Talk:2024 Harehills riot

Background section

This section isn't "background" this is just a list of the races of people who live in Harehills. Make it relevant or get rid of it. Battleofalma (talk) 22:14, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

The Background section isn't at all limited to census reports. The census of Harehills ward has sufficient notability and exceptionality to warrant inclusion as background information for this incident, at least in a brief summary. Anyway this section does not demands outright removal അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 02:19, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I disagree @അദ്വൈതൻ, I agree with @Battleofalma in that has become way to unwieldy. Where I do think it is relevant is on the page for Harehills so I moved the information to there. Since there's now duplication, I think we should remove the information from here Lajmmoore (talk) 16:40, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Of some 16-17 lines of the Background section, lines pertaining to Census in the background is some 3 to 4 lines. Even in the scenario of accepting the reason stated by @Battleofalma, outright removal of an entire section is unwarranted. അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 16:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

The point remains that the section had become overblown - demographic detail about the area surely belongs in the article about the area itself, rather than about an isolated incident Lajmmoore (talk) 17:40, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi അദ്വൈതൻ, the racial makeup of the Harehills area isn't background to this incident, no more than Mel B being from Harehills or it being "between the A58 and the A64": Those are facts about the area that may belong in said article about the area, but not here. The crime rate might be background, but you'd have to explain why the division of race belongs in this article beyond that someone added it.

An example of a good background to an incident section can be found in 1992 Los Angeles riots, detailing or linking to (now well documented) tensions and key incidents that have been linked to the riots themselves. Battleofalma (talk) 17:43, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Serial Number 54129: it would be great to see you engage with the debate here Lajmmoore (talk) 19:15, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi Lajmmoore please read WP:ECHO in relation to this. ——Serial Number 54129 21:16, 26 July 2024 (UTC)^{Striking as unhelpful snark: Lajmmoore. ——Serial Number 54129 12:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)}

Hi @അദ്വൈതൻ, I have given fair reasons in the edit summary for the removal of this section, one being that the information I removed from it isn't within the scope of the article nor is it background to the incident. These are not "petty reasons" as you say nor is it disruptive to remove information copied wholesale from an article about something else that stretches WP:NPOV. It is arguably WP:Synth to add information about one thing in an article about another thing to support a conclusion that has not been made in any of the sources cited. i.e that the racial makeup of the area, particularly the Pakistani population, is relevant to this incident. Can I ask you again to show me reliable sources that back up that claim or I will maintain my position that it doesn't belong in the article. Battleofalma (talk) 12:01, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

If there is issue of NPOV and SYNTH, each of its occurence needs to be analysed carefully, so that other editors involved or uninvolved can comprehend if it so. Outright deletion of an entire section by any editor citing this or that is miles away from a good faith edit. അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 12:23, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest there's another possible interpretation - what do we always say to new editors: "be bold" - so I'm not sure suggesting that @Battleofalma is editing "miles away from good faith" is helpful. What do we all want? An article that helps readers understand the topic in an encyclopaedic way, does the massive lead section full of (now duplicated on the Harehills article) demographic data help them? I'm not sure it does. Is demographics important yes, but I think keeping it on the Harehills article - where is still visible is more suitable than here. Lajmmoore (talk) 07:02, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

yes thanks @Serial Number 54129 - there was a glitch with laptop which made it look like the first edit wasn't live, so I changed it. I wasn't aware it was double-pinging you, but I see that now. Lajmmoore (talk) 07:04, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

• This section is very WP:SYNTHy. It's using sourcing pre-dating the incident (largely) to editorialise what editors here in Wikipedia think is relevant to the incident. Those issues should be strictly limited to what the sourcing reporting the incident is giving as relevant background. I'm seeing very little of that. DeCausa (talk) 11:10, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I've taken out the second paragraph as particularly egregious. The first paragraph needs also to be cut down. The sourcing is a mixture of: (1) material that pre-dates the incident which is WP:SYNTHed it to editorialize (2) An Independent article about the incident which doesn't make any of the claims it's cited to in the background (3) relevant citations to Novara Media. This seems to me to be borderline WP:RS and fails WP:DUE to have so much of the background based on a politically motivated source. Just to repeat, the background that should be here should be the background given by WP:RS describing the incident but observing WP:DUE. DeCausa (talk) 11:47, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

In a somewhat Pauline conversion, I agree with @Battleofalma and Lajmmoore:. The demographic material is completely WP:UNDUE for this topic, and, as noted above, more suited to the parent article or even a hypothetical Demography of Leeds, if anyone fancies a poke at WP:REDYES. Since this article is about a riot, and one that seems to have had a pretty specific cause, then those are the areas a background section should focus on; e.g., pretty street violence and tension in the area, and relations with police and/or social services,m if the sources exist to bear the weight. Even a couple of sentences should suffice; an article like this is never going to be particularly extensive, so an introductory section need not be more than a short paragraph, tbh.

Apologies for any previous misunderstandings  :) ——Serial Number 54129 12:46, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Possibly relevant to your conversion but no strong evidence of a clear connection. As you say it's not a long article due to a lack of in-depth coverage overall, and while we don't really have much in the way of background such a section doesn't automatically need to exist. I did add a link to the 2001 Harehills riot in the lede as a possibly relevant example of the modern history of civil unrest in the area, but am not even sure how useful that is. Battleofalma (talk) 12:19, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi @DeCausa@Lajmmoore@Serial Number 54129@അദ്വൈതൻ. I found a decent source on the case so have rebalanced this section a bit to include much more pertinent background to the incident in the form of the court order, the reasoning of Leeds children's services and the objections to it. i.e the events that led to the riot.

I trimmed a fair bit of the demographic/race/economic/crime info as per WP:Undue but left summarising sentences detailing the diversity of the area, confirming the presence of the Roma community, and poverty. I removed general crime stats but expanded on the previous riot that happened in 2001 as previous civil unrest seems relevant. Thanks. Battleofalma (talk) 16:39, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. that looks about right. Much improved. DeCausa (talk) 16:44, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

+1 Good work. Succinct, factual and totally NPOV. ——Serial Number 54129 16:59, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Looks good to me Lajmmoore (talk) 10:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that there were certainly Pakistanis rioting in Harehills that day. This is reported throughout social media and even on left wing websites. The key point is that the reason why they rioted is simply because the area is dominated by Pakistanis. By excluding the information about Pakistanis you're turning it into a pointless conflict over Muslims, when most people would have stopped caring about the Muslim aspect of the riot by now. TurkeyAndHungry (talk) 20:05, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

The covering up of negativity about Pakistanis

I notice that the closest reference to Pakistanis on this Wikipedia page seems to be the comment about far-right people attributing the riot to Muslims.

Anyone who has spent some time looking at first hand evidence from social media, and reading comments even on left wing sites, knows that there were certainly Pakistanis taking part in the riot. The area is pretty much Pakistani and the local drugs trade that dominates the area is run by Muslims too. TurkeyAndHungry (talk) 20:00, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

See WP:RS. "first hand evidence from social media" is not something we take any notice of (thankfully). DeCausa (talk) 21:53, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources out there that detail the demographics, stereotypes and socioeconomics of the British Pakistani community. TurkeyAndHungry (talk) 22:01, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes. The article had something like that not long ago, but luckily, we got rid of it. It would've just attracted bottom feeders, you see. Cheers, ——Serial Number 54129 22:06, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

We should write it back again. Covering up negativity about Pakistanis is what causes tensions and prolongs the problems that the Pakistani community has. TurkeyAndHungry (talk) 22:12, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Note on removal of Spectator-derived comment and source

I just removed a sentence which used the Spectator as a source - in the summary I said it was unreliable, but I took a look at WP:SPECTATOR and its use is more nuanced. However I do stand by the removal of @User:TurkeyAndHungry's contribution as"Harehills has a significant number of British South Asian Muslims who look similar to gypsies." does not meet WP:NPOV nor is it encyclopaedic. (The slur was removed and changed to Romani, by another editor who recognised it as such.) Lajmmoore (talk) 18:34, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

References

Request to Change Main Image

The current main image in the infobox, titled "West Yorkshire Police temporary command post set up close by in nearby Oakwood," does not accurately represent the event described in the article. While it depicts the police response location, it fails to provide visual context to the riot itself, which can be misleading for readers seeking to understand the nature and intensity of the event.

A more appropriate image would be one taken during the actual riot. I am offering this image from the BBC as a suggestion .: https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/504c/live/b6a822b0-45c9-11ef-96a8-e710c6bfc866.jpg.webp

References

What makes you think the copyright position allows it to be used? DeCausa (talk) 15:37, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. I am relatively new to the Wikipedia editing process, hence why I chose to put the requested change on this Talk page.

Perhaps a new image could be found that represents the event better? I will search for one that does not impinge on Wikipedia's copyright restrictions. Texasspeed42 (talk) 15:54, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Copyright is strictly complied with. See WP:Image use policy, WP:COPYVIO and WP:COPYRIGHT. I think it may be difficult to find an image that can be used. The one that you are unhappy with has been uploaded by a user as 'self work' - because they took the photo and own the copyright they can licence the image for use here. That's probably why it's been used. DeCausa (talk) 16:15, 8 August 2024 (UTC)