Talk:2011 England riots

See also Talk:2011 England riots/map

Professor Green

Gang culture has been cited as a cause of the riots. Paul Routledge writing in the Daily Mirror singled out the role of rap music. However, rap artist Professor Green (not actually a professor) challenged this assertion on Twitter.[56]

140 characters must have been a really insightful rebuttal. LOL. Is twitter really a WP:RS now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.132.92.8 (talk) 13:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

First, the knee jerk reactions from conservative old wind-bags who want to blame rock'n'roll or rap music for all of society's ills are the sort of whinging-dressed-up-as-science that we can immediately ignore. Second, a brief tweet from a rapper no one has heard of is even less notable. Deterence ^Talk 03:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Besides, Starkley won that competition by a mile. Also it is hilarious we specify that Professor Green is not a Professor (wikilink should be enough), also I hate him cause he dissed The Streets, which is the finest white rapper that side of the atlantic of Eminem... :)--Cerejota (talk) 12:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

So I was not the only one who had to CRACK up laughing when they stated the overwhelming fact that Professor Green is not a professor! I think we should also point out that neither Dr. Robert (Blow Monkeys) nor Dr. Dre is a doctor. ROFL. -andy 77.190.55.228 (talk) 17:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

LOL Professor Green explains it all! He is just another one pathetic product of bloodocracy dope-dealing regimes of UK and USA which shall certainly fall... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.86.156.63 (talk) 17:52, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Effects > Music > Independent record labels face ruin

Today FactController deleted the following section under Effects with the dismissive comment "one of many":

Music

On 8 August 2011, a Sony Music-owned warehouse in Enfield at Enfield Lock which acted as the primary distribution centre for independent music distributor PIAS Entertainment Group was set on fire. Most of PIAS' inventory was considered lost including the entire British stock of LPs and CDs for Domino Records, XL Records and over 100 other European independent record labels. Several album and single releases were announced to be affected or delayed by the fire. On 11 August 2011, London police reported that they had arrested three teenagers in connection with the fire.

Quoting the Guardian headline: "Independent record labels fear ruinous stock loss". The destruction of most of PIAS' inventory including the entire British stock of LPs and CDs for Domino Records, XL Records and over 100 other European independent record labels is notable and definitely deserves to be mentioned. That is why I am reverting this edit. FactController, as ever, I am completely dismayed by your pattern of editing. Rubywine . talk 15:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

There are countless businesses that face ruin following destruction of their stock. Shall we add the details of each and every one of them? FactController (talk) 15:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

This section doesn't describe the effects on just one business, it says that the destruction of the primary distribution centre for an independent music distributor means that 100+ European independent record labels are facing ruin. Over and above the obvious long-term cultural repercussions of that, this text is extremely well sourced. If similar well-sourced coverage of the damage to British retail business and other sectors become available then of course they should be included. That's what the "Effects" section is there for. Rubywine . talk 17:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

It's a classic case of WP:RECENTISM. Even the NME article cited says that they expect to be shipping orders again by next week (now this week?). The BBC reported on 11 August that a Pias guy said "I am very confident that our combined efforts will result in the smallest interruption to our collective business." Perhaps we should add a sentence about it to the end of the 'Property damage" sub-section - what do you think? FactController (talk) 18:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

No this isn't recentism, and no this shouldn't be reduced to a sentence. The BBC reference you've just given should definitely be added. It says: "Alison Wenham, who chairs the Association of Independent Music (AIM), said: "This is a disaster for the music community, but with the fans' help, labels and artists will survive. Pias and AIM have since announced they are to set up a fund to help labels which have been affected by the fire, in response to "the numerous offers of support, benefits, fundraising initiatives"." This information needs to be concisely summarised and added to the existing section. Rubywine . talk 18:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I've now added the info about Sony to the existing section, but haven't "concisely summarised" it yet. FactController (talk) 09:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Isn't it routine to highlight a few of the more notable victims and targets when writing articles of this sort? If David Beckham was killed during the riot then we would have to mention that even though his life is no more valuable than any other person. Similarly, the destruction of a high-profile business is more notable than an arson attack against the corner bakery. Deterence ^Talk 09:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Possibly, but if hundreds of players, of varying levels of importance were similarly effected, you might include that fact, and details about the more notable ones, in a section covering that. You probably wouldn't include a whole new section about just the more notable one. FactController (talk) 09:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

You make a good point. I would be much more comfortable if the section mentioned a few of the more notable targets instead of a single target of relatively dubious noteworthiness. Deterence ^Talk 11:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Fact or fiction

You reverted a citation I put up citing 'unreliable source'. It was a [dataset of defendants in Magistrates court so far]; it came from [The Guardian], who cite their sources as Helen Clifton, Siraj Datoo, National News, Newsteam, Raymonds Press, Central News, Magistrates Courts, Conrad Quilty-Harper (Telegraph), Ministry of Justice. A pretty important data set I think, as it gives the actual breakdown of the offenders, unlike the YouGov survey which gives the perceived offenders. Wilfridselsey (talk) 17:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

How reliable is that dataset?

• The names "Jack Lamb" "Kyron Richardson" "Lloyd Amarteifo", "Toby Okonkwo", "David Swarbrick", "Ingrid Smith", "Lloyd Coudjoe", "Mark Phillips", "Michael Gillespie-Doyle", "Michael Warburton", "Stephen Carter", "Wayne Aldershaw", "William Jenkins", "Mario Quiassaca", "Sean Mitchell", "Thomas Partridge" and "Byron Cawley" "Paul Olawale" "Asher McDuffus" all appear twice.
• The name "Michael Hayden" appears three times.
• At least two people appear twice, but under 2 different (albeit similar) names: "Fabrice Bembo-Ieta" and "Fabrice Bembo-Leta"; "Relando Tekl-Giorgies" and "Relando Tekle-Giorgies".
• And one person appears at least 3 times, under 2 different names: "Paul Raune" and twice as "Paul Ruane".

And those are just the mistakes I picked-up by scrolling down the list once. Deterence ^Talk 00:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

It's a raw dataset so will have errors, that's pretty normal. But it's what the Guardian and other media groups are using as their source, therefore if we exclude this then better start deleting most of the other 'media' citations too (unless you believe that the media are 100% accurate 100% of the time!) This is probably going to be the most accurate picture we have so far. Where else are you going to get data saying that 9.3% of those who appeared in court were female, 18.7% were between 11 and 17, 39% transferred to crown court etc.? The dataset sample is now over 1000 so the errors are insignificant. This is the info that historians will be using, and eventually us - once it's in the history books....Wilfridselsey (talk) 07:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm the last person to suggest that the media are 100% accurate 100% of the time. In my experience, whenever I talk to someone who was there, they inform me that the truth is nothing like those reported by the media. Even mainstream media.

As for the dataset, I'm just pointing out a few (read: many, given that I only gave the list a cursory examination as I scrolled down) of its errors which, like it or not, do bespeak to its lack of credibility. One of the main criteria (if not the predominant criteria) for content in Wikipedia is that it meets the standard required for WP:RS. I'm not the least bit comfortable ignoring the notable flaws of a dataset simply because the mainstream media are also relying on that dataset. Indeed, if anything, its use by the mainstream media makes challenging that dataset even more important. There are already far too many sensationalist lies and rumours posing as reporting in regards to the 2011 England riots. Let's not add to the media cesspool. Deterence ^Talk 07:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

We are straying off piste here, somewhat. As far as wp:rs is concerned if the Guardian is not a reliable source then you'd better started deleting half the citations in the article, not to mention 1000s of other articles on wiki that cite the Guardian don't be silly! Data journalism is becoming quite common check this for some background [1], and how the Guardian do it [2].

Getting back on subject, I think with any dataset, there is always an acceptable percentage of error and that the Guardians falls within that, you may disagree. There is probably an element of double reporting and sometimes people give wrong names when charged with offences, which I think are probably the main sources of error you see. However I only put this up as a citation originally, I see that we have the Guardian Dataset as an external link, so I guess we should leave it at that for the time being. It will be worth revisiting in a couple of weeks once the dust has settled and they have had chance to clean up some of the errors. I think that it will be worthwhile putting an analysis of the results (here) as they stand now so we can compare as time goes on.

Breakdown of people in court
Remanded to Jail	%
Y	70
N	30
Transferred to Crown Court	%
Y	39
N	61
Age	%
11 to 17	18.7
18 to 24	53.8
25 to 30	14.3
31 to 40	6.6
41 and over	6.6
Gender	%
Male	90.8
Female	9.2
Dataset source [3]  Sample Size: 1003

We shall then see who was right!! Best regards. Wilfridselsey (talk) 08:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Breakdown of people in court
Remanded to Jail	%
Y	65
N	35
Age	%
11 to 17	21
Gender	%
Male	90
Sample Size: 1179

Wilfridselsey (talk) 15:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

English Riots? Two arrested for inciting these riots live in Glasgow? British surely?

see http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-14461393 80.42.224.157 (talk) 12:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)twl80.42.224.157 (talk) 12:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Where were they allegedly hoping the trouble to occur - Scotland, England or elsewhere? Either way, this is an article about "riots", which, as far as I know, all occurred in England, and mostly in London. FactController (talk) 13:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

There were thousands of rioters across England with over three thousand arrests. A couple of Glaswegians (making less than 0.065% of the total arrests made in relation to the riots) arrested for using social media tools in a failed attempt to incite further rioting is not sufficient to shift the parameters of the event from "England" to "Britain". Do we change the name to "2011 Europe riots" if a couple of French teens are arrested for the same offence? Deterence ^Talk 14:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The fact that it was Alex Salmond MP who objected to Scotland being included by the use of British, BEFORE two of those responsible for inciting it were found to be based in Scotland because they felt the laws on incitement may differ subtly, suggests the Scottish dimension may not be trivial. I just worry that no one is even going to find your page with the current title, as zero press are using the same title as you. 212.139.99.125 (talk) 16:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)twl23212.139.99.125 (talk) 16:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The mainstream media seem to be using labels like "London riot", which does redirect to this page. Deterence ^Talk 16:39, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

While it may be possible that something could potentially come out from Glasgow (two arrests is not enough however) we can't change the name based on what may happen but only after something has happened or we would be violating WP:CRYSTAL. To put it another way Wikipedia has to be reactive not proactive.--76.66.180.220 (talk) 18:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)