Talk:2011 England riots/Archive 4

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)

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 Arrest figures are likely to be out-of-date and questionable, and injuries even more so.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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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[1]

A feature of many deprived communities in the UK is a poor level of parenting[2]

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. [3]

we are happy to let black people speak about politics, just so long as they have flames or body bags as their backdrop.[4]

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)

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)

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)

deja vu, when looking at the photos 2005 civil unrest in France --93.137.203.29 (talk) 07:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done both added.--Pontificalibus (talk) 08:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

Change name of article

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• Note'The 2011 English riots? the scumbags are only in England.Wipsenade (talk) 09:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

2011 civil unrest in England is more accurate, although that still somehow seems vague. Keristrasza (talk) 09:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

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)

I agree.Wipsenade (talk) 09:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Agree - it's starting to be called England Riots in the media [[5]], 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)

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)

Whereas the current name is spot on... Lugnuts (talk) 11:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Support but I think England riots would be better unless it reaches the other countries.Likelife (talk) 11:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

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)

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". " [6] Rubywine . talk 11:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree. It's beyond London. WWGB (talk) 12:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Note: The BBC have started to use the term UK riots. violet/riga _^[talk] 14:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree There are significant (as in, 100s arrested, shops burnt and looted etc. e.g. [7]) 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)

"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)

How about you make a better suggestion? — Timwi (talk) 12:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Salford now too according to BBC News channel. Abc30 (talk) 15:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

Agree - The BBC is referring to it as the England riots. --Simon_A_Lock 11:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

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

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)

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)

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)

Oh, and the 2001 England riots, maybe they should be the 2001 Northerner/Yorks & Lancs riots? Delusion23 (talk) 12:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

2001 ecky thump riots? Keristrasza (talk) 12:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

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)

Four Riots and a Scuffle? violet/riga _^[talk] 12:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

LOL--87.221.87.65 (talk) 15:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

Water cannon are only used to break up solid immobile crowds, which is not the case in these riots so far. The option wouldn't have been "seriously discussed in Whitehall" for very long.86.42.206.248 (talk) 08:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

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)

• 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. 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)

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)

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)

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

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

• Sorry, this request makes no sense. Rubywine . talk 11:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

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)

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

Edit request from Rjkhan, 9 August 2011

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

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

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

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)

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)

While it does seem a pointless comment (I guess Wipsenade wanted to assure Rjkhan they weren't being ignored), someone following up on an edit request should do more then just edit they article. They should check the source is an RS and verify it says what it claims and then need to ensure they update all relevant parts of an article. The importance of this is illustrated by this case. This would take far longer then just saying 'Noted, but I'm to bussy too add it.' If someone doesn't have the time to do the edit properly, it would often be far better to leave it to someone that does. Nil Einne (talk) 10:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I added a more detailed total. As of 13.51 on August 9, the UK’s police had made 525 arrest, [[8]] of which 100 were in Birmingham [[9]] and 215 were in London. [[10]]. :-/ Wipsenade (talk) 14:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

404 error on [[11]]Wipsenade (talk) 14:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)