Talk:2024 United Kingdom riots#Requested move 7 August 2024

Martinevans123 the reason I reverted your edit. See [https://web.archive.org/web/20240803135003/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/03/world/europe/uk-stabbing-riots-protesters.html NYT archived article]: {{tq|"The suspect, Axel Rudakubana, was born in Britain, but in the hours after the attack, disinformation about his identity — including the false claim that he was an undocumented migrant — spread rapidly online."}} There are plenty of sources for this also. CNC (talk) 19:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

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

::"{{tq|The riots were fuelled by false claims circulated by far-right groups that the perpetrator of the attack was a Muslim and an asylum seeker.{{Cite news |last=Casciani |first=Dominic |date=2 August 2024 |title=Violent Southport protests reveal new tactics of the far-right |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cl4y0453nv5o |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240802114556/https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cl4y0453nv5o |archive-date=2 August 2024 |access-date=2 August 2024 |work=BBC News |language=en-GB}}{{cite web |date=7 August 2024 |title=Explainer: Why are there riots in the UK and who is behind them? |url=https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/why-are-there-riots-uk-who-is-behind-them-2024-08-07/ |access-date=7 August 2024 |website=Reuters}}{{Cite news |last1=Bintliff |first1=Esther |last2=Sampson |first2=Eve |date=3 August 2024 |title=Who Are the Far-Right Groups Behind the U.K. Riots? |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/03/world/europe/uk-stabbing-riots-protesters.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240803135003/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/03/world/europe/uk-stabbing-riots-protesters.html |archive-date=3 August 2024 |access-date=3 August 2024 |work=The New York Times |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331}}}}"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

::::::It's a combination of sources for the claim (Muslim misinfo + Robinson spread): {{tq|"Speculation on social media following the attack suggested three people had been stabbed and the attacker was a Muslim. Police Scotland said the man arrested is a white man from the local area."}} [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cv2ggn0x802o]

::::::{{tq|"Among them was a post by far-right figure Robinson (below), who posted on Twitter/X on Saturday night that an “alleged Muslim” had just been involved in the stabbing of “at least three women” in Stirling."}} [https://web.archive.org/web/20240804150316/https://www.thenational.scot/news/24496394.tommy-robinson-spreads-disinformation-stabbing-scottish-city/]

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

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

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

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

:For what it's worth there's been new reporting about false information that circulated online around these events that has not been referenced in the article: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c99v90813j5o The issue of false information is central to this topic. Orange sticker (talk) 22:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

::Yes, I mentioned the post by "Eddie Murray" in the thread headed "cause" above. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:18, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

::Probably worth adding as part of the misinfo origin. Might get round to it if no-one else does. CNC (talk) 21:47, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Have moved the sources to the main body. Perhaps the other sources in the lead could also be moved as per WP:LEADCITE. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

:Should it be updated that he has has been charged with owning an Al-Qaeda terrorist manual and ricin a potent neuro poison that he manufactured?

:he has also been charged with terrorism. I think it puts to bed that it was a terrorist attack but may not fulfill the narrative being woven by the editors.

:Ricin has been used for mass terrorist attacks in the past. 213.78.47.65 (talk) 15:10, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

::The 'narrative' of this article is being led by the reporting on it. Whether or not it was an act of terrorism isn't particularly relevant to whether mis/disinformation about his faith/culture and refugee status was used to fuel the riots. Owning a document written by the most renowned terror group in his lifetime does not automatically mean he shares their religion. The article on the attack itself goes into his being charged with the Terrorism Act 2000, this one is about the riots. Lewishhh (talk) 15:40, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

::The terrorism charge relates to the possession of the Al-Qaeda manual, which provides instructions on how to manufacture ricin, not to any specific acts of terrorism. The police quickly established that none of the ricin has been deployed, particularly at the site of the stabbings. Additionally, and quite obviously, neither of these offenses were directly connected with the instigation of the riots, which was caused in very large part by wholly fabricated misinformation on social media. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:55, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

Russia and Israel supported the far right Islamophobic rioters 2A00:23C7:5882:8201:E5E1:B701:4566:854 (talk) 22:18, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

:Do you have reliable sources for such claims to include as content? There is otherwise a reference to the campaign of Russian disinformation, but that's as far as it goes based on the available sourcing. CNC (talk) 22:25, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected|2024 United Kingdom riots|answered=yes}}

• Please change far-right to right wing. I have my doubts about the rioters and protesters are as far-right as our media would portray them as.

:* {{not done}} there is plenty of reliable sourcing for the "far-right" designation. Black Kite (talk) 19:12, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

:But plenty of supporters like the Ulster Defence Association are not "far-right". It's dishonest to add "far-right" or "racist" when not even the half of the protesters are like that. 2800:200:ED80:1A0:92B:B8E0:C24C:8D76 (talk) 16:28, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

::I'm not sure how the Ulster Defence Association is relevant here. Wikipedia simply aims to reflect the descriptions make by reliable sources. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:17, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Earlier today I posted a link to a newly released report by His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS) detailing the events around the Southport Riots. Unfortunately my addition to this talk page was immediately deleted by @Lewishhh with 0 comment, despite me adding no less than three credible sources to my contribution.

This official UK government body which reports directly to the UK Parliament stated in their report in no uncertain terms:

"HMICFRS found no conclusive evidence that the 2024 disorder was deliberately premediated and co-ordinated by any specific group or network. Inspectors said that it was mostly disaffected individuals, influencers or groups that incited people to act violently and take part in disorder, rather than criminal factions or extremists. And it was mainly unrelated to their ideology or political views. The causes of the disorder were complex, but the overwhelming speed and volume of online content further fuelled its spread."

[https://hmicfrs.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/news/news-feed/police-ill-equipped-to-tackle-impact-of-online-content-during-serious-disorder/ Police ill-equipped to tackle impact of online content during serious disorder - His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services]

These findings are in direct contrast to much of the tone of the article as it is written today. The same findings have also been reported on by various secondary sources, including:

Straits Times (on the list of Wikipedia's "generally reliable" sources): [https://www.straitstimes.com/world/europe/uk-watchdog-says-police-must-not-be-caught-off-guard-again-after-violent-summer-riots UK watchdog says police must not be caught off-guard again after violent summer riots | The Straits Times]

"In a report, His Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire; Rescue Services said those who took part in the riots were mostly "disaffected individuals, influencers or groups that incited people to act violently", rather than criminal factions or extremists. "It was mainly unrelated to their ideology or political views," the inspectorate said in the report."

Sky News UK (considered generally reliable by Wikipedia): [https://news.sky.com/story/southport-riots-review-finds-police-have-not-kept-up-with-social-media-risks-13362862 Southport riots review finds police have not kept up with social media risks | UK News | Sky News]

"The police inspectorate found no conclusive evidence the disorder was co-ordinated by extremist groups but said it was mostly incited by "disaffected individuals, influencers or groups" online."

I'm not sure what the intended purpose is of immediately deleting a contribution to the talk page that quotes several reliable sources. It's very unfortunate that editors can simply remove an addition to the talk page of an article, citing reliable sources, with no explanation why. I suppose that the UK government must be considered at least a relevant (if not necessarily all-encompassing) source for political events occurring within the United Kingdom. It is clear from this official government report that the current version of the article is one-sided at best and must be amended in order to at least reflect the observations of the UK government and present them to readers of this article. 2001:A61:26C4:CB01:D9DF:3C4F:C368:6050 (talk) 15:50, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:The reason for the removal was given in the edit summary.

:This source doesn't say that the far-right influencers who worked so hard to cause violence didn't do anything, it appears to just say that they did not have a pre-existing plan and reacted individually. If you want to suggest some wording to clarify that they all chose to incite violence on their own, you are perfectly welcome to do so on the talk page. Please try to find a reliable secondary source to cite to. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 17:07, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::The "reason given" was "Disingenuous request" which is hardly exhaustive or explanative. The prevailing tenor of the page currently is that this was a planned far-right extremist riot. We now have a new report by the UK government counteracting that narrative, underpinned by reporting from reliable secondary sources which I have quoted in my contribution the the talk page. 2001:A61:26C4:CB01:D9DF:3C4F:C368:6050 (talk) 17:34, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:Misrepresenting what your sources are saying to request that there should be no mention of the far-right on a page about an event in which most of the reporting accurately refers to groups involved and ideology influencing it as being such is disingenuous. Doing so without a Wikipedia account is also incredibly suspicious. As Miles says, you can write something up to refer to the report, but suggesting the page should not have any reference to far-right politics is ridiculous and betrays bias. Lewishhh (talk) 17:38, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::I should probably point out that this report has recently been the subject of a youtube video made by notorious far right pundit Carl Benjamin, who himself has been a very vocal supporter of the riot at the material time, and an apologist for it afterwards. He is the source of the false framing of the HMICFRS report. Since the video in which he covers it has been uploaded to youtube less then an hour ago, that implies that the OP is either a member of Benjamin's team, or one of his paid subscribers. 46.97.170.73 (talk) 19:43, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I have literally never heard of this Youtuber before. Is there anything in my initial posting that leads you to believe I am referring to him or his viewpoints? Wikipedia:Assume good faith 2001:A61:26C4:CB01:D9DF:3C4F:C368:6050 (talk) 23:05, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::::This is the poster's reasoning: {{tq| (Carl Benjamin) is the source of the false framing of the HMICFRS report. Since the video in which he covers it has been uploaded to youtube less then an hour ago, that implies that the OP is either a member of Benjamin's team, or one of his paid subscribers.}} MilesVorkosigan (talk) 23:25, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Unfortunately you have provided no link to said video in your response. A youtube search for "Carl Benjamin" leads to the channel of Sargon of Akkad: https://www.youtube.com/@SargonofAkkad/videos

:::::He has not uploaded a video since "2 days ago" as of the time of me posting this comment, and none of his recent videos seem to have overtly something to do with Southport or even the UK at large. Is it common for Wikipedia editors to delete sourced comments (linking to official government pages) on a talk page wholesale based on accusations that they may be related to unreliable Youtube channels which have 0 recent videos dealing with the topic at hand? 2001:A61:26C4:CB01:D9DF:3C4F:C368:6050 (talk) 23:50, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Benjamin has a video titled 'Led By Donkeys are a Complete Joke' uploaded on his Akkad Daily channel as of approximately one hour ago. I expect that's the one @Lewishhh is referring to. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 00:26, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::This is the video in question: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8-0vYW1ceA

::::::Lotus Eaters (ironically named after a group of drug addicts in Greek mythology who are completely detached from reality) is a channel owned and operated by Benjamin's team. The channel posts excerpts from Benjamin's podcast which has it's own website where subscribers can access content early, including exclusive stuff that would normally violate YouTube's TOS. 46.97.170.73 (talk) 15:54, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::Where exactly in my posting do I ask that there "should be no mention of the far-right" on this page? Please quote the exact line of my comment where I say so 2001:A61:26C4:CB01:D9DF:3C4F:C368:6050 (talk) 23:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)