Requested move 7 August 2024

[edit]
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: not moved. WP:SNOW, this clearly isn't gaining consensus. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 20:49, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 United Kingdom riots → 2024 United Kingdom race riots – Per the sources in this section as well as numerous other sources, these are clearly race riots and a specific group of people are being targeted by far-right groups and their supporters. The article should be moved to reflect that. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Several of these sources are opinion pieces. I think if we are to call them race riots we need more mainstream articles describing them as such. Currently they are described as simply "riots" or "far-right riots" much more than "race riots". I think a sentence in the body about how they have been described as "race riots" is due. BootsED (talk) 19:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Journalists have described the unrest as "race riots"." MatchAndGoo (talk) 19:38, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think something like that in the body would be due. BootsED (talk) 19:43, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many are also just WP:HEADLINES when looking through sources which isn't helpful. CNC (talk) 14:18, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sojup you can disagree over the name but numerous journalists and sources have described it as such because race is clearly one of the factors. Its not "silly" at all. Far from it. Omnis Scientia (talk) 01:29, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for being unclear. I find the current article name silly and unnecessarily vague. Sojup (talk) 02:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sojup, ah thank you for clearing it up. And my apologies for being so curt, I wrote the response half-asleep and this is a bit personal since I have family there who are part of one of the targeted communities and I'm quite worried for them. I just saw the word "silly" and got angry. So sorry for that. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:15, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And my apologies for being so unclear. Wishing you all the best. Sojup (talk) 16:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Discrimination, WikiProject United Kingdom, WikiProject Current events, WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, and WikiProject Merseyside have been notified of this discussion. TarnishedPathtalk 03:30, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IMO: Only one side is trying to make this rioting a race war, renaming the article to fit their conventions is not a neutral point of view.
Also to compare with other articles:
Template:Riots in England - Out of all the riots that are notable in England, even those specifically categorised as race riots, only two articles have the motive 'race' in titles, guessing it is due to applying the principle of looking at what the sources call the event rather than naming it ourselves. Komonzia (talk) 06:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - additional to aforementioned reasons, WP:COMMONNAME focuses on common recognisability rather than simply the most abundant. Even if there is a plurality of uses of "race riots" (which at this point cannot really be demonstrated without cherrypicking specific term usage patterns), without an overall majority it fails to meet the requirement. Reliable sources vary between the unqualified "riots", "race riots", "far-right riots" and a few others, and the title as it currently stands contains the only commonality recognised amongst all of the above. Benjitheijneb (talk) 18:20, 9 August 2024 (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.

Should counter-protestors be considered part of the UK Government side?

[edit]

I think counter-protestors should be considered to be on the side of the UK Government as since World War II, protests by fascist, racist or counter-religious organizations have often been met by anti-racist or anti-fascist groups, many of which are aligned with the Labour Party which is the governing party of the UK. Do we agree with that? Pikachu3408 (talk) 20:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NOTFORUM. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter whether editors agree with that or not. We don't add original research, we keep to what reliable sources are reporting and analysing. Orange sticker (talk) 21:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, they are not. The only time that that should be added is if the protesters where bing attacked like in the Attack on protestors at the Turkish embassy in Washington, D.C. LuxembourgLover (talk) 02:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure everyone who replied to you understood the question. I'm pretty sure you're talking about the infobox top right of the article.
Counter-protestors are likely to have some government action taken against them (i.e. arrested or being issued with orders to disperse) if they do things like bringing weapons or issuing threats, or acting disorderly. That has already happened (though far less than against the instigators because they've been doing that kind of thing less).
In the UK police generally try to allow peaceful protests to happen ("facilitate") and keep both/all sides apart, that often involves action against both/all sides. It's easier to have 3 sections in the infobox. Komonzia (talk) 17:13, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms by Neil Bass and Steve Rotherham

[edit]

I noticed these criticisms were removed from the article, the statements originally included seem reasonably sourced

"The Reform UK leader Nigel Farage was criticised by former Scotland Yard counter-terrorism police chief Neil Basu for questioning whether the truth was being withheld from the public, with Basu accusing Farage of inciting violence and creating conspiracy theories. Farage was also accused of giving legitimacy to acts of violence by Steve Rotheram, the Mayor of Liverpool City Region, after releasing a video in which he said the protests were "nothing to what could happen over the course of the next few weeks".[1]" BedVeritas1 (talk) 21:19, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Brown, Mark; Brooks, Libby (2 August 2024). "Nigel Farage giving legitimacy to violent protesters, says Liverpool mayor". The Guardian. Retrieved 2 August 2024.
The only reason Farage's reaction was relevant was because of accusations against him, and within that context, so clearly it is WP:DUE. It'd be very WP:UNBALANCED to ignore this and currently looks like a very POV based summary. I'm not 100% convinced by the current suggestion, as there are plenty more sources available that should be used as well. I haven't got round to it yet, but likewise in analysis section there should be the reference of "farage riots" per weight of sourcing, probably along with "race riots" at this rate. CNC (talk) 14:26, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. About that, there was a recent article here:
https://news.sky.com/story/politics-latest-starmer-labour-riots-parliament-conservative-leadership-jenrick-police-live-12593360?postid=8098959#liveblog-body
Moreover, according to the YouGov poll included in the article, 47% of Britons argue that Nigel Farage had a fair to great deal of responsibility for “causing the unrest at recent protests in England”.
https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/50257-the-public-reaction-to-the-2024-riots
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/nigel-farage-populism-reform-far-right-b2592706.html BedVeritas1 (talk) 18:54, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The riots have become popularly referred to as the Farage Riots and Farage himself has strongly objected to the riots being named after himself. It therefore seems appropriate to at least mention the trending name of Farage Riots under the reaction section, even if there is not a settled name for the events. It's at least a very popular meme worthy of comment.

https://x.com/DachshundColin/status/1821835822913438162

https://x.com/search?q=farage%20riots&src=typed_query&f=live — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiucsibgod (talk • contribs) 16:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dogbiscuit (talk) 16:08, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Counterprotesters arrested

[edit]

The article mentions many instances of counterprotesters being arrested, yet these are not shown in the causality and losses section. Shouldnt these be included since the number of arrests of the far right protesters are noted? D6strrrrr (talk) 22:21, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As explained above, there was the suggestion to move the the list of arrests and charges of casualties1 (far-right) to general injuries section, given we don't know how many of the arrests and charges are related to side1, but I had no luck trying to make this edit. If there are reliable sources for arrests/charges on side3 then they should be added with reliable sources for now I think. CNC (talk) 22:27, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per this edit, I've converted casulaties parameters to total injuries as arrests, given it's not possible to include the arrests field when using casualties. It's not ideal but better than misrepresenting the total number of arrests/charges. CNC (talk) 15:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CFA could you consider returning my edit please? [3] I assume you reverted in error. [4] CNC (talk) 15:57, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Think I fixed it. C F A 💬 16:04, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wales?

[edit]

The lead mentions Wales as a location of riots but, as far as I can see, Cardiff is later only mentioned as the scene of an anti-racist demonstration. Should Wales be removed from the lead? PamD 05:17, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The lead mentions both riots and protests. As far as I'm aware, while no riots have occurred in Wales yet, protests and counter-protests have been held in Cardiff. More protests are also reportedly planned for Swansea, Cardiff and Aberystwyth in the coming days. ThatRandomGuy1 (talk) 08:00, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell from content on Cardiff based on lead description of "far-right riots and anti-immigration protests", it's accurate enough per content: "Anti-racism protesters gathered in Cardiff following a far-right protest which had been planned, where they encountered some far-right demonstrators outside the Senedd,..." From one of the sources used "Anti-racism counter-demonstrators were on the streets of Cardiff for the second successive day on Sunday, as the anti-immigrant groups threatened to hold another protest in the Welsh capital." [5] I think this confirms the far-right demonstrators were anti-immigration protesters. Ideally some better sourcing would be included to avoid any ambiguity though. CNC (talk) 12:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Grnrchst @Erzan please see discussion about this and engage in discussion. Also to Erzan, per this, a quick reminder about WP:DRNE:
"If you can't or won't explain your revert, don't make it." CNC (talk) 18:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't see this, but per those sources it seems one was planned but didn't materialise. Do sources now describe the riots as being in "England, Wales and Northern Ireland"? Needs more concrete sourcing than guessing it does. Seems the Cardiff incident is known for the counter-protesters instead. Open to adding the Cardiff incident elsewhere in the lead.
Also the Welsh Government doesn't control policing, if anyone adds it to the infobox again. DankJae 21:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Naming those arrested

[edit]

Looking under the 'Arrested and sentences' section, only two people were named: "Two men, Sameer Ali and Adnan Ghafoor, were sentenced to 20 months and 18 months in prison each respectively for assaulting protesters in Leeds city centre on 3 August."

However, no one else was named. Is there a reason for this? There have been many, many names released, but these are the only people named in this article.


For example: "A 28 year-old man from Leeds was arrested and sentenced to 20 months in prison for 'stirring up racial hatred online during riots', after making a Facebook post stating that people should "smash the f**k" out of the Brittania hotel", which is used by the government to house asylum seekers awaiting processing." The source states their name: Jordan Parlour. This was not mentioned. https://news.sky.com/story/uk-riots-far-right-protests-latest-southport-police-anti-racism-counter-live-13186819?postid=8104318#liveblog-body

Plus, this same person was mentioned in a previous paragraph within the same section: "A charge for "using threatening words or behaviour intending to stir up racial hatred" was made on 6 August 2024 following Facebook posts." with a different source, and once again, no name was mentioned despite the name (Jordan Parlour) being in the source: https://www.cps.gov.uk/cps/news/man-convicted-intending-stir-racial-hatred-after-posting-online


Plus, with this: "On 7 August, the first sentences for crimes committed during the riots were handed out to three men who took part in unrest in Southport and Liverpool. The three were sentenced to periods of between 20 months and three years in prison" The source states their names: Derek Drummond, Declan Geiran, Liam James Riley.

I also noticed this change was made by ThePaganUK who also mentioned Ricky Jones' "Afro-Caribbean descent". I hope there is no political bias being shown here.

Ricky Jones: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2024_United_Kingdom_riots&diff=prev&oldid=1239483802

Only arrests mentioned: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2024_United_Kingdom_riots&diff=prev&oldid=1239310215


What is the reason for this disparity in naming? BedVeritas1 (talk) 19:15, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see no problem making sure the article is consistent wrt naming to ensure WP:NPOV. I would go for leaving the names out. Orange sticker (talk) 19:24, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. BedVeritas1 (talk) 19:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, we need to distinguish between naming people facing charges and those subsequently found guilty. The former almost certainly shouldn't be named, per WP:BLP. As for the latter, an exhaustive list will clearly be undue, but there might possibly be a few individuals who receive enough ongoing coverage to merit naming. For now though, I'd agree that names are best left out, until we have anything to justify doing otherwise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:32, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed, corrected the actual charges and fixed the broken source. Agree with ATG that unless there is significant coverage to justify naming those convicted, it serves no purpose in this article. CNC (talk) 19:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for making the updates. I think that would be the best course of action. BedVeritas1 (talk) 19:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements have been made

[edit]

I just came back to this article to lambast the disguising state it was in 4 days ago. Which was a Whitewash of reality. Almost like if racism, Islamophobia, etc were not at the root of it. I am shocked to find that the lead has been much improved and there is not much for me to complain about. I suggest Islamophobic tag be added to the page. The same way antisemitism is added to so many pages. Good work now it is a serious article. Hausa warrior (talk) 08:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Social Media Arrest

[edit]

Seems like reliable sources covered this, would this be appropriate to add somewhere in the article?

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3w6q611yn1o

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/aug/08/chester-woman-55-arrested-over-false-posts-about-southport-murders

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/southport-stabbings-identity-woman-arrested-police-b2593467.html Cahlin29 (talk) 08:54, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Sources for it trending:

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1933353/im-pretty-disgusted-nigel-farage-riots

Origin? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjs144juNK4

Will these do for sources to add something about it? Are there more? While it's there on social media, discussion of the colloquial name for the riots doesn't seem to be happening in print much.

Also: Anti protest planned outside Reform office in Westminster- https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-riots-near-me-counter-protest-london-racism-b2593150.html Lewishhh (talk) 09:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Express is listed as 'generally unreliable' at WP:RSNP. Beyond that, reporting protests before they've happened would seem hard to justify. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:56, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

End of Riots

[edit]

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

Was thinking the same thing. A note could also be added that there were isolated incidents or otherwise that continued, similar to 2011 England riots infobox. Aside from Northern Ireland, it otherwise seems that the last riots were 5 August. CNC (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be the best course of action, otherwise the article runs on saying there is still rioting over a week after it stopped and it starts to become misinforming. e (talk) 14:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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


MOS:ANDOR

[edit]

"The attacker was falsely alleged on social media to be a Muslim and/or an asylum seeker."

Request edit to "The attacker was falsely alleged on social media to be a Muslim, an asylum seeker or both." as per MOS:ANDOR Itsziggyp (talk) 15:08, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done (diff)  M2Ys4U (talk) 16:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Supported by" in box

[edit]

In the box, "pro-Palestinian activists" are listed separately from counter-protesters, based on the quote "In Walthamstow and at other counter-protesters across the country, many pro-Palestinian activists turned up with flags and signs saying "Make love not war".

How does this indicate that the "pro-Palestinian activists" are somehow one step removed from the rest of the counter-protesters if they're at the demonstrations as well? I know this is probably going to be shouted down as WP:OR, but there's significant overlap between "pro-Palestinian activists" and several "involved" groups of counter-protesters.

Is this [6] some sort of Schrodinger situation in which these are involved "Muslim youth and men" and just supporting "pro-Palestinian activists" at the same time? Unknown Temptation (talk) 18:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've WP:BOLD moved it back seeing as nobody has put anything forward for this, other than the quote that says that they were in the protests with everyone else. Unknown Temptation (talk) 21:44, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Robinson Documentary / edit request

[edit]

The documentary “Britain’s Banned Documentary - SILENCED” needs to be mentioned in the timeline, as it is a significant event leading to the start of the riots. I am requesting edit access to this article to add it, as I have watched and done research on the documentary. I am confident that I can write about it in a non bias manner. John Bois (talk) 05:22, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need. It is already covered at Tommy Robinson (activist)#Almondbury school assault libel case and Almondbury Community School bullying incident. The timeline does not support the case that this was a significant event leading to the start of the riots. It merely shows that it was part of part of a continuing pattern of racist lies by Stephen Yaxley-Lennon (a.k.a. "Tommy Robinson").
  • 2018 Yaxley-Lennon made social media posts that falsely claimed that Jamal Hijazi (a Syrian boy at school in Huddersfield) had attacked two girls in his school.
  • 2021, Hijazi sued Yaxley-Lennon for libel and won. Yaxley-Lennon ordered to pay £100,000 damages plus costs.
  • May 2023, Yaxley-Lennon released a 105-minute long program called "Silenced" that repeated the false allegations against Hijazi.
  • 27 July 2024, Yaxley-Lennon screened the film at a rally in Trafalgar Square in London.
  • 28 July 2024, Yaxley-Lennon travelled to Cyprus for a "holiday".
  • 29 July 2024, Yaxley-Lennon due in high court in the UK in connection with his allegations against Hijazi, but did not turn up.
-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:32, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The documentary came out just three days before the July 30th riots and has 43 million views as of now. Don't you think that had an effect on why people were shouting 'Tommy Robinson' during the attack on the mosque on the 30th? This documentary has to be mentioned in some way or form in the article. John Bois (talk) 19:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide the secondary sourcing necessary to indicate that this 'documentary' was significant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:51, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/08/01/how-censorship-made-tommy-robinson/amp/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/08/07/how-tommy-robinson-became-mainstream/ John Bois (talk) 20:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The documentary was released in 2023. The current issue is that he screened it in Trafalgar Square on 27 July against a court order, but this was before the Southport attack so I don't see what relevance it has. Even the Spiked article points out that the chanting of Robinson's name was more EDL related than anything to do with a film that practically none of the rioters have probably seen. Black Kite (talk) 20:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of the articles mentioned make an explicit link between "Silenced" and the riots.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:48, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 August 2024

[edit]

Request that "They followed a mass stabbing in Southport ..." is changed to "They followed misinformation about a mass stabbing in Southport ..." Also, on the Main Page, the "In the News" headline to be changed from "Following a mass stabbing in Southport, far-right protesters riot in England and Northern Ireland" to "Following misinformation about a mass stabbing in Southport, far-right protesters riot in England and Northern Ireland.

These edits will reinforce that the misinformation about the stabbing is significant. 82.33.74.10 (talk) 07:52, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I support this change. Orange sticker (talk) 08:38, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Though I support the sentiment, I do not support the proposed change of wording. The 2nd-4th sentences of the lead are as follows:
  1. They followed a mass stabbing in Southport on 29 July, in which three children were killed.
  2. The attacker was falsely alleged on social media to be a Muslim, an asylum seeker or both.
  3. The first riot started in Southport and later many protests and or riots spread across the country.
I think the existing wording properly explains the chain of events: the stabbing --> the lies on social media --> the riots. -- Toddy1 (talk) 09:58, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Suggesting a change to the ITN wording should be posted at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors#Errors with "In the news" not here. That page currently lacks edit protections so you can post such a request yourself. If it's felt that this isn't an error or more extended discussion is needed, I think someone there should direct you where, if anywhere you can continue discussion, but it's unlikely to be here since it's not something which concerns this article. It might also be helpful to check out the discussion leading to the posting Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/August 2024#(Posted) United Kingdom riots although I only see a brief suggestion the article should mention misinformation without any specific opposition. Nil Einne (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 August 2024 (2)

[edit]

→

"Riots in Derry/Londonderry were NOT related to the current situation in GB and was caused by normal Nationalist/Unionist tension during the apprentice boys of Derry march yesterday, this has absolutely no relation to the racist attacks in the rest of the UK and therefore this section should be removed." 81.133.71.17 (talk) 12:19, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Derry/Londonderry is mentioned several times in the article, and as far as I can see in each case is cited to sources which connect the incidents with the general article topic. We go by what sources say. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:45, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References to far right connections removed by one single user

[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2024_United_Kingdom_riots&diff=prev&oldid=1239792665

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2024_United_Kingdom_riots&diff=prev&oldid=1239792411

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2024_United_Kingdom_riots&diff=prev&oldid=1239791753

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Bsrc&action=edit&redlink=1

BedVeritas1 (talk) 15:48, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved
Has been reverted by ATG [7]. CNC (talk) 15:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks ATG, I was concerned BedVeritas1 (talk) 15:52, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had already submitted the revert but looks like ATG beat me to it :) CNC (talk) 15:57, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Far right label

[edit]

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

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

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

The sourcing could be improved, but it's not just "left-leaning" publications at all, it's literally all major outlets.
Some examples for you: [8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20]
You'll be hard pressed to find a reliable source that hasn't referred to these riots as far-right. CNC (talk) 17:23, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Take this article from The Economist: Many of the protesters took offence at the claim that they were members of the far right, and to chants of “Nazi scum” from the counter-protesters. We’re just “ordinary people”, said John Taylor, an ex-marine who was attending a demonstration for the first time. He said he did not object to immigration itself but rather to the violent crime and cost to the taxpayer it brings when newcomers are not “vetted” properly. ... Yet chants of “Muhammad is a paedo” and “Oh, Tommy Robinson”, in support of a far-right firebrand who has repeatedly spread the “Great Replacement” conspiracy theory claiming that Muslims are being brought into Western countries to outbreed and “replace” whites, suggested that plenty in the crowd deserve the labels they have been given by Sir Keir. Is The Economist a left-leaning publication?-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:44, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on where you look. However The Telegraph and The Times certainly lean right. When those publications collaborate such claims about the far-right, it's confirmation there is no bias involved. CNC (talk) 18:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Sir Keir" ????? Maurnxiao (talk) 20:13, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, that bit of the quote's accurate. Keir Starmer is indeed a Knight Commander of the British Empire, so can be called Sir Keir. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 20:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Time Magazine, The New York Times, Politico, Reuters, Bloomberg, Sky News, The Washington Post, Euronews, The Herald and Le Monde are left leaning media… either way, every other point I made in what I said previously remains.
I don’t want to make this a political war, I give my opinion from a neutral POV and I still defend that the point of the article should stand on the majority and not the minority of protesters. V.B.Speranza (talk) 18:16, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But the article is primarily about the riots, with the protests as part of the build-up and aftermath of those events. Which, as has been shown, media from all areas of the political spectrum has referred to as being caused by misinformation promoted by groups with far-right ideologies. Lewishhh (talk) 18:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why are right-leaning publications reporting the same then? The Telegraph is definitively right-wing, they aren't even considered centre-right these days. You should provide reliable sources for this claim of "minority of protesters", that's certainly not how it's been reported by the majority of RS, and could do with inclusion in the analysis section for balance. As a reminder NPOV is also about WP:BALANCE, describing these riots as being far-right in the minority would be a WP:FALSEBALANCE. CNC (talk) 18:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The riots are caused by far right individuals, but the riots are caused by a minority of those who participate in the broader protest. What I’m saying here is that they label everything as far right, not just the riots, while Pro-Palestine riots earlier this year had barely any backlash by these same media outlets… V.B.Speranza (talk) 18:33, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you're going to provide a reliable source, this sounds like original research. You acknowledge that they label it all as far-right, so I don't see the issue anymore. CNC (talk) 18:36, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Daily Mail, which is depreciated so I wont be linking, is definitely classed as right wing and has multiple articles referring to Right-wing riots. Knitsey (talk) 18:44, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has a neutrality problem, one that I acknowledge and have tried to address. I've done my part by pointing out bias in this article. If changes aren't made, it’s disappointing, but I understand there's only so much I can do. This issue goes beyond a single article; it’s deeply rooted across the entire platform. Wikipedia tending to favor left-leaning perspectives isn’t an opinion, it’s easily verifiable, but I can help you and just give you a couple studies on the matter.[1][2]
It’s a problem that goes way back in time…[3] and still persists to this day.[4] V.B.Speranza (talk) 18:59, 12 August 2024 (UTC) V.B.Speranza (talk) 18:59, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think right now it’s fixed as they say ‘anti-immigration protests and far-right riots have proven out across the UK.’ This is a lot better as they separate the ‘we should have some limits on immigration’ from the ‘we hate everyone’ LuxembourgLover (talk) 03:36, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On 31 July, I scrubbed the article to make sure that what it said about the far-right was backed by sources,[21] see also Talk:2024 United Kingdom riots/Archive 1#Far right. It may also have been done by other editors since then. There might be value is someone checking that all the mentions in the article of terms such as "far-right" are supported by the sources cited for them.

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

References

  1. ^ https://manhattan.institute/article/is-wikipedia-politically-biased
  2. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/29/the-five-wikipedia-biases-pro-western-male-dominated
  3. ^ https://www.jstor.org/stable/23245554
  4. ^ https://manhattan.institute/article/new-study-finds-political-bias-embedded-in-wikipedia-articles

Please do not remove "Anti-immigration protesters" from the infobox.

[edit]

@Lewishhh Please do not remove "Anti-immigration protesters" from the infobox. Thank you. NamelessLameless (talk) 21:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I started above, I think that having this significantly improves the POV of the article. LuxembourgLover (talk) 03:37, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE

[edit]

MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE states that information within the infobox should be mentioned in the body. I will proceed with removing information in the infobox that is not mentioned in the body. NamelessLameless (talk) 21:50, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed "Terrorgram affiliates
Ulster Defence Association
Active Club England
Various football hooligan firms" NamelessLameless (talk) 21:55, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 August 2024

[edit]

A lot of dates could use ordinals for better clarity.

For example, "7 August" could be "August 7th" or "7th of August"

Thx:) 2601:840:4480:F460:4D3B:8971:A85C:84A8 (talk) 06:24, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. If you check out WP:MOSDATE you'll see we don't display dates in the format you're suggesting. This is Paul (talk) 09:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

"Far-right, anti-immigration riots"

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Talk:Great Replacement#Removal of content

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

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