Talk:1981 England riots

Problems with article

This article has a number of problems.

First of all the title. I was looking for an article to link to for the riots and typing in "1981 riots" didn't come up with anything. If the aricle was named "1981 riots in the UK" it would be much easier to find. It also seems ridiculous to restrict the article to riots in just four places when there were a lot more than that.

Secondly there are very few references. Although most of what is said seems a quite reasonable assessment of the situation, as there are no references these views are just the unsupported opinions of whoever has written them and that is not what wikipedia is here for. see Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:verifiability. I have tagged the article with a refimprove tag and an original research tag for now but these problems need to be sorted out pretty soon or the article is liable to be put up for deletion. Richerman (talk) 13:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative Rewrite

The BBC are promoting what appears to be a rewrite of history in an article published today: Thatcher 'considered arming police' during 1981 riots By Sanchia Berg, 30 Dec 2011, BBC Radio 4, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16313781 --88.104.26.134 (talk) 01:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 1981 England riots. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:57, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Typo?

This sentence in the opening section makes no sense to me: "On the evening of 10 April, at around 17:15, a black youth was stabbed by three other black youths in an attack by a police patrol in Atlantic Road"

How is 'an attack by a police patrol' related to 'a black youth was stabbed by three other black youths'?

I don't want to edit the main article in case I'm mis-reading this but it seems to be an illogical sentence to me!

Revert 6 April

@Freee Contributor:

1) Please explain how Centre for Crime and Justice Studies satisfies WP:RS

2) Please explain what The reemergence of the National Front (NF) during this period, parading and convening in immigrant neighbourhoods, resulted in additional clashes with the police, who were defending the dreaded NF from the Anti-Nazi League and local black citizens. actually means.

In particular:

i) dreaded is editorialising, as is to be expected from an opinion piece written on a website whose ‘strategy’ is: We create lively spaces for collaboration and learning, where conventional criminal justice policy agendas are scrutinised and challenged, fresh knowledge and ideas are discussed, and transformational solutions are developed.

ii) who were defending the dreaded NF from the Anti-Nazi League and local black citizens. is saying that the Anti-Nazi League and ‘local black citizens’ were actively attacking the NF, which is an allegation of criminal behaviour against the Anti-Nazi League, and ‘local black citizens’.

Sweet6970 (talk) 15:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1) You may consider it to be biased (I don't believe it is), but it is a reliable source as it has multiple references of its own and it was written by Tony Jefferson, Emeritus Professor of Criminology, Keele University which shows a reliable author.

References

Campbell, B. (1993) Goliath: Britain's Dangerous Places, London: Methuen.

Hall, S., Critcher, C., Jefferson, T., Clarke, J. and Roberts, B. (1978) Policing the Crisis: Mugging, the State and Law and Order, London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Jefferson, T. and Grimshaw, R. (1984) Controlling the Constable: Police Accountability in England and Wales, London: Frederick Muller.

Kennedy, M. (2011) ‘Tottenham: echoes of a history not forgotten as rioting returns’, The Guardian, 7 August.

Macpherson, Sir W. (1999) The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry: The Report of an Inquiry, London: The Stationery Office.

Mishra, P. (2011) ‘The dead end of globalisation looms before our youth’, The Guardian, 25 August.

Scarman, Lord Justice (1981) The Brixton Disorders 10-12 April 1981, Cmnd 8427, London : Home Office.

Younge, G. (2011) ‘These riots were political. They were looting, not shoplifting’, The Guardian , 14 August.

2) It shows the racial tensions and violence

2i) It can be paraphrased to remove "dreaded"

2ii) No, it's pretty common for the police to defend fascist protesters from anti-fascists protestors. It's not about criminal allegations, it's about the police separating the smaller, less popular fascists from the bigger, more popular anti-fascists. It's happened multiple times, it's happened recently with BLM marches in the UK where the police cordoned off anti-BLM protestors and encircled them to "defend" (separate) them from BLM protestors. Once again, it can be paraphrased if you consider it editorialised, but they did happen.

Some of the statements could be started with "Tony Jefferson, Emeritus Professor of Criminology, Keele University wrote that [...]" Freee Contributor (talk) 12:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response.

1) I don’t see how this is a reliable source, in Wikipedia terms. However, I think that some of the problems with the wording might be overcome by attributing the views to the author, as you suggest. The wording you have chosen is very close to the wording of the source, so perhaps we might use a quote from the source. But I still have other objections to the use of this material – see my comments below.

2) It just asserts that there were racial tensions and violence – it doesn’t say what, where, when, who – so to me it is uninformative. That is what I meant when I said that I don’t know what it actually means. So I don’t think it adds anything of value to this article. Similarly, the other addition Black youth, also dealing with growing racism and discrimination, were especially badly hit. is vague.

2i) As regards ‘dreaded’ – yes, this should be removed if we are going to paraphrase it.

2)ii) Your remarks about what you consider to be the general behaviour of the police in relation to political protests/violence are irrelevant, and this would be so even if you were not projecting backwards to 1981 what you say happened during BLM protests. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and should be a summary of definite information reported by reliable sources. (Sometimes the information is that so-and-so said that ….)

You have not answered my point that the wording as it stands constitutes an allegation of criminal behaviour against the Anti-Nazi League. This, as well as ‘dreaded’ supports my view that this is an opinion piece – I would not expect to see such an allegation in a news report from, say, the Guardian or the BBC.

Sweet6970 (talk) 14:28, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The changes will be made in due course, but the content and citation will remain as they are relevant and sourced with their own references. Freee Contributor (talk) 08:28, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of any further response, I am deleting this material. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:16, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Freee Contributor: Your edit summary in your revert of me says: Changes have not been agreed Quite. You made changes to which I did not agree. I reverted you; you should not have reverted me – at that point you should have started a discussion on the Talk page. Now, as your changes have not been agreed, the wording of the article should be as it was before you made the changes i.e. as it was when I reverted the changes. It is for you to get agreement to changes which have been challenged. See WP:ONUS. The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not disputed content because the source is reliable. Freee Contributor (talk) 13:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Freee Contributor: In the context of WP:ONUS, ‘disputed’ means ‘disputed by another editor’. I dispute that your additions are an improvement to the encyclopaedia.

‘The reemergence of the National Front…’ etc. provides no useful information about the subject of this article, which is the riots in England in 1981.

‘Black youth, also dealing with growing racism and discrimination, were especially badly hit.’ is also not particularly informative. I see that in the para from which you have taken this quote, there is a reference to the Scarman report :Deteriorating police-black relations were underpinned by the worsening socio-economic and political situation of especially Black youth (a fact recognised by Scarman). I suggest that instead of your addition, we should have this as a quote, and attribute it to Tony Jefferson.

Regarding the capitalisation of ‘black’. Either upper or lowercase are permitted by MOS:RACECAPS. Using upper case is a recent American usage. My view is that using upper case for an article about events in England more than 40 years ago is inappropriate and anachronistic.

I await your comments. Please don’t keep reverting me. Where there is a disagreement about content, editors are supposed to resolve their differences in discussion on the Talk page, not engage in a slow motion edit war. See WP:EDITWAR

Sweet6970 (talk) 12:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reemergence as well as Black youth being especially badly hit by the economic crises provides context. I will add it as a quote. Black is the preferred usage, and it is also British usage. Plus, it's also used in many other articles about events even centuries ago. Freee Contributor (talk) 17:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1) Thank you for the additional material on the Toxteth riots.

2) Regarding the re-appearance of the National Front - you say ‘this provides context', but you do not explain this. How is it connected to the riots? Are you saying that it is a cause of the riots? Or an effect? Did it occur before or after the riots? And why have you moved this material to the Police powers section, when it has nothing to do with the powers of the police?

3) You have not commented on my suggestion about the material on black youth being particularly badly hit.

4) You say that capitalisation of ‘black’ is preferable, but you don’t say why, nor how this would be an improvement to this article.

Sweet6970 (talk) 10:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]