![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
FYI, there are a bunch of double redirects (redirects going into 2011 London riots), as can be seen here. I fixed a big one that Google News was linking to, but the others need fixing too, preferably by a bot. — AySz88 \ ^-^ 18:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qy7uoJRGmAw 94.0.216.181 ( talk) 19:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
According to this the riots are occurring again in Birmingham. Will there be a night section for 9 August, or will information go somewhere different? - Marcusmax( speak) 19:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Near the beginning, under a subheading entitled, "Protest march" we find the following text with three in-line citations at the end of the second sentence:
I immediately smelled a rat at the use of the word "polite." A polite protest is nearly an oxymoron (okay, maybe Canadians could pull one off.) So I read each of the three in-line citations in their entirety. The concept of polite is neither explicitly nor implicitly suggested in any of these sourced press articles. Indeed, any description of the marchers uniformly uses the word protest along with burn, loot, throwing missiles, etc. One of the articles did mention several people laying down in the street. No article mentioned any family members or relatives. One article did mention one friend of the family. I fully expect that the owners, excuse me, the moderators of this page to ignore this POV violation. I would have liked the 300 "protesters" to have made a polite inquiry in place of the violence that actually occurred. But this is not what happened. In no way does the word "polite" were present a neutral point of view of what did happen. In no way do the in-line citations support that characterization. It needs to be changed or just omitted.-- Da5id403 ( talk) 20:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Some who were present described seeing a younger, more aggressive crowd arrive around dusk, some carrying weapons. "These people were prepared," said Bill Dow, a bystander. "They had fireworks and petrol cans."
Here are a few which could be incorporated either now or in the future: Carpetright store after Tottenham riots.jpg, 2011 London riot police push rioters in Camden.jpg, 2011 London riot police in Lewisham.jpg. -- Trevj ( talk) 20:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I found this one on Flickr that I particularly like, though I will leave it to the editors here to decide if or how they would like to use it Building damaged by 2011 riots in Clapham.jpg. Daniel Case ( talk) 21:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi, my contribution to this: uploaded several from different angles, you can choose whatever seems to be most impressive: Sherwood Gardens Riots 08, Sherwood Gardens Riots 02, Sherwood Gardens Riots 04, Sherwood Gardens Riots 05. They had 4 cars set alight in one place and they were not removed the following day, so got lucky with shots. Senseiich ( talk) 21:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm looking to get a map generated per the request at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Map workshop#England riots. Or perhaps more accurately, a set of maps - a London-specific and a national map. It will be much easier for me if there's a simple list of London Boroughs and other cities affected (with a source for each please!).
Also, the map to the right uses {{ location map+}} to show two of the locations mentioned. The wiki-markup should be easy enough to extend to show dozens of points. I can assist if its unclear how to encode the data.-- Nilf anion ( talk) 21:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I've updated the map to include all locations mentioned in the article (that have articles) for the 6th and 7th. There are some very close together of course, because Enfield Town and Enfield Town railway station are both mentioned - therefore Selecting pruning may be sensible.
This process can be continued onto the 8th and 9th, but as the events start to get much more widespread then it will take a lot more effort to analyse the coordinates.-- Nilf anion ( talk) 23:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Great work here. I'm reluctant to include it in the article until we have one showing other locations outside of London to go with it. The subpage co-ordination idea is a good one. violet/riga [talk] 23:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Added map to right showing all non-London locations on August 8. The points in Scotland demonstrate why we need to work out proper inclusion criteria "arresting teenagers for inciting disorder on Facebook" is not the same as "rioters throwing missiles", we also should be using the point location of the actions not that of the locality (if that makes sense).-- Nilf anion ( talk) 10:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I've split this discussion off to a subpage at Talk:2011 England riots/map, as that will better enable creation/discussion of the maps without clashing with everything else here.-- Nilf anion ( talk) 21:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
We now have the Carpetright store on a video, and a picture in the infobox; yet nothing about it in the article. It's significant, both as a prominent older building (1930; Co-Op) and because of the number of homes that were lost when it burned. Can anyone add something, or at least suggest sources, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I live in dagenham have friends and family in the police force and fire services and NO fires were in Dagenham
The 'London Borough of Barking and Dagenham' is the local authority and not an umbrella name of the area. They are two seperate towns with different postcodes.
Barking had 3 major fires in the late hours of the 8th August 2011 and the early hours of 9th August 2011, however Dagenham is a seperate town altogether and did not experience any violence or arson whatsoever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.171.129.78 ( talk) 21:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I made a couple of comments yesterday on name changing this article which are still valid, and it's been scroll-archived despite being a very short section. Why scroll it up when it's still 100% relevant? We need to read the arguments that people give. I've noticed that the general page archive has been set to 3 days too. Over-archiving can actually lead to needless repetition and useful debate getting lost - so please be careful there too. I've actually had all my criticism regarding this article quite-quickly 'moved' in some way, and have not been allowed to properly review the 'speedy keep' on this article either. Which means that I'm still searching for somewhere to debate this article's suitability for Wikipedia without being called "disruptive" - ie which is not in a dusty corner somewhere where we all know that nothing ever happens. AfD is supposed to be made for the job (ie the debate takes place elsewhere and the article remains alive), but in all my years on Wikipedia I've never seen it being controlled like this.
Can people please respect that not every Wikipedian feels that Wikipedia has a 'duty' to report on breaking news, or indeed does anything but risk real damage in taking this roll upon itself. The various contributors here are not trained journalists (ie for live news). All the arguments I've heard pro this article are to do with 'NO censorship' (that old chestnut) and people "needing and expecting to know". The answer to people's search for news is obviously to go to professional news outlets and look there instead. Everyone is covering it - far too many to do this properly on the fly, even if it was a suitable and harmless thing for Wikipedia to do. Recycling news - and dealing intelligently with weight and 'context removal' esp - is dangerous in these kind of circumstances, and the argument that the internet is partly leading the way (and fanning the flames) is surely as valid for Wikipedia as it is for Twitter or the Guardian. But Wikipedia is not supposed to be a news agency or a social networking site. I can see no excuse for this article apart from being part of a wider move for Wikipedia to become a current events site, and the massive amount of page views is far more alarming than something to be proud of in my opinion. And despite what I keep seeing suggested, I am a long-standing and genuine Wikipedian too (if rather 'old school' it seems) - so I simply have a right to say this. Matt Lewis ( talk) 21:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/09/uk-riots-police-tough-lockdown?intcmp=239
Perhaps a section on police tactics is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.75.115 ( talk) 22:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/vigilante-groups-aim-to-combat-riots-2334910.html
This should be added too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.75.115 ( talk • contribs)
I'm not sure why you're removing that sourced info in 2011 England riots but it's become an edit war - please assert your reasons on the talk page because as far as I can see it's a valid addition to the article. violet/riga [talk] 22:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Moved here by: FactController ( talk) 22:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Could probably split this section into "local issues" and "socio-economic issues" (or similar), citing the respective elements in more detail rather than list form.-- Jonesy1289 ( talk) 23:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
FYI, there are a bunch of double redirects (redirects going into 2011 London riots), as can be seen here. I fixed a big one that Google News was linking to, but the others need fixing too, preferably by a bot. — AySz88 \ ^-^ 18:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qy7uoJRGmAw 94.0.216.181 ( talk) 19:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
According to this the riots are occurring again in Birmingham. Will there be a night section for 9 August, or will information go somewhere different? - Marcusmax( speak) 19:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Near the beginning, under a subheading entitled, "Protest march" we find the following text with three in-line citations at the end of the second sentence:
I immediately smelled a rat at the use of the word "polite." A polite protest is nearly an oxymoron (okay, maybe Canadians could pull one off.) So I read each of the three in-line citations in their entirety. The concept of polite is neither explicitly nor implicitly suggested in any of these sourced press articles. Indeed, any description of the marchers uniformly uses the word protest along with burn, loot, throwing missiles, etc. One of the articles did mention several people laying down in the street. No article mentioned any family members or relatives. One article did mention one friend of the family. I fully expect that the owners, excuse me, the moderators of this page to ignore this POV violation. I would have liked the 300 "protesters" to have made a polite inquiry in place of the violence that actually occurred. But this is not what happened. In no way does the word "polite" were present a neutral point of view of what did happen. In no way do the in-line citations support that characterization. It needs to be changed or just omitted.-- Da5id403 ( talk) 20:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Some who were present described seeing a younger, more aggressive crowd arrive around dusk, some carrying weapons. "These people were prepared," said Bill Dow, a bystander. "They had fireworks and petrol cans."
Here are a few which could be incorporated either now or in the future: Carpetright store after Tottenham riots.jpg, 2011 London riot police push rioters in Camden.jpg, 2011 London riot police in Lewisham.jpg. -- Trevj ( talk) 20:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I found this one on Flickr that I particularly like, though I will leave it to the editors here to decide if or how they would like to use it Building damaged by 2011 riots in Clapham.jpg. Daniel Case ( talk) 21:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi, my contribution to this: uploaded several from different angles, you can choose whatever seems to be most impressive: Sherwood Gardens Riots 08, Sherwood Gardens Riots 02, Sherwood Gardens Riots 04, Sherwood Gardens Riots 05. They had 4 cars set alight in one place and they were not removed the following day, so got lucky with shots. Senseiich ( talk) 21:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm looking to get a map generated per the request at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Map workshop#England riots. Or perhaps more accurately, a set of maps - a London-specific and a national map. It will be much easier for me if there's a simple list of London Boroughs and other cities affected (with a source for each please!).
Also, the map to the right uses {{ location map+}} to show two of the locations mentioned. The wiki-markup should be easy enough to extend to show dozens of points. I can assist if its unclear how to encode the data.-- Nilf anion ( talk) 21:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I've updated the map to include all locations mentioned in the article (that have articles) for the 6th and 7th. There are some very close together of course, because Enfield Town and Enfield Town railway station are both mentioned - therefore Selecting pruning may be sensible.
This process can be continued onto the 8th and 9th, but as the events start to get much more widespread then it will take a lot more effort to analyse the coordinates.-- Nilf anion ( talk) 23:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Great work here. I'm reluctant to include it in the article until we have one showing other locations outside of London to go with it. The subpage co-ordination idea is a good one. violet/riga [talk] 23:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Added map to right showing all non-London locations on August 8. The points in Scotland demonstrate why we need to work out proper inclusion criteria "arresting teenagers for inciting disorder on Facebook" is not the same as "rioters throwing missiles", we also should be using the point location of the actions not that of the locality (if that makes sense).-- Nilf anion ( talk) 10:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I've split this discussion off to a subpage at Talk:2011 England riots/map, as that will better enable creation/discussion of the maps without clashing with everything else here.-- Nilf anion ( talk) 21:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
We now have the Carpetright store on a video, and a picture in the infobox; yet nothing about it in the article. It's significant, both as a prominent older building (1930; Co-Op) and because of the number of homes that were lost when it burned. Can anyone add something, or at least suggest sources, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I live in dagenham have friends and family in the police force and fire services and NO fires were in Dagenham
The 'London Borough of Barking and Dagenham' is the local authority and not an umbrella name of the area. They are two seperate towns with different postcodes.
Barking had 3 major fires in the late hours of the 8th August 2011 and the early hours of 9th August 2011, however Dagenham is a seperate town altogether and did not experience any violence or arson whatsoever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.171.129.78 ( talk) 21:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I made a couple of comments yesterday on name changing this article which are still valid, and it's been scroll-archived despite being a very short section. Why scroll it up when it's still 100% relevant? We need to read the arguments that people give. I've noticed that the general page archive has been set to 3 days too. Over-archiving can actually lead to needless repetition and useful debate getting lost - so please be careful there too. I've actually had all my criticism regarding this article quite-quickly 'moved' in some way, and have not been allowed to properly review the 'speedy keep' on this article either. Which means that I'm still searching for somewhere to debate this article's suitability for Wikipedia without being called "disruptive" - ie which is not in a dusty corner somewhere where we all know that nothing ever happens. AfD is supposed to be made for the job (ie the debate takes place elsewhere and the article remains alive), but in all my years on Wikipedia I've never seen it being controlled like this.
Can people please respect that not every Wikipedian feels that Wikipedia has a 'duty' to report on breaking news, or indeed does anything but risk real damage in taking this roll upon itself. The various contributors here are not trained journalists (ie for live news). All the arguments I've heard pro this article are to do with 'NO censorship' (that old chestnut) and people "needing and expecting to know". The answer to people's search for news is obviously to go to professional news outlets and look there instead. Everyone is covering it - far too many to do this properly on the fly, even if it was a suitable and harmless thing for Wikipedia to do. Recycling news - and dealing intelligently with weight and 'context removal' esp - is dangerous in these kind of circumstances, and the argument that the internet is partly leading the way (and fanning the flames) is surely as valid for Wikipedia as it is for Twitter or the Guardian. But Wikipedia is not supposed to be a news agency or a social networking site. I can see no excuse for this article apart from being part of a wider move for Wikipedia to become a current events site, and the massive amount of page views is far more alarming than something to be proud of in my opinion. And despite what I keep seeing suggested, I am a long-standing and genuine Wikipedian too (if rather 'old school' it seems) - so I simply have a right to say this. Matt Lewis ( talk) 21:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/09/uk-riots-police-tough-lockdown?intcmp=239
Perhaps a section on police tactics is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.75.115 ( talk) 22:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/vigilante-groups-aim-to-combat-riots-2334910.html
This should be added too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.75.115 ( talk • contribs)
I'm not sure why you're removing that sourced info in 2011 England riots but it's become an edit war - please assert your reasons on the talk page because as far as I can see it's a valid addition to the article. violet/riga [talk] 22:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Moved here by: FactController ( talk) 22:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Could probably split this section into "local issues" and "socio-economic issues" (or similar), citing the respective elements in more detail rather than list form.-- Jonesy1289 ( talk) 23:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)