earlier today. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Change name of article

Suggestion: "2011 England riots" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuu2011 (talk • contribs) 08:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move: part 2

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: {{{result}}} ~~~~

Move to 2011 England riots. The matter is apparently quite urgent because it is a current story, and it is quite obvious that there is already consensus for the move. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move: 2011 UK riots

2011 London riots → 2011 UK riots – As detailed in the article there has been significant unrest outside London with Birmingham and Liverpool seeing major disturbances. In addition disturbances have been reported in Bristol, Leeds, Nottingham and Kent. yorkshiresky (talk) 09:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is now referred to as the "England riots" on BBC News. violet/riga [talk] 09:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Al Jazeera is also referring to it as: "UK Riots".

Comment - There is very little, if any, riot activity (as opposed to burglary and arson) outside of London, let alone outside of England (UK = England + Scotland + Wales + Northern Ireland). Why not cover all eventualities and call it 2011 Europe riots, or even 2011 World riots? FactController (talk) 09:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This fallacy first caught my eye further up this page yesterday, and seeing it again has led to my response here, so please don't think I'm singling you out, FactController. WP's own article about Riots clearly says : "A riot is a form of civil disorder characterized often by disorganized groups lashing out in a sudden and intense rash of violence against authority, property or people. While individuals may attempt to lead or control a riot, riots are typically chaotic and exhibit herd behavior, and usually generated by civil unrest... Riots typically involve vandalism and the destruction of private and public property. The specific property to be targeted varies depending on the of the riot and the inclinations of those involved. Targets can include shops, cars, restaurants, state-owned institutions, and religious buildings." The lack of any underlying political or social motivation for violent disorder and criminal damage - that this on the surface appears to be opportunistic looting - does not make any of the incidents not rioting. Burglary and arson, as you would define them, are still riotous behaviour, carried out as they are by groups working together, however chaotically. The other incidents in England last night thus cannot be dismissed. Keristrasza (talk) 09:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even if technically "riots" they are minor and insignificant and do not warrant a chnge in scope to even England, let alone UK. FactController (talk) 09:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Minor and insignificant? That is merely an opinion. If they are "technically" riots, then that is the end of the debate, surely? Are some riots more equal than others..? Keristrasza (talk) 09:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The test is whether the other incidents would justify an article of their own if none of the London disturbances had occurred. Even if they would taht still wouldn't justify putting "UK" in the title unles they were widespread in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. FactController (talk) 10:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, what you describe is simply a test of whether they would justify an article of their own. The riot in Birmingham, for example, involving several hundred people, leading to over 100 arrests, the shutting down by police of public transport into the city centre, the police blocking off New St and Moor St railway stations, Jamie Oliver's restaurant being smashed up, the targetting of banks, half a million pounds damage to the Emporio Armani store, and Holyhead Road police station being set on fire would justify an article of its own. As part of more widespread national civil unrest, it belongs in a nationally-titled article, however. Keristrasza (talk) 11:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support – the riots have spread further than London. News organisations referring to it as either England riots (correct) and UK riots (incorrect as of 9th August) Delusion23 (talk) 09:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sky and The Guardian are describing them as UK riots, BBC as England riots. Whatever, it's not confined to London anymore.yorkshiresky (talk) 09:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2011 civil unrest in England is more accurate, although that still somehow seems vague. Keristrasza (talk) 09:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2011 civil unrest in London and minor skirmishes in a small proportion of other major cities in England? FactController (talk) 09:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree.Wipsenade (talk) 09:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you consider 100 arrests, 30+injuries, a police station being torched and tens of thousands of pounds of damage 'minor skirmishes' then I suppose that's fair enough.yorkshiresky (talk) 10:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support - would rather 2011 England Riots, given it's yet to cross the Severn or the scottish border, and BBC news is referring to it as the "England riots".--AndrewTindall (talk) 10:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support we follow the BBC and call it 2011 England Riots... if it spreads to other countries in the UK, EU or the world we can update accordingly! --Richardeast (talk) 11:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there have arguably been other UK riots (or disturbances, or whatever) this year. We need something more specific; "August 2011 riots", perhaps? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move: 2011 England riots

Many media organisations, including the BBC, seem to now be calling this "England riots" as violence has spread. I think it's time to move this article to a more accurate title. --Dorsal Axe 10:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree -- If the article is to be moved, this is a better title than '2011 UK riots'. There have been no riots in the last few days outside of England. We already have an article on the unrelated 2011 Northern Ireland riots, so keeping the article focussed on England would keep things simple. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 11:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - it's starting to be called England Riots in the media [[21]], and given that it has spread to cities around the country it makes sense renaming the page. --Richardeast (talk) 11:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong disagree - There have been no riots in England outside of a handful of major cities; so that name would be grossly misleading. FactController (talk) 11:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whereas the current name is spot on... Lugnuts (talk) 11:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would you change from an almost accurate name (almost all of the incidents are in London) to a grossly misleading one? It'd be better to move it to something like 2011 London riots and some localised unrest in a small proportion of other major cities in England. Why over-egg it? FactController (talk) 11:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why understate it? As pointed out above, the Birmingham riot was hardly a scuffle outside the kebab shop at chucking out time. Keristrasza (talk) 11:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
London + Birmingham is not England though. If for a fortnight the sun shone gloriously on the whole of England except for London and Birmingham which had intermittent showers, what would you call an article describing the anomolies in those two cities? "2011 England torrential rain"? FactController (talk) 12:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's just a straw man. London + B'ham =/= England, but London + B'ham + Liverpool + Bristol =/= London. When discussing all of those places "England" is by far a more accurate superset. Keristrasza (talk) 12:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you continuing to insist that the riots are only in London and Birmingham, when you've already seen that the BBC reports violence and looting in Birmingham, Bristol, Liverpool and Nottingham as well as London? Rubywine . talk 12:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All I'm saying is that trouble, overwhelmingly concentrated in London, with some incidents in 3 or 4 other major cities, is not justification for using the grossly misleading title proposed in over the current one. Something in-between would suffice. FactController (talk) 12:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - Riots in Birmingham and Liverpool are outside London and are covered in this article. FactController, a handful of cities many of which are outside London.. the London title is misleading. 12bigbrother12 (talk) 11:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think a move from one slightly inaccurate title to a grossly inaccurate title would be a good idea? FactController (talk) 11:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support but I think England riots would be better unless it reaches the other countries.Likelife (talk) 11:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If a copycat incident occurred in a small non-European town or city we could call it "2011 World riot"! FactController (talk) 13:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree The BBC is reporting this: "Violence broke out in four English cities as rioting and disorder spread across London for a third night. Hundreds of people attacked and looted shops in Birmingham, Bristol, Liverpool and Nottingham in what police called "copycat criminal activity". " [22] Rubywine . talk 11:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. It's beyond London. WWGB (talk) 12:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So there nothing between just London and the whole of England that you'd consider? Why stop at England then? FactController (talk) 12:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Simple, because so far the riots have not spread outside of England. They have, however, spread outside of London. — We basically have two options here. Either we construct a very long title that mentions every affected city, or we choose the smallest superset that has a commonly-known word to describe it. I think that’s “England”. — Timwi (talk) 12:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Remember that we don't lead with names, we follow. The best thing to do is gather evidence of the use of "England riots" (the BBC are using it, for example) and we can then consider moving it. violet/riga [talk] 12:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The BBC have started to use the term UK riots. violet/riga [talk] 14:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree There are significant (as in, 100s arrested, shops burnt and looted etc. e.g. [23]) riots in major cities in England. Many news sources are now starting to call it England riots as well. UK riots would be unfit since it is at the moment only in England. Zlqq2144 (Talk Contribs) 12:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"UK riots would be unfit since it is at the moment only in England"? England comprises 83 counties outside of London - in how many of those counties are there currently riots? Is "England" really the scope we should use? FactController (talk) 12:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about you make a better suggestion? — Timwi (talk) 12:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree – the riots have spread further than London. The London name is now incorrect. News organisations are reporting as England riots. Delusion23 (talk) 12:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree and if the riots spread into Welsh and/or Scottish cities and towns then we can rename it "2011 Great Britain" riots. IJA (talk) 12:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree The list of cities so far seems to be London, Birmingham, Wolverhampton, Nottingham, Bristol and Liverpool. Sadly more places will probably be added to that list this evening. Abc30 (talk) 15:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Salford now too according to BBC News channel. Abc30 (talk) 15:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree but I want to point out that BBC News is refering it to "UK riots" now Nations United (talk) 16:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It needs to be moved to this title and quick. As it currently stands, all information outside of London should be removed and setup in standalone articles (2011 Birmingham riots, 2011 Liverpool riots, etc). Lugnuts (talk) 17:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative proposal

How about 2011 riots in some of England's major cities ? FactController (talk) 11:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree - It's verbose, and it's skipping coyly around the issue. There has been violence and looting in five major English cities. The title 2011 England Riots does not imply that every little village is going up in flames. Rubywine . talk 12:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are 50, or more, cities in England. How about 2011 riots in five major English cities then? FactController (talk) 12:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about we follow usual protocol and group these cities into something they have in common: they are in England. See 1981 England riots. It doesn't mean everywhere in England but it sums up the thing all the riots have in common. Delusion23 (talk) 12:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and the 2001 England riots, maybe they should be the 2001 Northerner/Yorks & Lancs riots? Delusion23 (talk) 12:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2001 ecky thump riots? Keristrasza (talk) 12:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good points, good comparisons, both weaker cases than this. Mind you, as a Londoner, I'm a bit cheesed off about that 2001 title. Rubywine . talk 12:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Four Riots and a Scuffle? violet/riga [talk] 12:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
LOL--87.221.87.65 (talk) 15:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Water cannon edit

To explain my removal of the 2 lines asserting that the use of water cannon is "denied" to British police, see Police could use water cannon to disperse rioters, Theresa May says (Telegraph, 12 Dec 2010). It is a long-time misunderstanding among the public that the police are not allowed to use water cannon in Britain, while it is actually the case that they choose not to use them. From the linked article: "In the UK water cannon has only been deployed in Northern Ireland, at various points throughout the Troubles, and its use has been resisted until now by senior police officers elsewhere in Britain. However, it is widely used as a crowd control tactic abroad. In a sign that the introduction of water cannon to the mainland is being seriously discussed in Whitehall, the Home Secretary, when asked about it, said she did not want to 'give the game away about anything that might be done in the future.' She told Sky News: 'Whether or not they choose to use water cannon is an operation issue. I think it is right that we look across the board at all the options that are available.'" Keristrasza (talk) 09:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, May ruled out the use of water cannon today. I'm not sure if that means that she actually meant to say water cannon could be employed, but thought it was opposite day, or whether water cannon could be employed, but police would get shafted as usual. Or perhaps.. the government has not allowed the use of water cannon. Nevard (talk) 09:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit summary was misleading: you did not restore an illustration (which still has no connection to the civil unrest in England - would you illustrate the article with images of the LA riots, just to show what civil disturbance looks like?), you completely undid my edit and restored the image, the image caption, and the section text. The way in which the text was presented is misleading. The use of water cannon is not "denied", it seems to be that the use of water cannon is not practical ie there are none in England. Yes, I agree, the Home Sec appears to not know her arse from her elbow. But simply stating "denied" without clarification smacks of reactionary editing. Keristrasza (talk) 09:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So basically you're saying, based on some old article with nothing to do with the riots, that sourced information shouldn't be in the article? I'm not sure what 'reactionary editing' has to do with including the facts. Nevard (talk) 09:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Basically I'm saying that the edit I have just made clarifying the use of water cannon is better than yours which I removed. Keristrasza (talk) 10:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And as further clarification that their use is not "denied" see page 108 of the ACPO's Manual of Guidance on Keeping the Peace which states that the decision to deploy water cannon can be made by an Assistant Chief Constable and its actual use against the public can be authorised by the 'Silver Commander' or Designated Senior Officer (ie Inspector) on the ground. The water cannon currently approved for use in the UK is the Somati RCV9000 Vehicle Mounted Water Cannon. I understand that there are only 6 of them available to UK police, all currently in use with PSNI. Keristrasza (talk) 11:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"long been resisted by the British police" where 'the British police' means "senior officers of aspiring politician rank" isn't exactly what I'd call a good description. Nevard (talk) 11:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It simply means that of the current 124 UK Assistant Chief Constables who hold the authority to deploy water cannon, at least 120 of them have so far not chosen to do so. Keristrasza (talk) 12:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths in Police/Met police custody - 333?

Resolved

It might just be the way this section was written, but it seems to lend authority to the figure of 333 deaths; the reference won't load up for me, but it appears to be a blog/comments page that it links to, ie not what I would call an authoritative source.

The first source I found by Google was this: http://inquest.gn.apc.org/website/statistics/deaths-in-police-custody

From the nature of the site, I doubt they are proPolice, but the number of deaths in Met custody since 1998 is just over 100. I can't see any ethnic breakdown on their site however.

There's also a caveat re ethnicity figures; I am pretty sure that a large portion of deaths will involve black men, but can this please be understood in the context that black men form a disproportionate amount of offenders/suspects in the Met. Whether anyone wants to say it's racism or socio-economic is going to opinion rather than fact though.

I hope this helps keep us focused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mungo Shuntbox (talk • contribs) 09:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Guardian commentator who mentioned 333 deaths had it sourced to a watchdog report by the Independent Police Complaints Commission, a public body with statutory powers. [4][5] However, there was actually an error in the Wikipedia article - the 333 deaths are nationwide, not just in London. The comment that the 333 deaths were "mostly black people" has been deleted, since it was not in the Guardian article quoted. You are quite right, we do have to stay on our toes. People will throw in little comments and then attribute them to sources. Rubywine . talk 09:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Just got home and accessed the full Guardian article - yes it's a nationwide figure, proper source etc, thanks Rubywine for your assistance and eagle eyes.

MS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.116.249 (talk) 13:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hatnote

This page and 2011 anti-cuts protest in London each need a hatnote to direct towards each other and for any redirect pages, etc. E.g. 2011 London protests direct to 2011 anti-cuts protest in London and not 2011 London riots. 93.174.8.253 (talk) 09:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Rjkhan, 9 August 2011

Arrested toll has upto 215 in clash between police and activities, London. However on 9 aug 2011 The news tribe[6]

Rjkhan (talk) 09:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear sentence

This article contains the sentence:

An article in The Guardian alleged that preliminary ballistics tests on the bullet recovered from the police radio is consistent with those used by the police themselves.

What does this mean? Is this even grammatical (is vs. are)? — If this is intended to mean that the ballistics tests indicated that the bullet was shot by the police, what about the following rephasing?

An article in The Guardian alleged that preliminary ballistics tests on the bullet recovered from the police radio suggested the bullet was fired by the police themselves.

What do you think? — Timwi (talk) 09:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That appears to be fixed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Rjkhan, 9 August 2011

Arrested toll has reached up to 215 in London clash between police & activities The News Tribe[7]

Rjkhan (talk) 09:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, but I'm to bussy too add it.Wipsenade (talk) 09:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the time it took you to reply to this, you could have just edited the main article... Lugnuts (talk) 10:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your reference is throwing a 404 error. Also, it's not a reliable source. I have no objection to adding an arrest figure if you can find a quality source. Rubywine . talk 11:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added a more detailed total. As of 13.51 on August 9, the UK’s police had made 525 arrest, [[24]] of which 100 were in Birmingham [[25]] and 215 were in London. [[26]]. :-/ Wipsenade (talk) 14:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

404 error on [[27]]Wipsenade (talk) 14:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/07/police-attack-london-burns. {{cite news}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  2. ^ Millward, David (7 August 2011). "Tottenham riot rekindles memories of unrest in the 1980s". The Telegraph. Retrieved 7 August 2011.
  3. ^ "Tottenham anarchy: Grim echo of 1985 Broadwater farm riot". Mail Online. 7 August 2011. Retrieved 7 August 2011.
  4. ^ Power, Nina (8 August 2011). "There is a context to London's riots that cannot be ignored". Guardian.
  5. ^ "Deaths in police custody since 1998: 333; officers convicted: none". Guardian. 3 December 2010.
  6. ^ http://www.thenewstribe.com/2011/08/09/london-riots-spread-out-215-activists-arrested/
  7. ^ http://www.thenewstribe.com/2011/08/09/london-riots-spread-out-215-activists-arrested/

Requested edit RE: Opening line.

I request that "The 2011 London riots are a series of ongoing public disturbances and lootings in London which began initially in Tottenham, North London, on 6 August 2011 following the fatal shooting of a 29-year-old civilian, Mark Duggan, by officers of the Metropolitan Police Service." be changed to "The 2011 London riots are a series of ongoing public disturbances, lootings and arson attacks in London which began initially in Tottenham, North London, on 6 August 2011 following the fatal shooting of a 29-year-old civilian, Mark Duggan, by officers of the Metropolitan Police Service." - I feel this would better reflect the actual events taking place and it is also well covered by the sources's. Cheers! 90.212.141.106 (talk) 10:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move: 2011 England riots << TOPIC CLOSED

Many media organisations, including the BBC, seem to now be calling this "England riots" as violence has spread. I think it's time to move this article to a more accurate title. --Dorsal Axe 10:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have copied this request and have moved all the replies to the earlier discussion topic which is an active (and formal) discussion of the same issue. There is no point in having two identical discussions in parallel. (Just using the edit request tag to try to lock this down.) Rubywine . talk 11:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Addition Request: Effects on Business and Tourism

Effects on Business and Tourism should be added in regards to the business owners losses, and problems faced by the tourists spending their vacation in London — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barieuro (talk • contribs) 10:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Germany issues travel advisory http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/World/Story/STIStory_700314.html --87.202.83.239 (talk) 15:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
could damage Britain's image ahead of Olympics http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/8691387/London-riots-could-damage-Britains-image-ahead-of-Olympics.html
& Forbes article London Riots: Who Pays? http://blogs.forbes.com/timworstall/2011/08/09/london-riots-who-pays-or-when-is-a-riot-not-a-riot/

--87.202.83.239 (talk) 15:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leeds and Nottingham

Needs to also include Leeds and Nottingham according to this and other sources. 93.174.8.253 (talk) 11:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leeds, Liverpool & Birmingham http://www.channel4.com/news/unrest-spreads-to-leeds-and-birmingham --87.202.71.6 (talk) 12:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly "London riots" locations, though, are they? Maybe the article title needs to be amended? --GuillaumeTell 15:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Poor syntax

Resolved

"Blakelock's suspected killer was the leader of a gang which was replaced by the one Duggan was a member of following his imprisonment for other crimes." This is a ghastly sentence. In the interests of clear communication and good English, can you please re-write it (whoever wrote it)? Melba1 (talk) 12:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t write the sentence, but I changed it to “Blakelock's suspected killer was the leader of a gang which was replaced by the gang Duggan joined after his imprisonment for other crimes.” Is that acceptable? — Timwi (talk) 12:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What does it mean? How can a gang be replaced by a gang? Do you mean in some sort of territorial sense? This sounds like a tabloid-style attempt to make a headline out of thin air. Rubywine . talk 13:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Timwi, I wasn't aware I was overwriting your edit -- sorry about that. Factually, though, very little is known about Duggan, and his gang membership is merely an allegation at this point. My version: "Keith Blakelock was murdered by the forerunner of a criminal gang Mark Duggan allegedly belonged to." Rubywine has a point about tabloid hyperventilation, however, and personally I wouldn't mind dropping the speculation about gangs. ARK (talk) 13:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for acknowledging my comment ARK but I have already removed it. It was indeed a little bit of vague speculation, spun into a Daily Mail headline. Vigilance, people. Rubywine . talk 13:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsley Burrell

In the "Historical context" section, first sentence, it references that this has been the site of many protests since Kingsley Burrell, with two sources. First of all, I personally have no idea who Kingsley Burrell is. His name is not linked to any article, a search on wikipedia has proven fruitless. Searching the two sources also does not come up with the name Kingsley Burrell anywhere. Who/what is he/it? (I don't even know if it's the name of a person or, say, a building) Is the statement even factual? Can it be backed up anywhere? Could someone please clarify? Fieari (talk) 13:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whos Mr Burrell?86.26.73.230 (talk) 13:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What, you only ever search on Wikipedia? We're not a reliable source you know! Kingsley Burrell died in police custody in Birmingham in March. Google is your friend. Rubywine . talk 14:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The point I was making was less that I couldn't find the information, and more that it would be an improvement to the article if the information was provided or linked to in any way, shape, or form. Fieari (talk) 17:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At mid day, om the 9th

I think this report is a spoof [[28]].13:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Infobox

I move to cut the 'causes' section in the info box. They have no place there. The complex causes, are best discussed at length in the article body. Trying to bullet point an England-wide series of riots is reductionist, misleading does nothing for clarity. Span (talk) 13:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You move to cut it, and then you just cut it without discussion? I've put it back because the section you've cut out was packed with relevant references, and your edit summary made no reference to having preserved them. I have no objection to pruning the info box, in fact I agree with you that the causes should be discussed in the body of the article. However I do quite strongly object to useful references being deleted summarily. Rubywine . talk 14:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These are the potentially Useful refs: <ref>{{cite web |url= http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/08/08/uk-britain-disorder-idUKTRE7752QX20110808|title= Riots spread on third night of violence|last1=Hemming |first1=Jon |last2=Ambrogi |first2=Stefano |date=August 8, 2011|publisher=Reuters|accessdate=August 8, 2011}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=Croft|first=Adrian|title=Spending cuts, police blamed for London riot|url=http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/Spending+cuts+police+blamed+London+riot/5220997/story.html|newspaper=Vancouver Sun|date=August 8, 2011}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44055812/ns/world_news-europe|title=More than 200 thugs arrested in London riots|publisher=MSN}}</ref><ref name="dlammy">{{cite web|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/07/tottenham-riot-broadwater-farm|author=David Lammy|title=Tottenham riot: The lesson of Broadwater Farm|date=August 7, 2011|publisher=The Guardian|accessdate=2011-08-08}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=Somaiya|first=Ravi|title=London Sees Twin Perils Converging to Fuel Riot|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/08/world/europe/08britain.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all|newspaper=New York Times|date=August 7, 2011}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=Rioting spirals out of control |date=8 August 2011 |work=London Evening Standard |url=http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23976590-rioting-spirals-out-of-control.do}}</ref> <ref>{{cite web |title=London riots: Military could be brought in |url=http://tvnz.co.nz/world-news/london-riots-military-could-brought-in-4343698 |date=9 August 2011 |work=TVNZ |accessdate=9 August 2011}}</ref><font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">Span (talk) 14:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved the causes out of the infobox into a section in the main article. It should be a lot easier to work on expanding them from there later. I'm really starting to dislike the infobox. It's now full of all sorts of other stuff, for no good reason, and the layout is breaking. Rubywine . talk 15:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox: Original research (was: Croydon Casualty)

"One 26 year old man dead from a shooting in Croydon" is currently listed in the infobox as if he were a belligerent for the rioters. As his reasons for being at the scene are currently unknown it would seem prudent to list as a "civilian" rather than a belligerent on one side of the conflict. LukeSurl t c 15:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point. Actually I'd like to move almost everything out of the infobox. It's very reductionist and as you've pointed out, misleading. Rubywine . talk 15:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the way it is currently set out suggests that not only was he one of the rioters, but he was killed by the police. He could have been a bystander killed by rioters, or his death could be completely unrelated to the riots. Best to take it out completely. (Also, is it right to list local businesses and residents as parties to the conflict? That implies they are actively taking part, rather than just having their property destroyed. We don't have "The residents of the East End of London" as cobelligerants in The Blitz. Conversely, we don't know that some local residants aren't taking part in the riots themselves).62.172.108.23 (talk) 15:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be an over-eager attempt to systematize (sp?) something inherently messy and complicated. That whole section of the infobox could just be deleted, and I'd be happy. Why should we try to itemise the parties to the conflict, especially at this early stage? I think it's veering way too close to original research. Apologies LukeSurl, but I'm renaming this topic because I think it deserves broader discussion. Rubywine . talk 15:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also was he a 26 year old or a 29 year old the article says 29 the infobox says 26?
Oh and by the way why are some people immediately convinced by what the police has to say about an incident like this? Have you forgotten Jean Charles de Menezes --87.202.83.239 (talk) 15:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've worked out how to make the edit I discussed above. LukeSurl t c 15:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Historical context: challenge to neutrality

"Placing the riots in a broader context, suspicion and resentment towards the police was attributed by one commentator to the 333 people who have died in police custody in England and Wales since 1998 without a single officer having been convicted of a crime. Other exacerbating factors include high poverty and unemployment, the growing gap between rich and poor, and the lowest social mobility in the developed world."[1][2][3]

A good chunk of the above was removed by User:Rms125a@hotmail.com on the grounds that it is not neutral, with an HTML comment inserted querying why anybody should be convicted if no crime has been committed, and also some other comment about race. I reverted that edit, because it is POV. I believe the analysis above is stated in a neutral and objective tone. I'm putting this here for discussion. Rubywine . talk 15:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

9 August disturbances

Use this section to discuss disturbances on 9 August

The current list of events for 9 August is quite extensive and implies that they have been happening today. Well, they have but 2am. This isn't very clear and we need to try to avoid the implication that it is separate to last night's events. violet/riga [talk] 16:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Events that happened overnight should really go under the previous day's heading, with the timings in prose. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It might in fact be a good idea to re-factor the whole article and use 'nights' rather than 'days' as main classifications, thus: First Night (6/7 August 2011), etc. ARK (talk) 17:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

West Bromwich

Being reported by BBC News but no sources yet. violet/riga [talk] 15:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That "Breaking News" notice has now gone with no further mention. violet/riga [talk] 16:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some windows smashed, crowds now dispersed. Not worthy of inclusion. violet/riga [talk] 16:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 84.51.161.16, 9 August 2011


84.51.161.16 (talk) 16:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - the number of deaths in police custody in the UK since 1998 and excluding 1998 is 433 (not 333 as appears in the current article about the 2011 riots. Wikipedia is itself the source for those figures, at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_deaths_in_custody

Thanks

 Not done: Wikipedia should not be used to cite itself as it would be considered a circular reference. Topher385 (talk) 19:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Playful way

...make polite requests for justice for the family of the man who had been shot while in possession of an imitation firearm which had been converted, in an innocently playful way, to fire live ammunition...)

Playful way?, Should this be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.234.74.91 (talk) 17:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. Cannot see how it could be playful in any way, and none of the three sources refers to that. -- Fuzheado | Talk 17:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page move from London->England, may need England->UK

The WP:RM for this page originally was for 2011 London riots -> 2011 UK riots. Someone pointed out the BBC called it the "England riots" which tilted the debate to that term. Now, however, the BBC is referring to it as the UK riots [29]. That means Sky, Guardian, BBC and AJ are using "UK riots." Need to keep an eye on this term in case another move is needed. -- Fuzheado | Talk 18:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree all main media organisations are now calling it the UK riots. A teenager was arrested in Scotland over inciting riots[4]. --Halma10 (talk) 18:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree I'm happy at least this page has been moved to "2011 England riots", but BBC News and The Guardian have referred it to "UK riots". Also, on TV, BBC is referring it to as "UK riots". I honestly think this page should be moved to "2011 UK riots". Nations United (talk) 18:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The discussion above supported England more than UK (at least until and if the rioting spread outside England, which hasn't happened).Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Outside of London it only affects a few localities in 3 or 4 cities. The BBC 6 pm evening national news only mentioned London and Birmingham. It is barely relevant outside of London, it certainly isn't England-wide, let alone UK-wide. I can't understand the clamour to exaggerate it so much out of all proportion to its reality. FactController (talk) 18:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article should be moved to 2011 UK riots or 2011 United Kingdom riots. GoodDay (talk) 18:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, CBC news is calling it the UK Riots. GoodDay (talk) 22:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about this Two other articles - 1981 England riots and 2001 England riots - use "England". Are they incorrectly named?--A bit iffy (talk) 18:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, because news organisations are generally using "UK"--A bit iffy (talk) 20:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further to my comment above, I've done a quick trawl of major news organisations' usage, and I find:
BBC, CNN, Sky, Al Jazeera, The Guardian, The Daily Mail, ITN, Sydney Morning Herald all use "UK"
New York Times uses "Britain"
France 24 (English) uses both "Britain" and "UK"
The Times possibly uses "England" (can't be sure because of paywall)
The Sun seems to use nothing in particular
--A bit iffy (talk) 22:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree Just because media organisations are using the term "UK Riots" does not make it correct. The media are prone to inflate headlines given the slightest opportunity. Inciting riots is not rioting. Have there actually been any riots in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland? Using the term "UK Riots" if there have been none in those countries seems, in itself, to be inciting people to riot in those locations. If/when there are verifiable sources for rioting in other parts of the UK then that would be the time to consider changing the name of the article. Stanley Oliver (talk) 19:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC) Agree as UK Riots seems to be the consensus - even if it is as accurate as calling the 1992 Los Angeles riots the 1992 North American Riots. Stanley Oliver (talk) 20:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it is not up to Wiki authors to decide on the name (whether it is technically correct or not). If the media consensus is UK riots, than this is the term that should be used. --Halma10 (talk) 19:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree If you run with your logic, we could call it '2011 EU riots' or '2011 Earth riots'. It's only affecting England, if things move to Scotland, Wales... or to France then we'll update at a later date but so far, this title fits the bill. --Richardeast (talk) 19:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the argument being made. The point is all major media outlets are using "UK riots" now, and if we were to apply the verifiability standard, it would be the "UK riots." -- Fuzheado | Talk 19:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The daily mail is still calling it London riot [30] - The BBC page I'm on is calling it England riot. Different editors seem to be making different editorial decisions, but it's still an England only riot, in the same way 2011_Northern_Ireland_riots --Richardeast (talk) 19:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have you refreshed the BBC page recently? The live page is certainly calling it UK riots. violet/riga [talk] 19:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - it's still 'England riots' [31]
read the top of the page, it says "Last updated at 17:00". The daily mail is also using UK riots [5]--Halma10 (talk) 20:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Fuzheado, check out Wikipedia:Verifiability. It should be called UK riots, and trying to analyse the technicalities of it, is also a form of Original Research (against Wiki policy).--Halma10 (talk) 19:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, this policy is about article content and the thresholds for inclusion. It is almost irrelevant for article titles, for which see WP:NAME, most particularly WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Almost irrelevant? Take a look at the page, as the first sentence after the intro says: "should be interpreted in conjunction with other policies, particularly the three core content policies: Verifiability, No original research and Neutral point of view." -- Fuzheado | Talk 01:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you can fathom any verifiability issue here, then go ahead and elaborate. No such issue has yet been raised. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The recent reports overwhelmingly use UK riots, cannot find any recent use of the term England riots. I do understand that some authors (who might be Welsh, for example) do not want to be tarnished with this, but there is no reason (from the wiki policy perspective) why this is called England riots. Can I also add that a Scottish teenager was arrested today in Glasgow in relation to inciting riots.--Halma10 (talk) 19:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Different editors seems to be making different editorial choices; The Scotsman and Daily Record are both still calling it 'the London riots', as is the Belfast telegraph & Ulster TV and the Daily post in Wales... I know some of the English news agencies (like Guardian and mirror) are calling it a 'UK riot' and I'm sure there's a variety of editorial/ political reasons why they've decided to do that, but I still think we should stick to 'England riot' unless the facts change on the ground since essentially, that's what it is! --Richardeast (talk) 20:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We're getting a bit ahead of ourselves, talking about "recent" in relation to unfolding events. There is no one common name for these events (c/f Kristallnacht), and the current title is just a description. The BBC was running "England riots" at 4PM GMT but "UK Riots" at 6PM GMT on its red update bar on the right, for the same descriptive purposes. Maybe the guy on the evening shift was English, and the afternoon guy was Welsh, who knows. Some of the BBC text just now says they are in England, some that they are in the UK. All that matters just now is accuracy, and from that perspective it's a total non-issue. The riots are happening in and confined to England, and thus are happening in and confined to the UK. Both are accurate description and acceptable to Wikipedia. If a common name does emerge as a contender (like Mark Duggan riots, or indeed 2011 UK riots), then and only then can we can talk about usage and common names; if not the chief guidance is normally taken from standardization principles and style guidelines rather than usage (e.g. from how other riot articles are named). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Agree: Although this hasn't spread to Scotland, Wales or NI, the media are now calling it the UK riots and WP policy usually suggests to go with the most common name. I'd also ignore what the Daily Mail says. They're about 15 years behind the rest of the country and think Diana is still alive. Welshleprechaun 20:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree Riots are so far confined to England, if and when they occur in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland then we can do a page move to 2011 UK (and Northern Ireland) riots. --wintonian talk 02:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Double redirects via 2011 London riots

FYI, there are a bunch of double redirects (redirects going into 2011 London riots), as can be seen here. I fixed a big one that Google News was linking to, but the others need fixing too, preferably by a bot. —AySz88\^-^ 18:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should all be fixed now - this really must be done when a page is moved, especially a high traffic one like this. violet/riga [talk] 18:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source for Wolverhampton firework incident

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qy7uoJRGmAw 94.0.216.181 (talk) 19:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a valid citation; please see WP:RS. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

4th Night of Riots

According to this the riots are occurring again in Birmingham. Will there be a night section for 9 August, or will information go somewhere different? -Marcusmax(speak) 19:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clear POV Misjudgment – Polite?

Near the beginning, under a subheading entitled, "Protest march" we find the following text with three in-line citations at the end of the second sentence:

On 6 August, a protest was held, initially peacefully, beginning at Broadwater Farm and finishing at Tottenham police station.[30] The protest was organised by friends and relatives of Duggan to make polite requests for justice for the family.[7][31][32]

I immediately smelled a rat at the use of the word "polite." A polite protest is nearly an oxymoron (okay, maybe Canadians could pull one off.) So I read each of the three in-line citations in their entirety. The concept of polite is neither explicitly nor implicitly suggested in any of these sourced press articles. Indeed, any description of the marchers uniformly uses the word protest along with burn, loot, throwing missiles, etc. One of the articles did mention several people laying down in the street. No article mentioned any family members or relatives. One article did mention one friend of the family. I fully expect that the owners, excuse me, the moderators of this page to ignore this POV violation. I would have liked the 300 "protesters" to have made a polite inquiry in place of the violence that actually occurred. But this is not what happened. In no way does the word "polite" were present a neutral point of view of what did happen. In no way do the in-line citations support that characterization. It needs to be changed or just omitted.--Da5id403 (talk) 20:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done —Half Price 20:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to The Guardian the original protest was peaceful and civil but got hi-jacked by an influx of rioters:

Some who were present described seeing a younger, more aggressive crowd arrive around dusk, some carrying weapons. "These people were prepared," said Bill Dow, a bystander. "They had fireworks and petrol cans."

ARK (talk) 21:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further free images

Here are a few which could be incorporated either now or in the future: Carpetright store after Tottenham riots.jpg, 2011 London riot police push rioters in Camden.jpg, 2011 London riot police in Lewisham.jpg. --Trevj (talk) 20:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found this one on Flickr that I particularly like, though I will leave it to the editors here to decide if or how they would like to use it Building damaged by 2011 riots in Clapham.jpg. Daniel Case (talk) 21:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, my contribution to this: uploaded several from different angles, you can choose whatever seems to be most impressive: Sherwood Gardens Riots 08, Sherwood Gardens Riots 02, Sherwood Gardens Riots 04, Sherwood Gardens Riots 05. They had 4 cars set alight in one place and they were not removed the following day, so got lucky with shots. Senseiich (talk) 21:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Riot locations for map

2011 England riots is located in Greater London
2011 England riots
2011 England riots
2011 England riots
2011 England riots
2011 England riots
2011 England riots
2011 England riots
2011 England riots
2011 England riots
2011 England riots
2011 England riots
2011 England riots
2011 England riots
2011 England riots
2011 England riots
2011 England riots
2011 England riots
2011 England riots
2011 England riots
2011 England riots
2011 England riots
2011 England riots
class=notpageimage|
Location of all events mentioned in article for August 6 and August 7: Red = August 6, Yellow = August 7

I'm looking to get a map generated per the request at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Map workshop#England riots. Or perhaps more accurately, a set of maps - a London-specific and a national map. It will be much easier for me if there's a simple list of London Boroughs and other cities affected (with a source for each please!).

Also, the map to the right uses {{location map+}} to show two of the locations mentioned. The wiki-markup should be easy enough to extend to show dozens of points. I can assist if its unclear how to encode the data.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful idea, there are sections within the article already about which London boroughs and districts have been affected. You can view them by date:
I wonder if it makes sense to do a separate map per date, otherwise the map might be overpopulated. -Marcusmax(speak) 21:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm inclined to seperate by date. The reason I have requested boroughs, as opposed locations is that better translates to filling in the areas on the appropriate blank map. At a quick read through I couldn't identify which boroughs have been affected from the list of locations. I'll go through more thoroughly later and try to update map to right (seperating dates if necessary).--Nilfanion (talk) 22:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the map to include all locations mentioned in the article (that have articles) for the 6th and 7th. There are some very close together of course, because Enfield Town and Enfield Town railway station are both mentioned - therefore Selecting pruning may be sensible.

This process can be continued onto the 8th and 9th, but as the events start to get much more widespread then it will take a lot more effort to analyse the coordinates.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not particularly happy about the inclusion criteria either (being mentioned in article), I'd rather be using the sources directly. I suggest setting up a table on a subpage such as Talk:2011 England riots/map to include date, location, and latitude/longitude. That will make map generation easier.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great work here. I'm reluctant to include it in the article until we have one showing other locations outside of London to go with it. The subpage co-ordination idea is a good one. violet/riga [talk] 23:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The England wide map would work on same principle - just using {{location map England}} instead. As it stands, the map to right could be used to illustrate the sections on August 6 and August 7, which are London only.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carpetright

We now have the Carpetright store on a video, and a picture in the infobox; yet nothing about it in the article. It's significant, both as a prominent older building (1930; Co-Op) and because of the number of homes that were lost when it burned. Can anyone add something, or at least suggest sources, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dagenham did not have any fires of any description!

I live in dagenham have friends and family in the police force and fire services and NO fires were in Dagenham

The 'London Borough of Barking and Dagenham' is the local authority and not an umbrella name of the area. They are two seperate towns with different postcodes.

Barking had 3 major fires in the late hours of the 8th August 2011 and the early hours of 9th August 2011, however Dagenham is a seperate town altogether and did not experience any violence or arson whatsoever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.171.129.78 (talk) 21:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving sections, using auto-archive, and moving/hiding valid criticism of this article

I made a couple of comments yesterday on name changing this article which are still valid, and it's been scroll-archived despite being a very short section. Why scroll it up when it's still 100% relevant? We need to read the arguments that people give. I've noticed that the general page archive has been set to 3 days too. Over-archiving can actually lead to needless repetition and useful debate getting lost - so please be careful there too. I've actually had all my criticism regarding this article quite-quickly 'moved' in some way, and have not been allowed to properly review the 'speedy keep' on this article either. Which means that I'm still searching for somewhere to debate this article's suitability for Wikipedia without being called "disruptive" - ie which is not in a dusty corner somewhere where we all know that nothing ever happens. AfD is supposed to be made for the job (ie the debate takes place elsewhere and the article remains alive), but in all my years on Wikipedia I've never seen it being controlled like this.

Can people please respect that not every Wikipedian feels that Wikipedia has a 'duty' to report on breaking news, or indeed does anything but risk real damage in taking this roll upon itself. The various contributors here are not trained journalists (ie for live news). All the arguments I've heard pro this article are to do with 'NO censorship' (that old chestnut) and people "needing and expecting to know". The answer to people's search for news is obviously to go to professional news outlets and look there instead. Everyone is covering it - far too many to do this properly on the fly, even if it was a suitable and harmless thing for Wikipedia to do. Recycling news - and dealing intelligently with weight and 'context removal' esp - is dangerous in these kind of circumstances, and the argument that the internet is partly leading the way (and fanning the flames) is surely as valid for Wikipedia as it is for Twitter or the Guardian. But Wikipedia is not supposed to be a news agency or a social networking site. I can see no excuse for this article apart from being part of a wider move for Wikipedia to become a current events site, and the massive amount of page views is far more alarming than something to be proud of in my opinion. And despite what I keep seeing suggested, I am a long-standing and genuine Wikipedian too (if rather 'old school' it seems) - so I simply have a right to say this. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for restating your views. Hopefully we can move on and you will now accept the inclusion of this article. violet/riga [talk] 22:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You've already had attention on this matter on your talk page and elsewhere; and on the former have been told where you should raise the meta issues; and that's not here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's all about whether we can accept that others can read it too though isn't it? Please don't scroll this again - if you leave this here then obviously I will. If not - then what do you expect? Violet - you have been going out of your way to keep telling me to "just accept" the inclusion of the article - despite all the 'speedy keeps' of AfD procedures which are designed to take discussion elsewhere (so this stays running) and bring in non-participant opinion - which takes a least a little time, which they have simply not been allowed to have. I've been part of plenty of AfD's and I've never seen anything quite like this before, as it seems to reflect a kind of 'media intensity' (which is partly my problem): but clearly a 'meta'-related (as you say) RFC is the thing to do at this juncture. I'm not going to just "accept" anything simply because you keep telling me too though, so please stop that now thanks. When I start the RFC I'll put a simple notice in this talk,nothing more. Please show me some respect here. I'll say again - the 'likely-hood' (perceived or otherwise) of an outcome does not preclude debate, comment or action. Regards, Matt Lewis (talk) 00:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plastic bullets authorised on British mainland

Resolved

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/09/uk-riots-police-tough-lockdown?intcmp=239

Perhaps a section on police tactics is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.75.115 (talk) 22:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The mention of the use of baton rounds was noted in the article earlier today. Although this is nothing new: police forces in England and Wales have been authorised to use them for the last 10 years. Keristrasza (talk) 22:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry i thought they were different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.75.115 (talk) 22:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nema problema, my comment was not intended - and please don't take it - as a "brush off." This is still early days, and I'm sure that the police tactics will receive more scrutiny and coverage in reliable sources in the days and weeks to come. Keristrasza (talk) 22:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vigilante groups set up to combat rioting in areas of london

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/vigilante-groups-aim-to-combat-riots-2334910.html

This should be added too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.75.115 (talk • contribs)

Added.--A bit iffy (talk) 00:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question moved here from my talk page

I'm not sure why you're removing that sourced info in 2011 England riots but it's become an edit war - please assert your reasons on the talk page because as far as I can see it's a valid addition to the article. violet/riga [talk] 22:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moved here by: FactController (talk) 22:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Violet/Riga. FactController, I have read the BBC article about the Scottish teenagers and what you call the interpretation and I can't see any difference. However I am not in the mood for an argument. Have it your way.
It would appear that I have unintentionally broken the three-revert rule today, and quite badly so, because I thought it applied to three reverts of one editor's submissions, not three reverts on one page. So I think I'm going to be banned forever. Oh well. I didn't mean to break the rules. Bye now. Rubywine . talk 22:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I removed it primarily because it was an innaccurate representation of the content of the report. Re-read the report and compare it to the interpretation that was written in this article, particularly with regard to the WP:BLP policy. FactController (talk) 22:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it's late but I really can't see what you're getting at. It seems to be accurate to me. Furthermore, BLP can't really apply to someone whose name isn't even known yet, only their age and approximate location. violet/riga [talk] 22:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The person is identifiable by the time, place and context. The report stated that the arrest was for "allegedly inciting others to commit acts of disorder". Note the use of the words "allegedly" and "disorder". FactController (talk) 23:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, the person is not identifiable based on that tiny bit of info. The article states that these people have been arrested for incitement which is technically different to us stating that they certainly have done it. violet/riga [talk] 23:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Causes

Could probably split this section into "local issues" and "socio-economic issues" (or similar), citing the respective elements in more detail rather than list form.--Jonesy1289 (talk) 23:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sangat TV

Sangat TV seems to be getting a huge amount of attention judging by Twitter reaction, so it ought to be mentioned (probably in "Press" section which maybe should be renamed "Media"). Problem is, I can't find any independent sources. Can anyone else find any?--A bit iffy (talk) 23:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Start of rioting

Should mention reports that the crowd that marched on the police station included Duggan family members who were demanding to speak with a senior local police official, and that the group stayed there hours longer than they originally planned because the police refused to speak with them -- which is when the actual rioting started... AnonMoos (talk) 00:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is definitely notable information. But, it does need a reliable source. Deterence Talk 05:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Outside of London - Bournemouth

Tuesday 9 August 2011, Dorset Police arrested a 23-year-old man from Bournemouth on suspicion of incitement to riot, following reports of information being forwarded by an electronic device regarding a potential planned disorder in Bournemouth Town Centre. He is helping police with their enquiries. Source - http://www.dorset.police.uk/default.aspx?page=5484 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.142.226 (talk) 01:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Leicester and Milton Keynes

Minor disturbances reported tonight. Sky News. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.246.85 (talk) 01:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clapham Junction is not in clapham

The article says that there was a fire in Clapham. Thats wrong. It was clapham junction area, which is in Battersea, not in Clapham. To be precise, the fire was opposite of the Debenhams that was looted. Even BBC mixed up Clpham Junction and Clapham. ref: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14454248

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.145.39.239 (talk) 03:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Death of 3 in RTC

Sangat TV have reported on the death of 3 muslim men after an RTC connected to the riots in birmingham

http://twitter.com/#!/WMPolice http://twitter.com/#!/UpinderRandhawa http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyA-PYPWOOU

BBC now reporting death of 2 of the 3. A murder inquiry has begun and a man has been arrested. [32]

Witness on sky news now reporting the 3rd death.

Can we please stop ignoring this news. --AndrewTindall (talk) 03:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"London riots: 'we can't cope', police admit"

--Mais oui! (talk) 06:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Power, Nina (8 August 2011). "There is a context to London's riots that cannot be ignored". Guardian.
  2. ^ "Deaths in police custody since 1998: 333; officers convicted: none". Guardian. 3 December 2010.
  3. ^ "OECD: UK has worse social mobility record than other developed countries". Guardian. 10 March 2010.
  4. ^ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-14461393
  5. ^ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2024159/UK-RIOTS-2011-Keep-away-Britain-Governments-world-warn-citizens.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2011_England_riots&oldid=444014332"