Talk:2011 England riots/Archive 1

Have these civil disturbances actually been classed 'officially' as a riot?

http://www.insuranceage.co.uk/insurance-age/news/2100321/concern-industry-foot-riots — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.237.251 (talk) 10:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

From The Daily Telegraph: "According to the law, a riot is 12 people or more acting with a common purpose and using or threatening “unlawful violence for a common purpose ... The conduct of them (taken together) is such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for his personal safety”. UK Riots

From the UK Parliament website: "Prime Minister, David Cameron, has asked the Speaker of the House of Commons to recall the House for Thursday 11 August. The recall of the House of Commons follows rioting and civil unrest across London and other cities in England." |Recall of the House of Commons. Can that be taken as official confirmation? Stanley Oliver (talk) 20:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Lootings not riots?

As the character of the disturbances has become apparent, it is clear that most of the troubles are connected with looting rather than "rioting", indeed the media are reporting such feelings - see these reports for examples: [1], [2], [3]. Is it time to rename this article to 2011 England lootings, or to at least split it into a small core article covering the initial "riot" and a separate article dealing with the lootings that have spread to other parts of the country? FactController (talk) 07:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Good luck with that. Make sure you keep me in the loop. Lugnuts (talk) 07:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The rioting on the first day could be described as a volatile escalation of the civil disobedience related to protests about the death of Mark Duggan and the inevitable (and all too predictable) cover-up by the police. However, from the second day, the dominant element of the riots could adequately be described as "opportunistic looting". Regardless, looting is merely one common element of a riot and they are, ultimately, riots, and should be reported as such. Deterence ^Talk 08:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

As well as looting there have been arson and attacks on the police. That makes "riot" the appropriate word. Marshall46 (talk) 09:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

(EC) While looting may have been a significant component recently, I've also seen recent reports of people starting fires in shops, people being pulled out of their cars which are then set on fire, running battles with the police (throwing bottles, molotov cocktails etc) which may be partially to aide in the looting but also seem to be part of the desire of some of the participants to cause chaos and 'have fun', i.e. there's clearly more then just looting going on. Nil Einne (talk) 10:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Still the recent events dont compare to food riots or race riots of various times. They'd be better described as gadget and trainer lootings - that is if the catch all description disturbances isn't used. Gregkaye (talk) 22:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposed change of title "riots" to "disturbances", "lootings" or similar?

This is on the basis of associations of the word riot to protest. The root of riot means bellow or roar and yet the article describes: Widespread public disturbances, including looting, arson attacks, burglary, robbery and some rioting, are ongoing in some cities and towns in England.

The riot that seems to have developed from the protest of August 6th typically reported to have acted as a catalyst for a different range of activities.

The definition of riot has also been described in dictionaries with simple reference to violence which may be taken to mean violence against people. The main forms of damage that were caused in events following August 6th were against shop windows and locks and through the use of matches. After the first day it seems that violence typically came into play only when the police and members of the public tried to intervene in the destruction and theft but, even then, the looters were reported to be involved in games of "cat and mouse" with the police. The protest related word riot is argued to have little currency in relation to the national disturbances of 2011. I also suspect that any review of tweets and messages as events developed will confirm a focus on getting into unguarded properties and avoiding police with comparatively little emphasis, if any, given to political or other protest.

While the August events clearly began with a protest that eventually turned to violence, this type of riot has the opening sentence of the article uses words other than riot to begin its description of the August events and I'd say that this sentence correctly starts with reference to disturbances. Gregkaye (talk) 10:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Parties to the civil conflict

Why is it assumed that "local residents" and "business owners" are opposed to "burglars, looters et al"? Surely, by the use of common sense, these categories of people cannot be used to represent each "party" in the conflict.--194.98.70.12 (talk) 09:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree, this article is terribly biased in favour of the state's version of events. As soon as I have enough time I'm planning on adding some balance.--Life in General (Talk) 09:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I concur. Lenerd (talk) 15:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

There should be a comparison of the response to the killing of a drug dealer and the response to the shooting of children and nurses by drug dealers. There needs to be more about how they are mugging and murdering ordinary civilians, and burning people's homes. 86.31.15.114 (talk) 17:29, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree too, wait until things calm down and we can edit the article so it is fair, without an POV like it has now. There are tons of pictures on Flickr of police brutality with teens being manhandled, yet the media and government focus on the looting and anti-social behaviour without prejudice to that police taunting is going on. --94.195.194.144 (talk) 19:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Not to mention that rioters and looters being "manhandled" by police is never going to get anywhere near to "police brutality". Black Kite (t) (c) 19:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, the irony of throwing around stereotypes about the looters/rioters and the "local residents" and "business owners" was revealed with recent television media reports about the occupations of some of the looters/rioters who were being processed by the Courts, which included accountants, university students, student dentists and a "highly respected" teaching assistant. Deterence ^Talk 11:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Greater prominence to the public opinion of the police please

None of the events taking place a--386-DX (talk) 09:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)re anything more than criminality - there is universal condemnation from all Londoners, regardless of ethnicity. As social networks are playing a huge role in making the mindless arson and theft possible, please place this link at the top of your discussion page, so that people can rally their mutual support as easily as these thugs. <http://www.facebook.com/?ref=home#!/pages/Supporting-the-Met-Police-against-the-London-rioters/152937041453243> 79.70.237.186 (talk) 00:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)twl79.70.237.186 (talk) 00:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

You clearly haven't spoken to many Londoners... nobody has been killed by the protestors, whereas since 1998 the Met Police have killed at least 333 Londoners. Londoners are not unaware of this, especially the ones who live in the affected neighborhoods. Your linking to this emotion-ridden Facebook group has nothing to do with the scholarly purview of this article. Falco528 (talk) 05:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• Anonymous: This is not a place to discuss the article subject. Please keep your opinions to yourself and do not spam the talk page. --386-DX (talk) 09:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Police haven't killed 333 Londoners. The vast majority of those who die in custody are not killed by police. Looting and burning down shops and flats is not protesting - it is reckless, destructive criminality. Jim Michael (talk) 13:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The powder keg nature of the situation is what is being under-reported. I agree there should be some information regarding why so many people would be willing to stoop to such criminality to make a point. However, I couldn't find any significant non-editorial links to help out with this imbalance.68.145.117.39 (talk) 21:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Under causes it might help to mention the stop and search powers in use by police in these areas? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/uk-14436529 http://uk.news.yahoo.com/crowds-attack-police-burn-cars-uk-protest-020441152.html

29-year-old father-of-four?

How about Gangster and drug dealer who shot at the cop first and then was shot? 50.9.109.170 (talk) 10:01, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I haven't read if there was any drug related issues, only that this was part of Operation Trident (Metropolitan_Police). The 'father of four' seems to be an emotive insertion to garner sympathy for Duggan. The initial reports indicated he shot first and was subsequently killed, which would reduce somewhat the sympathy factor. I'd recommend simply stating his name, and age. At present this isn't anything to do with 'discrimination' so I'm not sure why the talk pages say this is linked to WikiProject Discrimination? I've seen images showing looters who were of different races and does the fact this man was black have anything to do with him being shot? I think the link to the discrimination project isn't warranted and is merely a parallel to the Broadwater farm riots. --Canhazanonymous (talk) 10:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Duggan, who had previously been sent to prison, was carrying a gun, which has been recovered from the scene. He was not shot because he was black, nor because he was an irresponsible, over breeding deadbeat dad. No-one is shot because of the number of children they have, it is merely being used in an emotive way by his supporters / admirers; 'father-of-four' is irrelevant to the case. 188.28.77.247 (talk) 02:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Latest news suggests that initial police ballistic tests have shown that the bullet that lodged in the police radio (supposedly shot by Duggan) was police-issue. Therefore he didn't shoot a policeman, something that corresponds with accounts from people who knew him best. Don't make assumptions and get dragged into debate - this is an encyclopaedia. The fact is he was 29 and he was a father of 4. I bet there wasn't this debate around Ian Tomlinson's page at the start. Tommer312 (talk) 09:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Duggan was carrying a gun, something that law-abiding civilians do not usually do. To define Duggan primarily as a family man and a father-of-four is ridiculous - he did not live with any of his children. 188.28.113.53 (talk) 14:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

See point 12 in this discussion page regarding the hollow point bullet. --Canhazanonymous (talk) 15:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

@188.28: I don't claim to know anything about the issue, but it would seem to me that he was a father of four regardless of whether or not he lived with his children, and that as far as I know, there is no law in Britain against carrying a gun. Let's just state that he was a 29-year-old black man. That is the accurate, verifiable, relevant information. His children are irrelevant. ☻☻☻Sithman VIII !!☻☻☻ 03:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

"no law in Britain against carrying a gun"?!? FYI, Britain has some of the most draconian firearms legislation in the world, and it is an absolute offense (except for police, military etc) to be in possession of a pistol under any circumstances (it's not possible for a civilian to legally own one, let alone carry it around). Occasionally one even hears of people being prosecuted for finding a weapon dumped by criminals and taking it to the police - it's stupid, but the way the law is framed merely picking it up is a crime regardless of your intent. 93.97.184.230 (talk) 08:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

In addition, there is forensic evidence that he did not fire a single bullet in the altercation. Falco528 (talk) 05:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

He certainly was carrying a gun, as a non-police issue gun was recovered from him. Even if the bullet in the officer's radio was fired by an officer, that doesn't tell us whether or not Duggan fired his gun and missed or not. Jim Michael (talk) 13:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Gun politics in the United Kingdom sums it up; pistols cannot be licensed and thousands of formerly-legal pistols have been handed in since the 1997 Act. It's still unclear whether Mr Duggan was holding his pistol when shot.86.42.206.248 (talk) 07:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

This article sums it up very well http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1315288/Police-shot-dead-33-people-1995--marksmen-named.html . Alot of frustration from the family included the police's refusal to name the officer who killed Mark Duggan. The police shooting squad come masked, dress to intimidate and have been known to "shoot then think". --94.195.194.144 (talk) 19:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Jesus! I guess there is a law in Britain against carrying a gun. ☻☻☻Sithman VIII !!☻☻☻ 20:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

"Multi-ethnic nature of incident"

The current article states: "The incident is being investigated by the Independent Police Complaints Commission due to the multi-ethnic nature of the incident" I'm sorry, but that is utter garbage. All incidents involving police use of firearms are investigated. --86.136.203.178 (talk) 10:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Pointless

Cant see the point of an article of a current event which is unfolding by the minute, and where so much is still unclear, rumour or supposition.Unraed (talk) 12:15, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

We managed to cover the 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks as they were ongoing.©Geni 12:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

But what is the point? If you want to know the latest on what is happening in such an event the news media or Google News give you all that. What is the point in s selective, sporadic re-posting of bits and pieces of news or supposition or rumour on Wiki, often by people with some bias or other but whose truthfulness or objectivity is completely impossible to judge? I cannot see how this adds value and it differs from the rest of Wiki where one person's expert knowledge can help illuminate an issue for others without that knowledge. How is my understanding of what is happening in Tottenham right now helped by someone I do not know cutting and pasting bits from Google News that appeal to their prejudices? Unraed (talk) 13:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not cutting and pasting, I created this article just as I was watching it from Sky News. Jaguar (talk) 13:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

You will never stop live Wikipedia reporting on unfolding events. Either sit back and enjoy the ride and stop reading until the dust settles. WWGB (talk) 13:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Just my 2 cents... Wikipedia seems to be the BEST source for events as they unfold. I just saw the headlines, dug through a half dozen AP stories, and was severely dissapointed with the lack of detail. I never gave it much thought, but a news story is written in a substantially different manner than an encyclopedia entry. I found this entry to be very well written and organised - much better than the "news"

Because that is how Wiki is at its very best. As above, the Mumbai bombings were reported "as live" on Wikipedia, with the article cited as one of the best news gathering events outside a newsroom. CNN spoke highly of what editors here achieved. In only a few hours, Wikipedia editors have collated news and opinion in English and five other languages, so you don't have to trawl the news sites if you don't want to. "Pointless" ? Only if you misunderstand the project as a whole. This is Wikipedia at its very best. doktorb _words^deeds 13:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes I think Wikipedia generally does a very good job of reporting these kinds of events. There are two advantages for the reader over other news outlets. First all the useful information is gathered in one place, so you don't need to spend time trawling round different news sites trying to find the facts. Second, useless information is usually filtered out - opinons, conjectures and speculations are usually edited out pretty quickly. A good example would be the recent death of Amy Winehouse. There was all kind of sensationalism and speculation as to the cause of death based on no evidence. The Wikipedia article simply stated that the cause of death was as yet unknown and gave a couple of citations. Having said all that - I think Wikipedia's superiority for news events is a result of the awfully poor quality of the output of most major news organisations rather than a result of how great Wikipedia is. Samsite (talk) 14:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Afd tagged

• Note It is also on Russia Today. It may take off in Brixton if informants are true, so waite a while to see if it goes off tonight or allied riots occer in Wood Green and Brixton. I say give it a week or two.82.14.54.17 (talk) 15:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Ken Livingstone's statement

Can be found here:

http://www.labourlist.org/ken-livingstone-statement-on-tottenham-riots

I red it.82.14.54.17 (talk) 15:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I read it too, its very good. His points are green, and valid. His views are still to be reflected into this article as it reflects a great deal of the populations view. --94.195.194.144 (talk) 19:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Pluralised riot in title

Just the one riot has taken place. Suggest a move to "2011 Tottenham riot". --TBM10 (talk) 13:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Tottenham AND Wood Green. WWGB (talk) 13:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

So, "North London riots" then? --TBM10 (talk) 14:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

OK. that's cool.82.14.54.17 (talk) 15:53, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

names already been updated again to '2011 London riots' after major incidents on the southern outskirts, and there have since been related incidents outside the London area... let's just hope the name doesn't need changing again... 77.101.91.203 (talk) 20:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Background

How about adding something like the following to the Background section?

History

This unrest played out against a larger background of fraught relations between the police and the black community. Commentators have especially drawn parallels to the Broadwater Farm riot of 1985.

ARK (talk) 16:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay -- I've added this to the article as Causes ARK (talk) 18:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Good idea.86.24.10.103 (talk) 19:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Look at the news coverage, this is being caused black and white youths, to say it's all due to racial tension is completely misleading. Your citation for "fraught relations between the police and the black community" provides no evidence for such an assertion, only idle speculation which is rapidly proving to be incorrect. 91.143.178.131 (talk) 08:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Here's a far more balanced commentary: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/08/london-riots-brixton-editorial Pjcard (talk) 10:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The opening sentence to the Background section - Described as "the worst disturbances of their kind since the 1995 Brixton riots",[1] - is a ridiculous understatement. This quote is from 7 Aug and refers only to the initial riot in Tottenham. The subsequent spread of the violence means that the current wave of rioting is far, far worse than the 1995 Brixton riot. This quote is now an irrelevant and inappropriate way to begin this section. The only legitimate historical comparison is with the 1981 riots in many parts of the UK, although the latest ones are more widespread and serious.Petroff (talk) 05:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Please edit my reference

Hi, On item six in the sources you list the source as Sky News. This is wrong. it is in fact my blog at www.spiderplantland.co.uk - could this be changed? Sorry I am not enough of an expert to know how! Thanks

Hi -- Wikipedia has a number of community guidelines to ensure that articles meet certain quality standards. One of those guidelines is Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, which more or less rules out blog posts as sources. Ironically, I think, your blog post has remained in the article because is was misidentified as Sky News. Please expect the reference to your blog to be substituted with a reference to a source that is uncontroversially 'reliable'. Best, ARK (talk) 17:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, please can someone add this under causes:

• On 11th April 2011 Nick Clegg warned of the possibility of riots under a Tory government

Something definitely wrong with Wikipedia...events need a few days

Shouldn't a few days pass, maybe even a week before an article is started or fully underway before. Wikipedia isnt, or should be a current news reporting website. Its what it says in its name...an encyclopedia.....but hey, person who start it need to race to be first to add to their cred, get em on that CV/ resume...hey and a wikipedia writing medal for roughing it in the battlefield.69.196.135.42 (talk) 19:02, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

There's no minimum amount of time that needs to elapse after an event in order for an article to be created about it. If reliable sources report it and it is notable, we can write an article about it. Jim Michael (talk) 19:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no minimum time for an article to start. A discussion was held to delete this article (see the very top) and it was voted upon to Keep. Your sarcasm adds nothing to anything doktorb _words^deeds 19:46, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I know this isn't encyclopaedic and in keeping with the general vision of Wikipedia - but I live in London, my partner works in one area and I in another, I need to know what's happening and this article is currently functioning as a user-updated rolling source of updates relevant to the area I live in, and is the best source of these updates as news networks are providing more general coverage. So right now, this article is serving a purpose. Even it's not Wikipedia's purpose. Write an article about it when it's over, but some people are relying on this source right now. What would actually be achieved by deleting it? Nothing but snobbery.

--86.24.10.103 (talk) 19:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Casualties

In the Casualties section of the infobox, it says 68 deaths in total!! 68 deaths? In a riot in England? I don't believe it. Are you sure this is correct? GeorgeGriffiths (talk) 19:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

"A person suffering from injuries or who has been killed due to an accident or through an act of violence". [4] This clearly means 'injured'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

It says 68 casualties, not deaths. As far as we know, no-one has died during the riots. Jim Michael (talk) 21:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Four people have died so far during the riots. As of 11:46AM on 10 August 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harrychown1989 (talk • contribs) 10:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Move: Discussion

See "Requested move" and "Requested move: part 2"

I don't propose this officially, but would like opinions on moving this article to "2011 North London riots" or "2011 North London unrest", with developing stories and expanded news coverage now shifting from the initial Saturday events. Any opinions or views? I can see why - as it's now not just within the London Borough of Tottenham, why editors may wish to move this somewhere else. doktorb wordsdeeds 19:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC) Tottenham is not a London Borough, it's part of Haringey, which also contains Wood Green. Enfield Town, however, is not even on the border of the Borough of Enfield with Haringey, it's quite some distance away, and is in fact five miles from the Tottenham epicentre. Clearly the current page name is too restrictive, and does not reflect the geography of the eventsNick Cooper (talk) 21:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC) The current title needs to be changed as the riots have extended to Wood Green and Enfield. Have there been any other riots in London this year? If not, move to 2011 London riots. No need for North if there is no need to distinguish between these riots and any others in London this year. Jim Michael (talk) 21:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC) Though the riots started in Tottenham, they have now spread to Wood Green and Enfield. The title is becoming progressively less appropriate. However, it is helpful to readers for the title to define the scope. 2011 London riots is too imprecise. I therefore support a page move to 2011 North London riots. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC) Wait for the name to settle of its own accord in the public discourse, then adjust accordingly. ARK (talk) 22:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC) "North London riots" is also imprecise, given that violent disorder has now also been reported in the south and the east of London. Keristrasza (talk) 08:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC) Agreed; it is now. The BBC news is headlining all its reports as "London Riots". This is now reflected in the following RS: [5][6][7][8]. We should now move the page to 2011 London riots. Bridgeplayer (talk) 13:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC) I agree this could be moved to '2011 London riots'. Current bets are on Croydon being hit, so maybe '2011 Greater London riots' --Canhazanonymous (talk) 15:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC) With the expansion of events to encompass most major English cities the question will obviously be raised as to whether the name should be broadened to '2011 English riots' or similar - however I feel that the president of letting the English press take the lead on naming the events is a good one - aka the 'let the BBC choose the name' solution. The press is currently flitting between London riots and England riots - I think they'll truly decide after tonights events, when it should become clear if the non-London rioting escalates to a sufficient seriousness to draw comparison with the events of London77.101.91.203 (talk) 09:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Bullet in radio was 'police issue'?

The Guardian is reporting [9] that initial tests on the bullet found lodged in a police radio was a police-issue dum-dum type, and not fired by the shooting victim, as claimed. This doesn't of course prove that he didn't have a weapon, but it is worth noting. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:15, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

This seems to be based on nothing more than the bullet being a hollow point, and the fact that the police use hollow points. Civilians aren't supposed to have access to hollow points, but then they're not supposed to have access to handgiuns, either, so there seems to be some spectacular conclusion leaping going on.... Nick Cooper (talk) 21:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

most of the limitations on hollow points are on millitary use. I understand they are fairly popular for certian civilian aplications in the US. However if we assume that the guardian are not completely incompetent then other factors such as caliber will also match. Yes it's possible that someone else happened to have the same bullets as the police but ultimately its not our call. The guardian is running this on their front page tomorrow thus at some point we will have to mention it.©Geni 22:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

As the wording is "dum dum type hollowed out bullets" .. we don't have to 'assume' the Guardian reporters are completely incompetent. Nevard (talk) 19:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised Met use hollow-point, but they have openly done so since 11th May 2011 (probably actually since Operation Kratos + Jean Charles de Menezes). More fatal, less collaeral damage ! Military ban is Hague Convention ? Officially called 'expanding bullets' : 'dum-dum' refers to DIY ammo that has been drilled or x-sawed. Given a DIY modified 'ex-inert' gun, modded ammo would not be surprising. --195.137.93.171 (talk) 01:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Although Hollow point ammunition used by the met does ricochet less than standard ammunition it should be noted that firing bullets into a metal container... like a car... at near point blank range... is pretty much a perfect ricochet situation. Its quite possible that the bullet in the radio was fired by a police officer in the direction of the suspect.77.101.91.203 (talk) 09:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

It's apparent that the "police-issue" observation comes solely from it being a hollow-point bullet, and that should be clarified. John2510 (talk) 14:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

It may well prove to be a police bullet, but jumping to that conclusion based on it being a hollow-point is ridiculous (and irresponsible, given the context). The actual bullistics should match it to a gun pretty quickly. They should be more interested in the caliber than whether it's a hollow-point or not. If the police use .38's and and it's a 9mm hollow-point... John2510 (talk) 14:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

24 hour clock

I think that we should consistently use the 24 hour clock so 7.05 pm becomes 19:05. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, also use British English, not just for colour and flavour, but also because of this WP:TIES.--Cerejota (talk) 01:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Peasants

Thank you to whoever changed, "A series of disturbances by peasants in Tottenham followed the protest march on 6 August" to "A series of disturbances by people in Tottenham followed the protest march on 6 August." Whoever was responsible for the "peasants" remark is not fit to be contributing to Wikipedia, or to pass any comment on anything. Findlay777 (talk) 23:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid the article is high enough profile to be the target of vandalism.©Geni 23:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you suggesting peasants aren't people? ;) But seriously, not cool --Canhazanonymous (talk) 15:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Both words could be retained if the phrase "disturbances by people, possibly peasants" was used.

See Peasant: "A peasant is an agricultural worker who generally works land owned or rented by/from a noble." Peasants in Tottenham, Hackney, Peckham? I wasn't aware that it's all farmland round there. "The Peasants". Stanley Oliver (talk) 21:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

It may have been vandalism, but that was still pretty damn funny. And I sympathise with those who wish to disparage the rioters and their criminal behaviour. Thanks for the laugh. 116.255.8.84 (talk) 20:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to 2011 London riots. I think everyone supports this though some people asked for a postponement - no real reason for waiting as it can be moved again if, unlikely, it is commonly referred to as something else. Almost all news agencies are using this name now. violet/riga _^[talk] 17:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

---

2011 Tottenham riots → 2011 London riots – Riots now extend far beyond tottenham, with extensive looting and damage in Brixton, South London, as well as a 7 mile area of North London. AndrewTindall (talk) 01:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

This Sky News report certainly suggests disturbances in several areas of London, mostly apparently looting of shops. However, at the moment, the WP:RS are still calling it the "Tottenham riots". When they change their usage, so should we. Until then, the article should keep the same name. -- The Anome (talk) 01:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Anome (or at least, what the above post said before I was edit conflicted). The fact that they began with the shooting in Tottenham may well lead to them being remembered as the Tottenham riots, despite taking place in places from Enfield to Brixton. If it ever is renamed, "riots" should remain lower case. —WFC— TFL notices 01:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

It should definitely be moved, this source clearly states the riots are across a large section of London http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-14439970 12bigbrother12 (talk) 02:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

BBC calling it "London riot" on news front page... Hyper3 (talk) 06:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Support a move to 2011 London riots. This is no longer confined to Tottenham. Many RS now reflecting the spread of the disorder to south and east London as well as other parts of the north. Graun reads: "London riots spread south of Thames" and points to the rioting in Brixton, Enfield, Islington and Walthamstow. The Torygraph also reads: "London riots: live" and goes on: "This is our live coverage of the riots and disturbances in London, which on Sunday night brought looting and disruption to large areas of the capital." Channel 4 news go with "London riots spread." BBC: Met Police on London riots." USA Today: "Police arrest more than 160 in London riots." etc etc. Keristrasza (talk) 08:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

2011 I'm so Cockney I'm riddled with it riots? Lugnuts (talk) 07:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

"Riots" should definitely be lower-case, as it is not a proper noun. HandsomeFella (talk) 08:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

2011 London riots I've just seen stuff on Brixton as I logged on. I thin Enfield was hit again.Wipsenade (talk) 09:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Playing devil's advocate, but the only riots have taken place in Tottenham. The rest has just been looting and theft. How about 2011 London looting?! Brad78 (talk) 10:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• Weak support I support renaming but think 2011 London riots might be too ambiguous given the previous protests this year. Not sure what else to call it though.--Pontificalibus (talk) 10:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
• Suggested: "2011 suburban London riots" - but that was rudely deleted from this page for no reason. 11:01, 8 August 2011 User:Jaedit
• Support (how about August 2011 London riots?) Black Kite (t) (c) 11:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Have there been other significant riots in London this year? Otherwise using August is being overly precise. Jenks24 (talk) 12:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support (how about the August 2011 Greater London riots?)82.2.72.189 (talk) 11:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
• Postpone It's not for Wikipedia to name these events. Wait for a name to stick in real life, then follow suit. You want to move this once, not two or three times. ARK (talk) 13:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Agree OK, that's fair ARK.82.2.72.189 (talk) 13:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Slightly Devil's advocate-y but why not? Moving isn't really a big issue. Your point is right that we should follow common usage though. violet/riga _^[talk] 14:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support 2011 London riots. Both the BBC News and Sky News headline all their news reports 'London Riots' and it is used in mamy RS e.g. [10][11][12][13]. This is now the real life usage. Bridgeplayer (talk) 14:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support 2011 London riots. For all the supported reasons above, though I would equally support 2011 Greater London riots, especially if further looting, rioting and pillaging occurs in a wider area of London.--Canhazanonymous (talk) 15:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support 2011 London riots. No need to be longer or more specific than necessary. ciphergoth (talk) 16:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
• While it's clear that the riots have now spread far beyond Tottenham, I think it would be a good idea to wait and see what the common name is in a few days or a week. As WFCforlife points out, they may still be called the Tottenham riots because they started there. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support move to 2011 London riots. These riots are no longer contained to Tottenham, so why would we keep that as the title? Looting and violent misconduct still counts as a riot when there are multiple groups involved. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  17:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Policing operation across London

Police press release on tonight's activities - http://www.met.police.uk/pressbureau/Bur08/page01.htm - gives a nice breakdown of the different areas affected. Nanonic (talk) 02:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, this is a blog (not an RS) of the activities tonight. Might be useful as a launching point to search for RS. Nanonic (talk) 03:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)