Talk:Two-tier policing

Inconsistent descriptions of emergence

@Wikociewie: The section headed Genesis of conspiracy theory says the theory emerged in 2019, then says it gained traction in 2012. Bland & Dodd, reporting in the Guardian, say that Tommy Robinson first(?) used the term in 2012. So how can the term that emerged in 2019 already be in use in 2012? The article's explanation is inconsistent with the facts. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 22:00, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

@Cameron Dewe Thank you for spotting that - I've now edited the section to make it clearer. Wikociewie (talk) 07:57, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article is not written neutrally. We cannot describe anything as "draconian" in wikivoice, for one example. Also, the sourcing is quite poor, lots of blogs. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:47, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

The single word I used as an example was removed, but the problem remains. Poor sources, e.g. WP:HUFFPOST, aforementioned blogs are used to say extremely strong statements in Wikivoice with 0 qualification or explanation and immensely loaded words are used abundantly. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:01, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

@PARAKANYAA I've now deleted the word. Nearly all of the sources are from news organisations except for 3: the LSE blog, LFF, and Netpol - which appear to be reliable. Wikociewie (talk) 08:04, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Not all news sources are reliable and you are sourcing extremely contentious statements to Huffpost with 0 qualification or attribution, which is not generally reliable for politics. This still uses very non-neutral terminology. I see no reason why Left Foot Forward is even reliable, much less why it should be used for extremely contentious statements about politics. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:13, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

HuffPost is cited twice to state the use of the phrase by Musk and Tice, neither of which are "extremely contentious statements". I could rephrase it to say "The Huffington Post has reported that Reform UK politician Richard Tice has used the phrase", but I don't really feel attributing a bland statement to the source is necessary.

LFF is cited in the section which covers the history of the term as outlined by the journalist Dearden. The New Arab also reported what Dearden had said and is cited in the same section. Both articles report what Dearden said in her original interview with the BBC, and the section is attributed to her. Wikociewie (talk) 09:05, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

That is contentious in the way you are presenting it and phrasing it, involving living people especially. Huffpost should not be used on this topic this way, per WP:HUFFPOST.

The LFF is used to support "although the journalist Lizzie Dearden has traced the emergence of the term 'two-tier policing' to a later point in 2019, when it began to be used by far-right users of Telegram. From there, the term spread, being taken up by anti-vaxxers during the COVID-19 pandemic and applied to the police handling of the Rochdale child sex abuse ring". This is contentious political information. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:26, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree PARAKANYAA that the article is not written neutrally. I have removed a reference to a citation from Left Foot Forward as I don't think this is a high-quality neutral source. Their website indicates it is a partisan source. Left Foot Forward is described on their website as providing "hard-hitting news and comment, written by and for the UK left. We're here to shine a light on the right, to be a space for open debate among progressives, and to act as an evidence-based balance to the right-wing press."

Why does the lead section not currently state that the term "Two-tier policing" is not just used by the far-right. It has also been used by some on the far-left. The term has also been used by some Conservative MPs (who are not far-right). The Conservative Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp has defended the use of the term "two-tier policing" as legitimate debate. The lead section only focuses on the far-right.

As mainstream Conservative MPs like Philp are defending the use of the term, then it would be more neutral to change the title of this article to "Allegations of two-tier policing" or "Accusations of two-tier policing". The accusations could then be described in a neutral manner, with appropriate rebuttals from those who disagree and object to the accusations of two-tier policing, with their statements that the term is a conspiracy theory, rather than stating "conspiracy theory" in Wiki-voice, as it is clear that some MPs who are not far-right like Philp have defended the term rather than state it is a conspiracy theory. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 06:58, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. tbh honest I'm struggling to see what is actually contentious here (the one example cited previously is clearly attributed to Dearden) and why you're both highlighting LFF in particular. I'm not sure why their intention to "act as an evidence-based balance to the right-wing press" makes them unreliable. If we're quoting from their website they also indicate that they are "transparent" and "Non-partisan: We’re not aligned with any one party." The article in question merely reports on what another journalist has said, in a similar fashion to the other source. Why is LFF a less reliable source than The New Arab? In fact, LFF is regulated by Impress, meaning it adheres to stricter standards than most of the other cited sources in the article. It is clearly a reliable source to be included here.

Yes, Chris Philp is a member of the Conservative's but his defence of people using the term doesn't suddenly mean it's not a conspiracy theory. By comparison, the title of the article on the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory didn't get changed after Suella Braverman used the term, and subsequently defended her use of it. Philp himself has been accused of "normalising the far-right" by Progress, an organisation that by your own logic must be reliable as it was founded by, and its membership is made up of, mainstream Labour MPs.

At the moment the lead section doesn't mention far-left usage of the term because it is used in that context to mean something substantially different - ie: to challenge the factual veracity of the conspiracy theory, rather than to express a conspiracy theory. I also found limited commentary on this in the secondary sources. There could be a new section on the adoption of the term by the left if that would improve the article, although, again, that wouldn't make its use by the far-right any less of a conspiracy theory. Wikociewie (talk) 14:57, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

References

I agree that it is not written neutrality and see that the even the term 'conspiracy theory' is not supported anywhere in the article, so have applied appropriate tags. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:46, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

@DeFacto The term 'conspiracy theory' is the one used by the very sources cited in the section where you've added 'Not verified in body'. If this needs to be repeated in the body of the article too, please do so rather than implying that the description is unsupported. Wikociewie (talk) 21:07, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

@Wikociewie, per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, the sourced article body needs to contain all the sourced information, in this case the information that supports that it is a conspiracy theory. Having done that, that info can be summarised into the lead. Currently, the article body does not show that it is a conspiracy theory. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:24, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

The article body now does. I presume we can now remove the tag. BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:34, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley, I think the tags related to that LEADFOLLOWSBODY problem have now been removed.

For the big POV banner at the head of the article, I think that's the on that was added by PARAKANYAA in this edit in relation to the article in general. I wonder if they have any more thoughts on this. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:19, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Similar articles

The article Law enforcement in the United Kingdom#Allegations of 'two-tier policing' has a brief section covering the topic. This redirect links to that section, which you may want to update to link here: Two-tier policing. Fishsalmon85 (talk) 10:24, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

I have updated the redirect. --gilgongo (talk) 08:30, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I have also proposed on the talk page for that article that the section dealing with two-tier policing be summaried and content merged into this article. gilgongo (talk) 06:56, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Requested move 21 July 2026

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Consensus against the current title. As editors who supported the move pointed out, titles that contain "conspiracy theory" are a WP:POVTITLE. For such a title to be accepted one of two things needs to be true; either the common name of the topic includes "conspiracy theory", or there is a consensus in reliable sources that the topic is a "conspiracy theory".

In this case, neither of these were proven; editors made unsupported assertions, and only a couple of the sources provided in this discussion referred to the topic as a "conspiracy theory" or similar.

As such, while editors opposing a move are more numerous, when we assess the quality of the arguments given, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy, there is a consensus against the current title.

However, that doesn't mean there is a consensus for the proposed title, but in the absence of consensus for a specific title, I have moved it there per WP:NOGOODOPTIONS. Editors are free to propose a move to a different new title at any time.

Editors also raised the possibility of recasting the article to cover all aspects of discriminatory policing; this may be an appropriate way forwards and can be accomplished through normal editing. Some of the sources provided in the discussion would support that. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 02:44, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

---

Two-tier policing conspiracy theory → Two-tier policing – As per WP:POVNAMING, the current title is non-neutral. It would be sensible to just move it to the more succinct "Two-tier policing" and leave off the WP:WEIGHTed surplusage. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 06:43, 21 July 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 11:26, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Support: Due to the reasons stated above by The C of E, I support the requested move. Or if this requested move is not supported, I think the title of this article should be changed from the non-neutral "Two-tier policing conspiracy theory" to the more neutral "Allegations of two-tier policing". Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 09:52, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Support as The C of E, move to "Two-tier policing" per WP:POVNAMING. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:34, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:DUE and WP:FRNG. WikipediholicRat (talk) 15:36, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

That it is a "conspiracy theory" isn't supported in Wiki's voice in article. What we see in the article is that "two-tier policing" is used literally in political discourse in the UK to describe situations where the police force are thought to be applying the law unequally, treating certain groups, political causes, ethnicities or demographics more harshly or less harshly than others. Sure, there are some groups who deny that there are such inequalities, and try to smear the term by calling it a conspiracy theory. We need to be aware of WP:NPOV, and not portray one side's view as if fact. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:31, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Oppose not sure i like the firsf name but the second is too broad and general for whatever this article describes. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 15:55, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Two tier Kier might be a marginally better name? User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 16:01, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Support, the sourcing on the conspiracy theory claim aren't even reliable or are barely reliable. Blogs and HuffPost, really? PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:12, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

It cites The Times, Guardian, and a criminology study. Yr Enw (talk) 11:35, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Oppose. There is is no such thing as two tier policing. It’s a false narrative so we shouldn’t give it an article. Cf Great Replacement conspiracy theory, Chemtrail conspiracy theory, Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, White genocide conspiracy theory, Spygate (conspiracy theory), New World Order conspiracy theory, LGBTQ grooming conspiracy theory as examples of articles for terms that don’t refer to real things but to conspiracy narratives. If editors feel the qualifier is too strong, an alternative title might be Two-tier policing narrative or similar. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:03, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Oppose This is more of a sourcing problem than one of NPOV. There are three citations from RSs in the article for the term “conspiracy theory”. If anything, this needs to be more explicitly cited in the lede. Yr Enw (talk) 11:32, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Oppose. The proposed title would serve to legitimise false claims being made by fringe political groups, claims that are also of dubious sincerity. Unless the article is fundamentally recast to to cover all aspects of discriminatory policing the move proposal is a non-starter. It could even be argued that it would hijack a title that might later be needed for a more genuine topic. While the article is about the silly (but unfortunately notable) claims that white conservative men are treated disproportionately harshly by the police, the current title is correct. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:41, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Oppose. As others have now pointed out two-tier policing is false narrative of the far-right. The whole discussion on NPOV seems to confuse neutral editing with neutral content. Wikociewie (talk) 14:35, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Oppose This isn't a real thing, so the article title should reflect that, and the title in line with other similar articles as per BobFromBrockley. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:59, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

The name of the article should definitely not reflect something that doesn't exist according to reliable sources, see Cdjp1's comment. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:46, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

If narrative is going to be used it should be "false narrative" per the sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:46, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose we should clearly describe conspiracy theories as such per WP:FRINGE. Simonm223 (talk) 18:59, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose Calling it a conspiracy is backed up by WP:RS, so therefore not POV. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:20, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose - per BobFromBrockley and DanielRigal. RS do not treat this as an actual occurrence, so titling the article in line with how similar such claims are titled seems fair. Though on the specific phrasing of conspiracy, there seems to be a lack of sources that explicitly call it such, so a move to terminology more frequently found in sources would seem necessary such as "accusations" or "misinformation". -- Cdjp1 (talk) 13:10, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

  For sourcing, see . -- Cdjp1 (talk) 08:43, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support. "Conspiracy theory" is not part of the WP:COMMONNAME and there is an incredibly high bar to put "conspiracy theory" in wikivoice anywhere. Too much original research going on in this discussion. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:41, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

  By that criteria, many other article titles would also need to be moved, no? gilgongo (talk) 14:08, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Comment – Please have mercy on an RM closer and be clear about what sources you are referring to in your comments. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 00:22, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Ended up involving myself. Whoops. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 20:14, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Move to Two tier policing narrative, sourcing isn't strong enough atm to have "conspiracy theory" in the title (we don't even say it in wikivoice), and there's no PAG-based support from WP:AT/WP:CRITERIA for all the other articles titled with "conspiracy theory" either AFAIK (WP:DESCRIPTIVE isn't met). But we probably shouldn't title them as just the name of the theory; from an educational standpoint we shouldn't lend credence in a way that sources don't (though WP:POVNAME would contradict that), and it's understandable that editors want to invalidate misinformation/spin. "Narrative" is a much better term for when "conspiracy theory" isn't stated in wikivoice (and possibly even for when it is) since it doesn't lend credence and still gets readers reflexively thinking about the function without being judgemental (per WP:DESCRIPTIVE, the only AT PAG that could conceivably support the status quo AFAIK). Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 07:16, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. The term "conspiracy theory" is used in titles for various articles such as chemtrails, pizzagate, white genocide, and many others. I don't think it necessarily means the idea is false, but simply that it is presented as a conspiracy, which surely isn't controvertial in this case because its proponents clearly state that the police are working in secret to bring about unjust or illegal outcomes contrary to their ostensible role.

gilgongo (talk) 16:41, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisting comment: I'd say there is consensus against it being POV, but the separate WP:COMMONNAME argument brought up by Thebiguglyalien can't be ignored, as whether or not the current descriptive title is neutral becomes a moot point if there is a common name. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 11:26, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that can be squared with other common names such as 'chemtrails', 'pizzagate', 'white genocide' etc., all of which articles have "conspiracy theory" in their titles. gilgongo (talk) 14:03, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

@Gilgongo, could it be that, unlike with this article, their articles support that they actually are conspiracy theories? If they don't, then they probably need reviewing. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:14, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

What I mean regarding WP:COMMONNAME is that we don't call it "unfair policing" or "selective policing", for example. So we're compliant there. But the addition of "conspiracy theory" in the title is common to wikivoice. Whether or not the article content needs updating is a separate discussion. gilgongo (talk) 15:36, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I have to admit there seems to be some strangeness going on with conspiracy theory articles in that their titles are appending "conspiracy theory" to common names. The term "Pizzagate" should not be used in a descriptive title at all, as the suffix -gate is charged language. A descriptive title should be something along the lines of "Comet Ping Pong child trafficking conspiracy theory". "Pizzagate" should only be used if it is part of a common name, so unless the common name is literally "Pizzagate conspiracy theory" it doesn't make sense to have the article there.

That, however, is a matter to be dealt with in other RMs. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 16:55, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I think that as long as the title contains the common name (it would be hard to argue that 'pizzagate' isn't the common term for what it describes, any more than 'two-tier policing' isn't), the addition of 'conspiracy theory' here seems warranted in terms of NPV if only becuase that is how its proponents present the idea: a secret plan to go against what is supposed to happen. So would not calling it 'two-tier policing' on its own imply it's an acknowleged phenomenon by all sides? gilgongo (talk) 17:38, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

No, not necessarily. If reliable sources are calling this idea "two-tier policing" while rejecting it then I find it hard to ignore the common name argument. In a situation where we have a conspiracy theory with a clear common name, say "X", then making the article title "X conspiracy theory" risks readers thinking the article is about something else, such as a conspiracy theory about X or an egregious or incorrect version of what they are under the impression is an otherwise valid theory. You'd want the title to clearly say "X" and the short description "conspiracy theory" to get the point across that the article is about X, which is a conspiracy theory.

Also I should have noted that Pizzagate and two-tier policing are somewhat different in that "Two-tier policing conspiracy theory" is a valid descriptive title, whereas "Pizzagate conspiracy theory" is not a valid descriptive title as it uses unnecessary charged language. I have looked into it further and there are a few more conspiracy theory articles like this, which I haven't thought about before. There are also ones like QAnon, which is an outright insane piece of conspiratorial nonsense but does not have "conspiracy theory" in the title. I don't really know why these articles are the way they are, but I will look into addressing it. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 18:09, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I would like to note that 7 days have passed. WikipediholicRat (talk) 14:43, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Just above 7.17 days to be exact. WikipediholicRat (talk) 14:48, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Comments: BBC News states: "Two-tier policing is a term used to describe the idea that some groups of people, or some behaviour (for example protests and demonstrations) are dealt with more harshly, more robustly, than others by law enforcement."

BBC News also states: "Senior police figures have strongly rejected the claim."

Sky News states: "The term two-tier policing has been used to suggest that police have been more heavy handed with people on the right of the political spectrum than the left."

Those are two of the UK's major broadcast news organisations, BBC News and Sky News, who describe Two-tier policing as a "term" or a "claim" rather than as a "conspiracy theory". I don't think that "conspiracy theory" is part of the WP:COMMONNAME in the UK. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 23:51, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Support per WP:COMMONNAME. After reviewing the sources I don't see how Two-tier policing isn't just a straight-up common name for this conspiracy theory. Sure, it's not a real phenomenon, but it's clearly still a real subject matter with a straightforward common name. There is no need to make this a descriptive title when we have a common name, and we don't need to naturally disambiguate the article.

I don't buy the idea that having the title be the common name somehow legitimizes the subject at all (even if it did it wouldn't matter; common names can be non-neutral); the short description and the first sentence say conspiracy theory. Readers aren't going to get confused and think it's a real phenomenon. If anything, adding "conspiracy theory" to the title risks people confusing the subject of the article to be a conspiracy theory about two-tier policing.

I've also explored Category:Conspiracy theories and most of the cases where "conspiracy theory" is tacked on are either actually descriptive titles or need to be disambiguated, with a few exceptions that I think should also be changed. Most conspiracy theories with a common name have their titles at that common name, so this move would be consistent with that. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 20:12, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Description in lead

Currently we have [...]treating white men or conservatives more harshly or less harshly than others. I do not think this is balanced with respect to the content or sources, which attribute the term primarily or entirely to the right-wing/far-right. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 12:09, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Concur. We need to be clear we're dealing with a right-wing propaganda term that does the ol' rhetorical awitcheroo on Institutional racism. Simonm223 (talk) 12:35, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree. The first part of the original lead read:

"Two-tier policing is a British far-right and fascist conspiracy theory which claims that the police force are institutionally biased against the white population of the United Kingdom. The conspiracy theory has been described as an example of white grievance and reverse victimhood, whereby the draconian policing of left-wing political movements and the disproportional overpolicing of black and working-class communities is denied, instead being falsely attributed as a feature of the policing of far-right movements."

This was edited down to the current lead by other editors in an effort to make it more neutral. The original probably could have done with some editing but I feel it now just isn't sufficiently representing the sources or the fact that the term is used to refer to the white British population, rather than "white men", and the policing of far-right movements, rather than "conservatives". Wikociewie (talk) 14:45, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I missed that change. Until the article develops support for anything else, I prefer the more neutral version that preceded that:

Two-tier policing is a term used where it is believed that the police force are applying the law unequally, treating certain groups, political causes, ethnicities or demographics more harshly or less harshly than others.

-- DeFacto (talk). 15:03, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

This is more imprecise and would also encompass Institutional racism in the Metropolitan Police and the wider concept of Police brutality, which are outside of the scope of the particular “two-tier” narrative. Yr Enw (talk) 15:27, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

This is the exact balance problem I am talking about, but turned up to 11. It is in no way a neutral summary of the article. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 15:29, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Yup. The police treating different groups differently is well documented. This article is however about a specific topic: claims from some right-wing sources that the police systematically treat them, and/or white people in general more harshly. This claim has been characterised by multiple reliable sources as a conspiracy theory, and that is what the lede needs to say. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:39, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Agree. We should probably review more sources to determine whether “white”, “far right”, “white conservative”, or other terms are the best to use. Of the current citations in the article, the journal article says “white far-right”, Guardian says “far-right”, and Times (the bit outside the paywall anyway) says “white working class”. Yr Enw (talk) 15:42, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Is it more, or less? This is the first thing I noticed..."Two-tier policing is a term used in the United Kingdom where it is believed that the police force are applying the law unequally, treating white men or conservatives more harshly or less harshly than others". Cheers. DN (talk) 01:01, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Agree. The old version was OTT and POV, but the new (De Facto) version is balanced into meaninglessness BobFromBrockley (talk) 23:58, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

There is no 'balance' in DeFacto's version. It serves no purpose other than to obscure the topic of the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:01, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

It is no longer 'my' version, that was replaced a day or two ago, and is no longer neutral. The lead is supposed to summarise what the readers will find in the article. Currently the article content does not present "two-tier policing" as being undisputedly a conspiracy theory.

"Two-tier policing" is a phrase which some people take at face value as legitimate criticism of what they see happening around them, and others dismiss as a right-wing conspiracy theory and even being specific that it only applies to white men and conservatives. In recent history the accusation has been used in much broader terms than those, and we need to cover them all.

We cannot present the view of just one small segment of the political spectrum as being the only true view. WP:NPOV says:

"Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements in wikivoice".

We need to present all takes in the article and only then can we accurately summarise the article into a neutral lead. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:22, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Which facts are being “seriously contested” ? And which reliable sources are making conflicting assertions ? Yr Enw (talk) 10:38, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Facts are facts, and should be substantiated by reliable sources. The problem that we have here is the use of the term "conspiracy theory" in relation to the "two-tier policing" term. We can justify saying some people allege that it is such a theory, but we cannot say, in Wiki's voice, that it is one as an assertion of fact. In the article we have the term being used in its literal sense in allegations of policing bias and we have it referred to as a conspiracy theory by others. The two uses conflict and we have to be neutral and not take sides by promoting one use as an argument against the allegations implied by the other use. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:30, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

We need to follow what the reliable sources say, not our whims. What do the reliable sources say? The article cited 3 that used the term conspiracy theory last I checked it. Do you have RSs that explicitly dispute the “conspiracy” label? Yr Enw (talk) 18:05, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

I think it’s a conspiracy theory, but to have that in the title or the first sentence we need not just for that not to be contested but for that to be how the overwhelming preponderance of reliable sources describe it. However, I think it is the case that the overwhelming preponderance of reliable sources to make it clear that it is a false narrative, even if they don’t use the word conspiracy theory. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:22, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

This source pops up saying that two tier policing exists, but in the manner that peaceful protests and violent protests are policed differently. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:59, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

I think there needs to be a name that actually is commonly used for what this is, a name that people know exactly what the article is supposed to be about. I still stand by “two tier kier”, User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 22:24, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Two tier Keir is a much narrower and more ephemeral topic BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:28, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

@Yr Enw, there are several sources in the 'Comments' section, and I've just added another, that give opinions that two-tier policing is real, and one with evidence from police guidance. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:16, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

The “police guidance evidence” source (Times) doesn’t say it’s real and the content you added from that is confusing and cherrypicked. Those comments don’t seem due to me. BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:29, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

The "all sides represented equally" view is not necessarily policy, but it is often misconstrued and misapplied. It is meant to be a backstop from eliminating all dissent, especially reasonable minority views with WEIGHT. Cheers. DN (talk) 01:08, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

I think bfb meant false balance if im reading the comment correctly? User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 21:46, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

It wasn't false balance though given the current content of the article. The lead should summarise the article body as it exists, nothing more, and certainly not our own personal understanding or the understanding in sources that have not been used in the article.

If there is missing reliably sourced content that could be added to the article, then feel free to add it. But absent content can't be reflected in the lead, obviously. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:25, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

A selection of RS from a quick scrap that are more so discussing the concept than particular instances of the claim:

1. https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2026/0611/uk-henry-nowak-two-tier-policing-southampton-belfast
2. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdjkl8wk1l4o
3. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/jun/05/how-two-tier-policing-notion-evolved-does-it-really-exist
4. https://news.sky.com/story/uk-riots-what-does-two-tier-policing-mean-and-does-it-exist-13191977
5. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/the-truth-about-two-tier-policing/
6. https://www.aljazeera.com/video/newsfeed/2026/6/4/what-is-the-uks-two-tier-policing-debate
7. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/07/05/policing-must-return-to-peelian-principles/
8. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/uk-riots-two-tier-policing-meaning-farage-starmer-b2591786.html
9. https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/two-tier-policing-met-police-chief-keir-starmer-riots-b1174915.html
10. https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2024/08/09/what-is-two-tier-policing
11. https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/what-is-two-tier-policing-and-does-it-exist-uk-riots-questions-answered-4732643
12. https://inews.co.uk/news/two-tier-policing-misinformation-far-right-riots-fact-checked-3438779

Most news articles seem to follow the pattern of "Person made an accusation of two-tier policing" and "Person denies two-tier policing occurs", with little analysis on whether the accusations or denials concur with what occurs. Then there are the opinion pieces which are migraine-inducing levels of ridiculous logic, such as one in a prominent RS where the author argues because the Metropolitan police have official documents about reducing racism within the police force, this proves that two-tier policing exists. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:26, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

The thing is though, that it doesn't matter what sources sy if they aren't used in the article. The lead reflects the article body and the article body reflects the sources used. If there is content missing from the body it needs to be added there before it can be reflected in the lead. See WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:34, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Up until now youve been making an argument based on NPOV, but now it seems you’re doing so on WP:LEDE instead? Yr Enw (talk) 04:40, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not saying that the LEDE should not follow the body. What I am suggesting is we take RS, such as those I've pulled in the scrape to help build the article. As looking at RS that discuss and analyse the claim of two-tier policing in itself, will help make a better article than building it from articles that follow the pattern of "Person made an accusation of two-tier policing" and "Person denies two-tier policing occurs", and then from such an article it will be clearer how the lede should be written. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 08:41, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

@Yr Enw, well only to remind us that the lead should reflect the article body content and should not supplant it - it even says: "Don't try to update the lead first, hoping to provide direction for future changes to the body". That obviously doesn't replace the need to stick to all the other policies and guidelines too, including NPOV, DUE and OR. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:32, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps it would helpful to workshop an alternative lead. The present sources all indicate "far-right" specifically, so that should probably go in there. A great many evidently feel "conspiracy theory" needs to be specifically stated also, but to get this right, we should undertake an assessment of the sources. The term is used by (to my count) at least 6 of the currently-cited sources:

1. Guardian (Aug 6, 2024)

2. LSE (Aug 15, 2024; consensus so far is that this source is reliable: )

3. New Humanitarian (Aug 7., 2024)

4. i News (Oct 21, 2024)

5. The Sunday Times (Aug 7, 2024)

6. Prospect (Aug 16, 2024) & the author's corresponding book chapter

(possibly) 7. The New Arab (Aug 7, 2024) which says it is "The narrative is broadly tied in with sinister conspiracy theories". Yr Enw (talk) 06:18, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

No, as we saw above, WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY says: Don't try to update the lead first, hoping to provide direction for future changes to the body. If there is more useful stuff in those sources, it needs to be covered in the article body. Then, as the article matures, we could look to keeping the lead in line with it. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:42, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

I am not disputing WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. I am stating that the lead already needs to be rewritten based on the sources in the article, which all say "far-right" specifically and so that should probably be put in there. Yr Enw (talk) 09:51, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, and what I'm saying is that if it's in the source, but not in the article body, it is not eligible for the lead - the body needs to be updated first. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:59, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

There are, I think, at least 3 sources cited using that term specifically in the body - 2 Guardian articles, the BBC, and Byline Times. I may be missing some.Yr Enw (talk) 10:10, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Could there be enough then to summarise it as something like 'some hold the opinion that it is far-right terminology'? -- DeFacto (talk). 12:58, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate your willingness to engage. I think “some” obscures the fact that none of the sources cited in the body dispute this, however, and few reliable sources I’ve found (whether cited here or not) are disputing its almost-exclusive prevalence on the far-right. Although some politicians might say otherwise, theyre not - of course - RSs for our sake. I think it would be remiss if we don’t better reflect this in the body. Yr Enw (talk) 13:05, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

We really need to avoid laundering conspiracy theories. We need to be explicit. Simonm223 (talk) 13:37, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

The absence of sources saying it is not far-right terminology doesn't add weight to the sources that say it is far-right. Wouldn't the logical extension to that be that if we could find a source that says it is Ingsoc terminology, but no sources that say that it isn't, we could assert "it is Ingsoc" terminology" in Wiki's voice? Doesn't that sound ridiculous to you? -- DeFacto (talk). 13:41, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

We should not be creating the appearance of a debate when there is none, especially not when dealing with issues related to far-right politics. Like, once again, Antisemite and Jew should be seen as a required basic read for people looking to edit topics related to far-right discourse. It's alarming the number of people who take far-right WP:ABOUTSELF statements as if they were dependable. Simonm223 (talk) 13:46, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand that reply to my post. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:13, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

What groups? Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Proposals for lede

Arising out of the above discussion, but leaving aside the "conspiracy theory" wording debate, I think it might be useful to have a more formal thread for sorting through the differing proposals for how we formulate the definition in the lede. Currently, we have:

Two-tier policing is a term used in the United Kingdom where it is believed that the police force are applying the law unequally, treating certain groups, political causes, ethnicities or demographics more harshly or less harshly than others.

There is a subtle distinction to be made when defining this term between who it's used by (for which, all the present sources so far seem to say "right" or "far-right"), and who is reportedly victimised by its practice (currently the "certain groups, political causes, ethnicities or demographics", which appear from the sources to refer to either conservatives and white people more broadly). There seem to be 4 potential options here for how we reflect this (but feel free to correct me and I can amend):

A Keep lede as is (no mention of far-right, conservative, or white in any way)

B Specify origins and use of term amongst far-right, but keep "certain groups, political causes, ethnicities or demographics" general

C Do not mention origins and use of term amongst far-right, but specify those who are reportedly victimised by its practice (whether conservative, far-right, or white)

D Specify both far-right origins and use, and purported victimhood of conservative and/or white people

My preference is D, as the sources all attribute this to the far-right and majority specify purported "white" victimhood specifically. Yr Enw (talk) 06:35, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

@Yr Enw, according to WP:LEAD:

The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article, in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. The reason for a topic's noteworthiness should be established, or at least introduced, in the lead.

Editors should avoid lengthy paragraphs and overly specific descriptions – greater detail is saved for the body of the article. Where possible, avoid difficult-to-understand terminology, symbols, mathematical equations and formulas

For those reasons, I think we should concentrate on developing the article content before trying to set the lead in stone like this. As the article develops the lead will evolve.

WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY reinforces this, it says:

The sequence in which you edit should usually be: body first, lead second. Several editors might work on the body of the article, with another updating the lead once the new content has stabilized. Don't try to update the lead first, hoping to provide direction for future changes to the body.

Good ways to summarize material usually only become clear after it has been written. If you add a new point to the lead before it's covered in the body, you only think you know what the body will eventually contain.

So let's leave it as it is for now and concentrate on developing a worthy article first. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:08, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

You have raised this objection before and I have stated I do not dispute what WP:LEAD says. We are already at the point where there is plenty in the body already about both the far right origins and conservative use of this term and the fact it is used by them specifically to refer to perceived white or right wing victimhood. Accordingly, I don’t think it does any service to the topic to kick the problem down the line. If you’re worried it will prove to be inaccurate, as the sources develop and reveal something new, and the body changes subsequently, of course we can just amend the lede as appropriate. Yr Enw (talk) 10:10, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Yr Enw here - WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY is best supported by option D presently. The body describes, in detail that it is a far-right term that is built around white grievance and that they specifically saw police treatment of anti-vaxxers as unequal compared to Black Lives Matter. Everything in D is supported by the body. A is not supported by the body. Simonm223 (talk) 11:21, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Exactly what Simonm223 says. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:32, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree that D is the best. I've edited the lead WP:BOLDly; if others wish to refine or change this then please go ahead. GnocchiFan (talk) 06:28, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Update: Okay, so this has been open almost a week and there is general consensus towards D, so I will draft some wording for consideration in the next couple of days. Yr Enw (talk) 05:24, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Proposed wording::

"Two-tier policing" is a term predominantly used by the far-right in the United Kingdom that alleges police treat white people more harshly than ethnic minorities. The term gained prominence during the 2024 United Kingdom riots and following the police response to the murder of Henry Novak.

Rationale:

- Although the Brixton origins are interesting and worth having in the article, based on the current sources, it's not notable enough to mention in the lede

- I've also said "predominantly used by" instead of "originating on" the far-right to recognise Brixton, nevertheless, but also to anticipate counterarguments that the article mentions non-far-right figures who have steered into this terminology. That is true, but "predominant" is supported by the weighting of the sources, all of which (minus the BBC, which says "right-wing") mention far-right specifically

- "White" is used because it is the common denominator in the sources; there is also scope for "right-wing" or indeed "far-right", which editors might prefer? This is the most difficult part to settle on, however, because of the somewhat schizophrenic way it is used by different actors. Open to suggestions Yr Enw (talk) 06:16, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

@Yr Enw, thanks for taking the initiative on this. Let's refer to the applicable policies/guidelines/essays and see how we can build on your initial suggestion.

WP:ISATERMFOR frowns on leads starting "Is a term...".

Per WP:LEAD, the lead's first sentence should...:

introduce the topic, and tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where. It should be in plain English.

give a concise definition: where possible, one that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist.

and we should not...:

overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject., and instead, spread the relevant information out over the entire lead.

and its opening paragraph should...:

define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific.

establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it.

establish the boundaries of the topic; for example, the lead for the article List of environmental issues succinctly states that the list covers "harmful aspects of human activity on the biophysical environment".

Bearing all that in mind, if we drop the "is a term" and neutrally identify the whole topic, including usage by the left, and remember that it is used against the criminal justice system in general - not just the police, for the first sentence. Then we could elaborate a bit to cover the other main and developing content in the following sentences. I note too that latter day usage by those on the right does not exclusively involve only the "far-right". This could give us something like this:

Two-tier policing is an allegation used in the United Kingdom that the criminal justice system treats certain groups, political causes, ethnicities or demographics more harshly or more leniently than others. The term has its origins in the 1980s, being used to allege that the police were racially biased against ethnic minorities. Since 2024, the term has predominantly been used by those on the right in alleging that the police treat white people more harshly than ethnic minorities.

What do you think? -- DeFacto (talk). 17:14, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I take your point about WP:ISATERMFOR, but we must recognise that two-tier policing is a term, and to say more than that risks endorsing its ontological claims without evidence. Of course, we also already have Institutional racism in the Metropolitan Police, Institutional_racism#United Kingdom, and Race and crime in the United Kingdom. If we follow the "race card" example in WP:ISATERMFOR, we could say phrase? Although we could use your "is an allegation".

On the point you raise about MOS:OPEN, I don't think it would do justice to the body, nor the topic generally, to avoid specificity simply for the sake of it. Per WP:LEAD, my proposed wording is nonspecialist, and does not overload the first sentence?

I am also concerned your counter-proposal gives far too much weight to the one source tracing it to the Brixton riots. The sourcing at present does not support such due focus on alternative uses. This, of course, does not preclude things changing if and when expansion of the sources in the body support it, but at the moment it's not WP:DUE per MOS:LEADPROPORTION.

Further, your proposed wording risks minimising predominant usage on the (far-)right by reducing it to a sentence at the end, which potentially goes against the consensus of editors in this thread. I also think "Since 2024" unnecessarily obscures the fact that it was being used on the (far-)right in 2012 and 2021/22 as well, as this article already explains, which is why I propose mentioning 2024 as the moment it gained prominence. Yr Enw (talk) 18:31, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

@DeFacto any thoughts? Yr Enw (talk) 09:39, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

@Yr Enw, yes. The specificity depends on context. To stay neutral we need to be cognisant of that and not give recent usage undue weight. DUE and LEADPROPORTION apply to opinions and not facts. Facts are facts and if it was used in Brixton that fact cannot be diminished because it was 40+ years ago. Similarly for it specific uses - they have happened. The lead should apply equally and neutrally to all contexts. WP:RECENTISM says: "Some Wikipedia articles tend to focus on recent events. Wikipedia has been praised for the way it deals with current news breaks. Nevertheless, it is appropriate to be aware of balance and historical perspective". I stand by my proposed wording. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:05, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

If we're talking about Brixton, I don't think there can really be much argument the single mention is WP:DUE. Like I said, if sources expand and the body reflects that, it's a different story but - to reiterate something you have said earlier - the lead should follow the body as it presently is. And, at present, the single use in a single source tracing it back before the 2010s is not proportionate.

I am also not clear how your distinction between opinions and facts translates here, because by that supposed logic every single fact about a topic should then appear in a lede?

I think we can make some headway regarding "is a term" and I am quite content with "is an allegation" instead, which would give us:

"Two-tier policing" is an allegation predominantly used by the far-right in the United Kingdom alleging police treat white people more harshly than ethnic minorities. The term gained prominence during the 2024 United Kingdom riots and following the police response to the murder of Henry Novak.

If you don't agree with my other points enough to warrant reworking your own proposal accordingly, then I think this is going to get stuck and we'll either have to look at WP:THIRD or an RfC more broadly, given other editors had been involved in this earlier. Yr Enw (talk) 17:17, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

As I said above, your version suffers from WP:RECENTISM. It ignores the use before 2024, so I would say that's not a good lead. The term entered the public lexicon long before that. Your version suggests the term is exclusively used against the police which is not the case. We can do better than that. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:44, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I think the argument for WP:RECENTISM doesn't apply here because we're referring to a single reference to the Brixton riots from a source we're not even sure is reliable enough to include. Also the proposed lede says "gained prominence" which, according to the sources, I think could possibly be taken back to 2019 but in no way is there any evidence that this phrase has historical prominence beyond that. Wikociewie (talk) 21:05, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Strongly agree it’s not recentist to not mention Brixton in the lead given only one (weak) source mentions it and all the others go back to the 2010s. When the narrative gained prominence is lead worthy not the possible first use. BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:08, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

@Wikociewie, @Bobfrombrockley, I've found that another source used in the article supports what The Lead said about the term being used with respect to Brixton, so added a sentence sourced to it. So it seems The Lead was correct about that. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:53, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Seems solid. But I still don’t see it as due in lead. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:58, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I think the proposed lede works, although I would prefer it to say 'phrase' or 'term' instead of allegation, as that's what it is. However, I think 'predominantly' should be removed as the two sources suggesting that it was used by both the far-right and far-left (the Police Oracle and The Lead) are both currently being proposed for editing out as unreliable sources. Wikociewie (talk) 21:13, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I’d support “allegation” (or claim, narrative, theory or some other similar term), both per WP:ISATERMFOR (as correctly

raised by DeFacto) and because this article is about the narrative or allegation, not the specific wording (cf Great replacement, reverse racism, cultural Marxism, white genocide, whose first sentences say things like “is a concept”

or “is a theory” not “is a term”). In fact, I’d remove the “term” in the second sentence and use “claim”, “allegation” or similar there too. Apart from that, I support Yr Enw proposal strongly. BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:16, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

The phrase is a term with a literal definition though, and not necessarily always part of an allegation. Sure it can be used in making an allegation too, so saying "the term has been used to allege...", or similar, is the best way to explain that. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:00, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Further reading

@Wikociewie, in this edit you restored the 'further reading' section. In your edit summary you said as their appears to be no rationale for this edit. I had removed it in this edit with the edit summary: per WP:Further reading, which was the rationale for the edit.

Did you read WP:Further reading? There are several reasons given in that which justified the removal of those two 'further reading' links. Please self-revert your edit as the summary fails WP:SUMMARYNO as it was misleading, and if you still dispute my reasoning, please bring your rationale here and we can discuss it further. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:58, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I have read WP:Further reading and couldn't work out why that meant the section in the article had to be deleted? Please help me out and I'll revert it back. Wikociewie (talk) 19:51, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

One of the two items in the list didn't mention 'two-tier policing' and the other wasn't neutral, so they fail the WP:Further reading's 'topical' and 'neutral' considerations, at least. With no entries, there is no point keeping the 'Further reading' section. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:31, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Both items mention two-tier policing; the first link is to a Guardian podcast with two-tier policing in its title and the second a report by the Institute of Race Relations about the 2024 riots (covered in the body of the article) that also discusses two-tier policing; ie. "An intense media debate, fuelled by the far Right as well as certain politicians, was taking place, revolving around claims of ‘two-tier policing’..."

I think there's some confusion about the neutrality policy here which means neutral editing, not neutral content. Wikociewie (talk) 10:42, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

@Wikociewie, sorry, you are correct that they do both mention it - I didn't realise that I had to download something more from the linked article from the Institute of Race Relations. I agree that we keep that one. Perhaps the link should be to the actual publication.

As for the one from The Guardian, that is certainly not neutral. We are not talking about the NPOV policy here, we are looking at WP:Further reading which says that Works named in this section should present a neutral view of the subject, or, if works of a particular point of view are presented, the section should present a balance of various points of view. Sure it refers to NPOV for a definition of 'neutral', but that doesn't invalidate the spirit of what is being said. The linked work is not neutral and we do not balance it with another article, so I think we we should drop it. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:02, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

WP:Further reading is an essay not policy. Both those links are extremely informative deep dives totally appropriate to the FR section. BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:41, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Revert against consensus

De Facto, you do not own this page. The consensus on the talk page does not support your revert:

• the consensus above is that the lead should mention both far-right origins and use, and purported victimhood of conservative and/or white people
• you have not persuaded editors that we should use only the word “term” and not, where RSs use it, words such as “claim” and “concept” (or “theory”, “allegation”, “narrative”, etc)
• you boldly undid Yr Enw’s edit that accurately rendered the article by The Lead. It is spurious to say that because their two sentences (linked with the word “but”) are separated by a line break we need to place several paragraphs between the two halves of the quote.

Additionally,

• the article in The Lead explicitly describes the far right “co-opting” the term. Erasing that misrepresents this source.
• it makes no sense to separate origins and adoption in two arbitrary sections
• it makes no sense to place the Henry Novak material within the “Assessments” section when it is a key part of the adoption and mainstreaming of the concept
• the word “recasting” in the subheading is confusing and I don’t see it anchored in any source.

BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:20, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I should just say (anticipating this being raised by Defacto in response) that there were problems with the version of the lede that they reverted (which you restored), which is why I did not undo that revert in the first place. I figured waiting for the outcome of the above discussion on this Talk page would sidestep the need to engage with it. But, yes, agree that softening the "co-opt" term is one of many edits of late that seem to obfuscate the predominantly far-right use of this term. Their "contradictory accounts of the term's origins" claim could be WP:PUSH. If, of course, this keeps up once some of these issues have been hashed out above, then perhaps WP:AN/I is appropriate, but let's see. Yr Enw (talk) 20:39, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley, none of us own the page, which is why I boldly reverted your bold mass-changes. We need to consider each change carefully in a topic such as this. I reverted to the status quo version, which should be the starting point for any discussions. Yes, there are open discussions above, but until they have been properly closed (preferably by an uninvolved editor) it is wrong to second-guess their outcome, and worse to push through your own opinions.

As there are different reliably sourced versions of the origin of the term, it make sense to discuss them in an early section. Different views about how the term has been adopted should follow that. "Recasting" means the changing interpretation of term, which is what has happened with time.

We need to follow WP:NPOV and treat all reliably sourced content with due weight, and not ignore or pretend stuff that we disagree with does not exist. Where there is contradictions in the sources we should treat them as different opinions, not as one is true and the other is invalid.

I can answer your other questions later if you think I've missed anything significant, but I don't have time now as other matters are more pressing.

PS, your ping didn't work as my user name has no space in it. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:20, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Apologies for the failed ping DeFacto. You did not revert to the status quo version but to your own last edit, which obviously had not had time to receive consensus by default. (The lead content you removed was added by GnocchiFan on 29 July.) The status quo version would be that of 19 July before these disagreements broke out. Why didn’t you revert to that version?

As there are different reliably sourced versions of the origin of the term, it make sense to discuss them in an early section. Different views about how the term has been adopted should follow that. Yes, that’s exactly what my edit did, making sure the section was chronological and removing an arbitrary division between origins and adoptions.

[We need to] not ignore or pretend stuff that we disagree with does not exist. Where there is contradictions in the sources we should treat them as different opinions, not as one is true and the other is invalid. Agree, and nowhere in my edit did I ignore or pretend anything doesn’t exist or cover up any contradictions. Can you point to how you think my edit did any of these things?

"Recasting" means the changing interpretation of term, which is what has happened with time. Who do you think has “recast” it and what is your source for saying that there has been a “recasting”? This seems at best OR, which seems also to undermine the reliable sources’ explication of the narrative. BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:11, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley, just to correct your first paragraph there. All my edit did was, as said in my edit summary, to undo your heavy set of edits back to the 3 August version. I didn't undo contributions from any other editors. That's a normal "BRD" "D" step.

I'll address your other comments later. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:30, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Ok, so you acknowledge that when you said “I reverted to the status quo version” you were incorrect BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:42, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Quite the contrary. It is you who was wrong when you said You did not revert to the status quo version but to your own last edit. I did go back to what was coincidentally my last edit, but more importantly it was also what I saw to be the status quo. I have since realised that the older edit that I reverted wasn't part of the sequence that I was targeting, so I have restored that one as as mentioned here in my earlier post. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:18, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

But it literally was your own last edit you restored, wasn’t it? Which was the culmination of a sequence of edits in which you, among other things, undid Yr Enw‘a edits. If you wanted to restore the status quo, why not restore the 19 July stable version? BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:02, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTSTUCK: "Once discussion has begun, restoring one's original edit without taking other users' concerns into account may be seen as disruptive". It would be helpful if you did please take other users' concerns into account rather than continue making reverts you know will be opposed. I am not saying the version you reverted was good, but neither is the present one and reverting back to your version is no more a "status quo" than any other version. This entire discussion is because we do not agree on that. As I've said above, I am in agreement with you that the lede of the version restored was problematic (hence discussion taking place above). However, the softening of far-right use in your edits risks WP:FALSEBALANCE (our job is to determine what - as you say - is due balance given the sources, a couple of figures disputing the far-right label is not enough to shift this balance back towards the middle) and I think some of the changes @Bobfrombrockley introduced are good: combining the origins and use sections, incorporating a lot of the "assessments" into that section and leaving "assessments" for more precise surveys of data rather than politician statements, for eg. Yr Enw (talk) 08:21, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. Just to clarify I also agree the lead I restored is not great, but it is closer to the consensus than leaving it blank and my edit summary noted this was pending agreement on talk. I’m happy to leave it blank for now though for the sake of peace BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:28, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

yeah, I think I’m going to try and sort some of the more uncontroversial stuff in the body out in the meantime. Yr Enw (talk) 08:50, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

I also agree the Assessments section should focus on serious (academic or investigative) assessments of the factual basis of the claim and not the opinions of politicians and activists. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:25, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Open a section for that, and we can concentrate on it there rather than mix it in with all the other stuff here. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:38, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

It was a huge sequence of major changes which did not have consensus, so a "D" out of "BRD" was perfectly in order - that it the whole point of BRD.

You are misunderstanding WP:FALSEBALANCE. We are not talking about a "minority view, fringe theory, or extraordinary claim". We are talking about widely held views, especially from one half of the political spectrum. Mass changes such as those are rarely good. We need to take it step by step. We can discuss the pros and cons of the chronological history vs. comparison of conflicting accounts of the development of the term, in a new section. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:34, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

I’m getting a bit confused with the various subthreads here already. Was this a response to me? I mean, there are a couple of things - balance is not centrism, so 100% of one side of the political spectrum could advocate something but that doesn’t make it objectively correct to land somewhere in the middle; but does the article at present even support the idea this is as disputed as you claim? None of the RSs dispute this is predominantly (ofc predominantly doesnt mean unanimous) used by the far right, and not even the involved figures seem to (those Conservative quotes from Badenoch don’t explicitly endorse the narrative). I haven’t caught up with the latest changes, so I could be out of date. Yr Enw (talk) 13:48, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

@Yr Enw, yes it was a response to you. :) A useful threading guide can be found at WP:THREAD and further explanation at WP:INDENT. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:22, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, yeah it’s coz I’m on my phone and the indents arent always as clear on that Yr Enw (talk) 14:48, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Can I clarify - do you object (and, if so, why) to the "Origins" and "adoption" sections being merged, with "Murder of Henry Nowak" a subsection within this? This would, I believe, be much neater, incorporating politician statements into into and allow the "assessments" to be a bit more rigorous than just "he said, she said". Yr Enw (talk) 17:05, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

I did, but I think we've covered that now in the #Sectioning proposal section below. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:14, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

It really wasn’t a huge sequence of major edits. It was a short sequence of very small incremental edits, no huger than your several

similar runs since 19 July BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:00, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Further to my comment at 07:30, 5 August 2026 (UTC), I just noticed I had reverted one edit too many, so have restored the one of of 3 Aug which objected to my paraphrasing of "co-opted" as "started to use". We could argue the toss over that, but I can live with the change. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:08, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

saw the revert a while back. came in to chirp that the revert was clearly to defactos preferred version, even a few weeks back it had language dismissing the claim of two tiered policing as false in the lede. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 03:12, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Sectioning proposal

How about presenting the history of the term by "trigger". Then for each "trigger" describe: who used the term and in what context, what the consequences were, etc Triggers might include: Brixton riots, grooming gangs, BLM marches, pro-Palestine marches, Raise the Colours, anti-immigration marches, Henry Nowak murder, Ann Widdecombe murder investigation, ...

Thoughts? -- DeFacto (talk). 15:47, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Maybe but I think that might give undue weight to some triggers, as some are more clearly identified in the sources as important. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:25, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Can't we can ensure due weight by the size of each section being proportional to the amount of coverage? -- DeFacto (talk). 17:31, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

We have a duty to ensure due weight is a bit more than simply "the amount of coverage". The points raised below by @Wikociewie about being careful not to imply the same meaning across different examples where empirical evidence supports some, but not others. Yr Enw (talk) 17:35, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

What I meant was the weight of coverage should be proportional to the weight in RSes. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:40, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

I think there needs to be more information included about the specific incidents to which the term has been applied but we need to be careful not to imply through our editing that the term has the same meaning/weight in all these examples ie; in the context of the Brixton riots the term referred to real institutional racism, in the case of the grooming gangs it's an example of the far-right's weaponisation of the police's real institutional incompetence, corruption, misogyny and classism, and in the example of raise the colours and anti-immigration marches it's a full-on completely fictional conspiracy theory (which is how the term is currently defined, hence the reason for the article's title). So, I think Brixton riots should remain in the current 'origins' section, grooming gangs would probably fit in the 'adoption' section, and the others added to an 'examples' section which is where the bit on Henry Nowak sits as part of the assessments section currently. Wikociewie (talk) 17:04, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Also, at the moment we only have a brief mention in The Lead about the Brixton riots claim - I've had a search for more because that's an interesting claim for the origin of the term, that I think works well in the article, but I haven't been able to find any other sources saying this. We might struggle to have a whole section on that topic. Wikociewie (talk) 17:10, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

The problem is that it happened before the www was a thing. We may need to resort to paper sources, or at least digital archives of them. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:37, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting this is a reliable source, but Google Trends shows an interesting (and expected) lack of prominence of this term before 2021 at the very earliest: . I had never personally heard of it until the radical right started using it, but again, I'm an editor not a scholar. Yr Enw (talk) 17:47, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

There's a mention of it in a parliamentary debate: https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/1981-12-10/debates/14d3be58-4b41-4ca1-90a8-6f7c85a46dd4/ScarmanReport Yr Enw (talk) 17:50, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

That’s interesting but it has a totally different meaning there - it’s a proposal for organisational reform with two tiers BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:02, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

In the above thread, I have proposed merging "origins" and "adoption" because I think the co-option by the far-right is much more immediate than the article wording currently implies. The Lead source quoted literally has it right after wards: "The term “two-tier policing” has been growing in usage in recent years, but was originally used around the time of the 1981 Brixton riots in the context of over-policing and institutional racism against specific communities. Increasingly though, the term has been co-opted by the far-right...". I would prefer it if that sentence went there because it then leads nicely into Tommy Robinson. Yr Enw (talk) 17:33, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

That's all part of the evolution of the use of the term. The same source can be used to support content in different portions of the history, sure. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:50, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

I do think we need to move the Henry Novak section out of Assessments and into Adoption. Do you have any opposition to that? Yr Enw (talk) 18:05, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

As it's a trigger, I'm proposing putting it in its own section. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:17, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Wouldn't that work within "Adoption", where we have the Harehills and wider 2024 riots ? Yr Enw (talk) 19:21, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes it would BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:27, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Strong support for merging origins and adoption as the chronological gap is negligible and false separation confuses the narrative.

Strong support for making Novak a sub section of this, possibly along with couple of other key trigger events (in chronological order obvs) BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:06, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

The weight and the detail should be reflected in the article content. We can evolve it to match what our research turns up. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:34, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

“Recasting”

Per discussion above, do editors think the conspiracy theory section should be entitled [a] “Recasting as a ‘conspiracy theory’” (as it has since this edit on 31 July? or simply [b] “As a ‘conspiracy theory’”? or more simply still [c] “As a conspiracy theory” without scare quotes? BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:16, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

As I said above, I oppose [a] as confusing and not based on sources. The alternatives are cleaner and more neutral. BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:31, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

I think "recasting" is POV because it suggests that there is a genuine base phenomenon to recast. I think "As a" is harmless but I don't see how it adds anything so I think "Conspiracy theory" is simpler and best. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:27, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

As "conspiracy theory" is a pejorative term, we should not present it in Wiki's voice without qualifying it. Perhaps use "Conspiracy theory allegations"? -- DeFacto (talk). 15:01, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

I’m open to something like “Described as a conspiracy theory” to avoid wikivoice, but it’s wrong to call the analysis of the Times, BBC and academics “allegations”. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:38, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

C - less confusing and that's what the article title is called after all. Wikociewie (talk) 08:04, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

white grievance and reverse victimhood

Re this sentence: “Some political commentators and academics have described the term as an example of white grievance and reverse victimhood.” Does it belong in the adoption section or the conspiracy theory section? BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:18, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

This is probably both helpful and unhelpful, but I think those sources have a lot of good analysis that should be expanded upon in the article body itself, and which might fit into both sections accordingly. Yr Enw (talk) 06:20, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes I would support expanding and unpacking BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:29, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

"Some political commentators" fails WP:WEASEL. We should name each of them so readers can look them up. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:55, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

I would just note that the "Some..." wording was an edit made by @Fishsalmon85 (at 10:11, 19 July 2026), an account that was created on the 19 July and has so far made a total of two edits both to this article on that date. Wikociewie (talk) 17:44, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Agree with naming them BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:28, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Is The Lead a reliable source?

I know I used The Lead as a source in the first place, but in this edit, ~2026-43168-35 raised a valid point in their edit summary. As they said, it is hosted by Substack, a well known blog host. Should we take it to WP:RSN to get the community's opinion as to whether it is a reliable source or an SPS? -- DeFacto (talk). 14:52, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

I have significant reservations about outright treating The Lead as a GREL source. This is not because it has a strong left-wing editorial perspective. We don't reject sources simply because they have an identifiable political viewpoint, per WP:BIASED.

But the publication openly describes its purpose as a campaigning and advocacy. Its own ["About Us" page https://thelead.uk/about-us] states that it intends to organise "open letters, campaigns and, while it's still legal, direct action," and tells contributors that "we're more about campaigning." That suggests its primary mission extends beyond reporting news into advancing particular social and political causes.

It's described by other sources as part of a group of progressive publications, and its founder, Dimi Reider, has openly characterised the outlet as having a "progressive left-wing" outlook. Its editors openly diss Tory government, and its primary funding is from a left-wing activist and PR professional. That is entirely its perogative, but it is relevant when assessing its editorial approach under our sourcig policies.

Again, bias alone does not make a source unreliable. However, where a publication's stated mission is advocacy and campaigning, we should be cautious about relying on it for factual assertions, especially on contentious topics. Its advocacy role means it does not occupy the same position as a publication whose primary purpose is independent news reporting.

If there is a proposal to use The Lead for a particular factual statement, the appropriate course is to evaluate that specific use at WP:RSN. Longhornsg (talk) 18:29, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

This is probably a good question for RSN. RSN recently decided that being hosted on Substack is not an indicator of unreliability but as this is a less well known source it’s worth getting community views. I note we currently only cite with attribution, which is good BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:30, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

While a lot of what is published on sites like substack fall well within SPS by non-notable and non-expert individuals, there are some individuals and outfits that do buck that trend. In this case what we can deduce from the Lead is they focus on being a micro-magazine . They mainly run stories by independent journalists, with and editorial team (a good indicator) with individuals who have have worked at and been featured in a variety of established outlets, many of which we consider RS. Since 2023 they have established a team to specifically work on stories for the North of England , which since 2024 has been publishing the magazine in print .

For the particular story that is cited in this article its authors are Ella Glover and Zoe Grunewald. Glover is an independent journalist and the editor of the film focussed Ordinary Zine. Glover is acting as a guest author for the piece, with Grunewald being part of the editorial team of The Lead and is the more notable of the two. Grunewald holds a Master's in International Politics, and previously worked as a journalist for the New Statesman and The Independent, as well as working previously as a media officer across various government offices. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 23:11, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I'd support taking it to the WP:RSN. I'd personally never heard of it before it was used in this article. Yr Enw (talk) 07:53, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Which opinions are due?

Which of these do editors think we should include?

1. Chris Hobbs, an ex police officer writing for Police Oracle website, not notable and no secondary sourcing
2. Chris Philp, an opposition politician as reported by the Standard (my feeling is it’s literally his job to criticise the government and his comment adds no substance)
3. Ash Sarkar, a left-wing influencer, on Novato’s YouTube

My personal view, though not that strongly held, is that none of these add any substance to the article BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:56, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Chris Philp is the shadow home secretary - it may be his job to criticise the government but he's one of the top 4 most significant figures in UK politics for commentary on policing. His comment is published in an independent and presumably at least somewhat reliable source (I don't think we consider the Standard too tabloidy?)

So I would say of the three you describe, Philp is most obviously the one WP:DUE both as a common sense matter of his position, and also in the wiki sense of according weight to what has been published in reliable and independent sources. I don't think the other ones have any weight based on the sourcing provided. Samuelshraga (talk) 11:29, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

1. The viewpoint of the police is relevant but, as you point out, the author isn't anyone notable and has no secondary sourcing

2. I agree with Samuelshraga on this one

3. Probably not adding much to the article Wikociewie (talk) 13:30, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Something is broken in reflist

There is an entire paragraph the reflist under reference #3 that probably belongs in the article body - unsure how to fix this. ~2026-43554-81 (talk) 17:28, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I made a fix to reference number 3. I'm not sure if it's the best fix but the reflist is no longer broken. Jacque6306 (talk) 18:17, 7 August 2026 (UTC)