Talk:Two-tier policing

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.

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)

It's tangential, but I wonder where either of these sources are getting this information from given the lack of presence in online archival material. I found one Hansard transcript where an MP said "two-tier" in debate, but nothing else. 1982 is not so far in the past that it's normal for there to be no trace online, so it's strange. Yr Enw (talk) 10:09, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, I did have a search on the British Newspaper Archive which turned up a limited number of articles from around this decade using the phrase. However these seemed to refer to debates around neighbourhood watch type-schemes. I couldn't find anything that obviously related to the Brixton Riots.

Newspaper reports may not be the best primary source anyway - I think there'd be more chance from a collection such as this. (Obvs. primary research can't be used here but it is intriguing.) Wikociewie (talk) 13:28, 10 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)

This seems to contradict your earlier invocation of WP:ISATERMFOR. Yes, it’s a term with a literal meaning but this article isn’t about the words it’s about the concept. For example, our article Big Bang isn’t about the literal meaning of the term “big bang” but about the theory of which it is the common name. BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:53, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Not at all. Your proper noun 'Big Bang' is the singular and specific birth of our universe. As far as I know, we do not have a singular - proper noun - 'Two-Tier Policing' definition. What we do have though is 'two-tier policing', a common noun phrase which is the subject of this article, and which is used as a political and social catchphrase to describe perceived bias or unequal treatment, between different categories of people, by the criminal justice system. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:55, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

@Wikociewie how do we feel about "claim" as Bobfrombrockley suggests? And @Bobfrombrockley how do we feel about removing "predominantly" from the proposed text as Wikociewie advocates? Yr Enw (talk) 10:12, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

@Yr Enw I agree with using claim as suggested! Wikociewie (talk) 13:12, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I agree that the contemporary use is wholly not predominantly from the right, so I wouldn't object to "predominantly" going BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:25, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Right-wing commentators and politicians may use the phrase to allege that the law treats white people or right-leaning protesters more harshly, sure. But academic researchers, human rights groups, minority communities, etc. also use it, but to describe the reverse. The lead needs to be neutral and not take sides. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:12, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Which sources uses the term “two-tier” in this way except for the two on Brixton? Yr Enw (talk) 16:43, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Why except the two from Brixham? I haven't fully read many of the other sources in the article so couldn't say. I assume not many as they were selected to support the opposite narrative. I did notice though that ref #9 (Chouliaraki, Lilie; Higgins, Kathryn Claire (15 August 2024). "The truth about "two-tier policing"". LSE British Politics. London School of Economics.) said that "there is indeed "two-tier" policing, but its victim is not the far-right". Have you looked for other sources that discuss this, or spotted any other references to it in the in-article sources? -- DeFacto (talk). 18:39, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

The phenomena to which Chouliaraki et al refer falls within Institutional racism in the Metropolitan Police, Institutional_racism#United Kingdom, and Race and crime in the United Kingdom. You're arguing that, because they raise that information in relation to the “two tier” phrase used by the far right, then the use case of “two tier” are two sides of one coin. But if they are simply two sides of one coin, why do we even have this article at all? Why can’t all this information simply be incorporated into the existent articles? Yr Enw (talk) 19:31, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

You seem to be saying that the article should concentrate only on one use of the phrase. Why doesn't the article title reflect that then? That phrase has a history of being used in various contexts, mostly controversial, over the last 40 or 50 years. Surely an article about it should document all of its history to be complete. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:11, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

The alleged left-wing use of the phrase seems to consist entirely of attempts to refute the right’s two tier theory by rhetorically saying “the real two tier policing is—-“ Can you point to usage of the term by someone on the left independent of an effort to refute the right-wing narrative? BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:32, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

It was in relation to the Brixton troubles, alleging bias against black communities and over-policing of them. That was long before it was ever used by the right, and police behaviour there led to the controversial Scarman Report and all that followed. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:17, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

But who used it in relation to Brixton? The two sources are vague about that. It isn’t due to include that in the lead. BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:28, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

It is due in the lead because it's recorded in reliable sources as the earliest use of the phrase. If the sources don't say who in particular used it then we cannot know. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:32, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

No, I agree with BobFromBrockley. A pair of references to the phrase without much context and from long before the phrase got regular use is likely undue for the lead. Simonm223 (talk) 11:21, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Well this is the central point we are not agreeing on - imo, the entire justification for a separate article is because they are fundamentally different claims (one being the long documented bias against minorities that is covered in the other articles I linked above, the other being the claim predominant on the right and far right that the bias is actually against white people). Yr Enw (talk) 05:06, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Exactly, and clearly most editors now agree on this so I think we can move on. BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:30, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Then why not create an article for that, and with a title that suggests that as the scope? That isn't the sole use of this phrase, as we have seen, so it would be wrong to hijack this article for that purpose.

Readers seeing this title will expect the article the document the history of this phrase and the debate surrounding it. That includes its use at the time of Brixton riot and in the aftermath of the murder of Stephen Lawrence and the consequential public loss of confidence in the police and changes the to police procedures following the associated Scarman and Macpherson Reports and institutional racism. It also includes the rape gang scandal and the Casey report, Covid policing, Israeli football supporter policing, Southport riots, Bordesley Green self-policing, the Stoke-on-Trent police tolerance, the Harehills Roma child controversy, the Henry Novak murder, consequent calls to revisit police procedures, the left and right wing responses and allegations and counter allegations and the allegations of it being a conspiracy theory or myth, etc., etc., etc.

It is a complex subject, and we need to allow room to accommodate it, and we need to accommodate it neutrally and without taking sides. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:25, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Where are the articles documenting it in relation to Stephen Lawrence, Scarman and Macpherson? There's already an article for institutional racism.

You have argued for moving this article from Two-tier policing conspiracy theory to Two-tier policing and now seem to be suggesting that as the title is too diffuse there should be a separate article to cover the two-tier policing conspiracy theory... Wikociewie (talk) 09:34, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

It features throughout, and it's use flip-flops, during the chain of events I mentioned, as police policies and priorities changed.

We certainly don't have any evidence that it is a conspiracy theory, all we have are allegations. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:29, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't understand this point at all. Nobody coming to this article would expect to see Brixton, Lawrence, etc. They'll come here because the right-wing narrative has been in the news in the last years, and so that's what they'll be looking to learn about. If there are reliable sources describing this pre-history in relation to this narrative, then that can of course go in the body with sourcing. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:05, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not only concerned with recent context. There is a thread that runs through the development of the criminal justice system which is dotted with allegations, scandals, 'reforms', etc. along its length. This phrase features on many of those dots. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:24, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Then, as I have asked above, why bother having a separate article at all? Why not incorporate this phrase into the existent articles on police racism, institutional bias in the Met, etc? Yr Enw (talk) 17:37, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

I didn't create the article, and I don't know why it was created. Now we have it though, we should ensure it complies with WP:5P2. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:43, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Happily we have edit logs and can look at the condition of the page after it was created but before anyone other than the original creator of the page worked on it

From this it's unambiguously clear the scope was about the far-right rhetorical device in contemporary UK politics. Simonm223 (talk) 17:49, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

See WP:OWN. The reason for its creation wasn't obvious to me, but I didn't agree with the restricted scope that the content I found was implying, so I started broadening it. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:02, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Again you are citing irrelevant policies. You claimed not to know what the original intended scope of the article was before your interventions. I simply elucidated this for you. Simonm223 (talk) 18:19, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

So there appears to be soft consensus for the following Updated proposal:

"Two-tier policing" is a claim 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.

I may just stick this in over the next day, but I think it still needs tweaking. Input on this thread from @Bobfrombrockley and @Wikociewie about using the term "predominantly used" has been against it, but we need some way of incorporating the fact that, for as much as this claim comes from the far-right, sources like Kemi Badenoch are not (to my knowledge) described as such in RSs. Yr Enw (talk) 05:18, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Actually my preference is for “predominantly used” but am happy to skip it if that gains us consensus. Agree Badenoch is not far right. Would “the right and far right” be better? BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:22, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

It feels a bit cumbersome, but it might be the best we can do without saying "predominantly". @Wikociewie, as you had taken issue with "predominantly", what about the fact we've got figures like Badenoch using it? Yr Enw (talk) 09:06, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I've changed my mind on the inclusion predominantly. Wikociewie (talk) 09:17, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! I will make this change shortly. I don't think the controversy over whether or not non-right uses are due should prevent us from doing this. If consensus later decides they are due, this wording is broad enough to accommodate that. Yr Enw (talk) 09:38, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

So now you are edit-warring a contravention of WP:NPOV into the lead. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:38, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

There has been extensive discussion here on this issue and the change was made only after more than a week of discussion. All of your various points about WP:NPOV and WP:DUE have been aired here, we have listened to them, it has been made very clear we feel you are incorrectly interpreting the policies, and you have not offered a convincing case otherwise. If you disagree, then by all means it can be raised in the appropriate forums to involve a larger number of editors, be it the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard or perhaps opening an WP:RfC. That a discussion is not going in your favour is no reason to disregard WP:AGF and hurl accusations when your own reverts would qualify just as easily for edit-warring.

To the point you have now raised in the most recent revert - that the "white" victim claim is not supported by the body - why not engage collaboratively to WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM? The sources seem to support this (used by The Times, the LSE blogs referring to white grievance, used by Farage himself), so if you feel it's not appropriately highlighted enough in the body, then let's highlight it more. Yr Enw (talk) 11:11, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

The other option is that we invert the wording to allow for more flexibility in victimhood, so we have (changes in italics for ease of reference):

Two-tier policing is a claim used by the far-right in the United Kingdom alleging police treat ethnic minorities more favourably than white people or those on the political right. The term gained prominence during the 2024 United Kingdom riots and following the police response to the murder of Henry Novak.

I'm not saying I necessarily support this specific wording, but it's a way of workshopping the language to avoid the claim if that's the problem. Yr Enw (talk) 11:17, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm also fine with that version (with a preference for "predominantly used"). BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:56, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

You're the one engaging in repeated revert to your preferred version over consensus. Some introspection is in order. Simonm223 (talk) 11:48, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Where is it supported in the article body that the phrase is "used predominantly by the far-right"? -- DeFacto (talk). 11:57, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Almost every single source says far-right. The reason we say predominantly in the summary is because, like you have expressed, not all say this is exclusive use, but it certainly is the predominant one. Yr Enw (talk) 12:17, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

This has not been edit warred in but discussed with consensus very clearly reached. Please withdraw that allegation, or take it to a conduct based noticeboard. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:58, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Have you ever read WP:CONSENSUS? Particularly WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS. This 'consensus' does not seem to qualify as one under that policy. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:34, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

This is quite clearly a WP:1AM situation and I suggest you should drop the stick. Simonm223 (talk) 17:46, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

It was helpful to reread [[WP:CONSENSUS and be able to note in light of it that we have indeed made every effort to respond to concerns raised and adapt proposals to widen agreement. It’s clearly time to move on now BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:08, 11 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)

So consensus seems to be to remove section break between Origins and Adoption, with a Nowak sub-section. Other "trigger" events might be expanded with sources in this section for the moment. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:53, 11 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)

So far consensus appears to be for (c). Do any other editors want to weigh in? BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:50, 11 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 an 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)

The newest media outfits like these are difficult to categorize. Its stuff like 404 media, taylor lorenzs news , thefreepress, and piratemedia. If we do wanna make a sweeping statement for substack like outlets we gotta go to rsn. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 15:21, 10 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)

UPDATE: Have raised on RSN https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#The_Lead BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:08, 12 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 Novara’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)

Consensus seems to be to remove (1) and (3), leaving (2). Do any other editors want to weigh in before this is actioned? BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:51, 11 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)

Requested move 11 August 2026

Two-tier policing → Two-tier policing theory – Per WP:POVNAMING the current title is not neutral as it presents "Two-tier policing" as fact, which is far from the case. The title should clearly identify that it is a theory (in common usage of the term, not the scientific usage) and not fact. While a lot of sources do use the term "two-tier policing" it is mostly attributed with quotation marks, therefore any WP:COMMONNAME argument for it is weak as reliable sources usually don't use it in their own words. Per the naturalness criteria of WP:AT we ought to use a title that best describes what the article is about. TarnishedPath^talk 12:30, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: WikiProject Law Enforcement, WikiProject United Kingdom, WikiProject Discrimination, WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, and WikiProject Alternative views have been notified of this discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 12:32, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
• Support for the reasons I opposed the most recent move - but is this RfC not just a rehash of that one? Feels a little hasty. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:48, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

  @Bobfrombrockley, no the RM (not RFC) is not a rehash as I'm proposing something different to the options presented in the last one. TarnishedPath^talk 13:52, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• Pinging @ActivelyDisinterested, @BilledMammal, @User:Bluethricecreamman, @Cdjp1, @DanielRigal, @DeFacto, @Gilgongo, @Kind Tennis Fan, @Kowal2701, @Maltazarian, @PARAKANYAA, @Simonm223, @Thebiguglyalien, @WikipediholicRat, @Wikociewie, @Yr Enw, @Zxcvbnm and @The C of E from the prior move discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 13:53, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

  Support though im still partial to two tier kier User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 14:50, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• Comment While I agree entirely with the reasoning, I'm not sure theory is the correct term on its own. I'm also not sure we have sufficient sourcing to call it a conspiracy theory which I'd otherwise advocate. Suggest maybe Two-tier policing concept retains neutrality while also making clear we're discussing a rhetorical idea rather than a phenomenon. Simonm223 (talk) 14:04, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

  "Concept" or "narrative" make sense to me, probably a little more than "theory". BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:22, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

  We don't have sufficient sourcing to call it "Two-tier policing" either because almost all of the sourcing when referring to it uses quotation marks. If we were going to refer to what sourcing states then we should be using secondary sourcing and if they are attributing then it's not secondary. Baring what secondary sourcing states in their own voices we should rely on the WP:AT criterial. TarnishedPath^talk 14:57, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• Support per comment in prior RM, it meets WP:DESCRIPTIVE Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 14:04, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

  "concept" is also fine Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 14:05, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

  • Support for the same reasons I opposed the previous move. Not sure if the wording of this title is ideal but it's an improvement on the article title as it currently is!
    Wikociewie (talk) 14:10, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose We literally just had an RM and it was decided by consensus that the current title was the most WP:NEUTRAL and that adding anything on the end was WP:WEIGHTed surplusage. Why are we rehashing this so soon after? The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 14:13, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

  No. While the page mover noted that "editors opposing a move are more numerous" they nevertheless decided that there was "consensus against the current title" (Two-tier policing conspiracy theory) but "that doesn't mean there is a consensus for the proposed title" (Two-tier policing), and recomended that "editors are free to propose a move to a different new title at any time." Wikociewie (talk) 14:50, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

  Quoting from the previous close:

  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.

  There is no consensus for the current title. The title should move as it is not neutral and it is not the WP:COMMONNAME (by evidenced by reliable sources attributing it, rather than using it in their own voices. TarnishedPath^talk 15:01, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• Abstain - As this is just 6 days since the close the of the previous RM, I think it incorrect to have another RM so close without some major new sources, or a strong argument not previously presented, neither of which condition have been fulfilled in my opinion. With this considered, I shall not be "voting" on the matter. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:22, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
• Support The current title privileges one POV as fact. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:40, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

  How? What POV? It doesn't have any description at all, it just says "two-tier policing". Is Atlantis a POV title because it implies that Atlantis was a real place? I don't see how the argument would apply to one but not the other. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 15:18, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

  It states as fact that two tier-polickng is a real thing, rather than rhetoric used by certain groups. The definition of a POV title. Atlantis is a real subject in fiction, two tier-policing claims to be a real thing in the real world. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:34, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

  It's a pity we can't make the title "two-tier policing" (including the quotation marks) as that is the true COMMONNAME. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:36, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

  Except Maltazarian has demonstrated lower down the discussion that the common name doesn't include quotation marks. The doesn't state as fact that two tier-polickng is a real thing because the title doesn't make any statements about the nature of the subject at all. It doesn't state whether it refers to a term, a concept, a policy, an object, a written work (of fact or fiction), a song, a person (whether this is a real name, stage name, nickname, pseudonym, or something else), a character, a theory, or anything else. All that is the job of the lead paragraph of the article. Thryduulf (talk) 14:58, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

  To be clear, there are still more sources using quotation marks than there are sources not using them (I did not intend to insinuate otherwise, I suppose I didn't think to clarify it as I didn't consider that people might not have seen the sources posted in previous discussions, sorry about that). The point I was making was that news outlets have also begun to use it without question marks, indicating that the term is no longer just being mentioned as something someone said, but as an accepted common name for something (this is assuming one insists that quotation mark usage disqualifies a mention from being counted towards WP:COMMONNAME, which I'm not sure I buy either, considering it's still reliable source reporting that shows people are using that name). –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 15:04, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

  A piece of rhetoric or a conspiracy theory is still a real subject, as evidenced by the fact we are discussing it. Also, what about religious subjects? Certainly they are claimed to be real, but I don't think Soul is a POV title, despite the fact that some people believe it exists and some people do not. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 15:11, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

  But if something is a piece of rhetorical we should make that clear in the title, especially if it's a lesser known term. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:18, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

  What about "controversy"? It been used in similar situations, Barack Obama tan suit controversy for instance. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:40, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

• Unsure. The current title is bad for the reasons given by TarnishedPath and LCU but I share Simonm223's concerns that "theory" isn't the right way to fix it. I think that theory is giving it far too much credit. A theory is more than a conjecture posed in bad faith, which is what this is. I am unsure whether adding "theory" makes it better or worse, probably it's about even.

  Given how recently the last RM was, maybe we should step back take some time to find the optimum title and then do an RM on that? Personally I expect that, with sufficient time, once the academics get a chance to weigh in, that the long term title will be either "conspiracy theory" or "moral panic" but I think we are stuck with a suboptimal name for the foreseeable future and it makes sense to find one a bit better than the current one. My first thought is to tentatively suggest that "Two-tier policing rhetoric" might be better. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:52, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose – Sure, it would be an alright WP:DESCRIPTIVE title, but, again, there is no need for it because we have a WP:COMMONNAME. I don't really give much weight to the idea that sources putting a phrase in quotation marks means it isn't the common name, as it is a phrase, and as such sources discussing it will often be using quotation marks in a use–mention distinction manner. That said, it's somewhat of a moot point anyways since reliable sources, including those that put the term in quotation marks in some articles, are in many instances using the term without quotation marks (e.g. The Telegraph, The Guardian, BBC News, The Independent, Channel 4 News, LBC, Sky News, Reuters). This is far beyond what we usually require for something to be considered the WP:COMMONNAME.
  As a side note (because WP:COMMONNAME is what it is, so this isn't really relevant) I don't really understand the whole "presented as fact" argument. The only thing you could say we are presenting as fact by having the current title is that there is something called "two-tier policing". Whether that something is a phenomenon, a conspiracy theory or something else is unstated; we use the short description and first sentence of the article for that, and it's not like readers are thinking this is a real phenomenon because the title is "Two-tier policing" while also being unable to draw similarly unfounded conclusions if the title was "Two-tier policing theory". –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 15:08, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

  Almost all of the sources you've provided, aside from The Telegraph, outside of their headlines use language which makes it clear they are attributing the claim. It is almost always the case that these are not the own words of the sources. They make it clear that they are claims. We should do likewise. TarnishedPath^talk 08:21, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

  The Guardian are adding quotation marks around the term when they are literally quoting someone using it. The title is the only instance where the term is used outside of literal quotes in the article. Same goes for Reuters but instead the little summary box is the only instance where it's not literally in a quote.

  If you are unsatisfied with the BBC News one then this is a better example. Same goes for The Independent with this being a better example.

  I don't see what the issue with Channel 4 News, LBC and Sky News is. Channel 4 News is captioning a clip with The Prime Minister denied claims of two-tier policing in the... LBC has 7 mentions of two-tier policing and not one has quotation marks. Sky News said Policy Exchange's Paul Stott and Andrew Gilligan said recommendations to class claims of two-tier policing as a "right-wing extremist narrative" will also raise concerns over freedom of speech. which clearly shows them using their own words for it, as they've put quotation marks on the bit right next to the term while not putting them on the term.

  Also, I don't necessarily see why it would be an issue if the term is being attributed. That still serves as reliable source evidence that it is what it is being called.

  They make it clear that they are claims. We should do likewise. I agree with you on that, but awkwardly shoehorning an extra word into the title when we clearly have a common name is not the right way to accomplish that. The short description and the lead is where the focus should be; they're the parts of the article literally meant to explain what the subject of the article is, and it is the short description and lead that you could make a pretty solid argument are lacking neutrality as things currently stand. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 13:51, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

  Channel 4 was gives me access denied errors, so I can't comment on that. However your own quote from them makes it clear that it is not being presented as fact when presented as 'claims of two-tier policing'.

  Regarding The Guardian, on the occasions the term isn't from a quote we have such usage as 'accusations of two-tier policing'. It is clear that it is being put forward as a claim or idea, not as a fact.

  It is a similar story throughout almost all of the sourcing, that where it isn't part of a qoute, it is presented in such a way as to make it clear that it's a theory, idea, claim, accusation, etc.

  On your final point, adding the term theory or other words as suggested by others doesn't make it awkward, it is still normal phrasing and we have plenty of other articles with similar titles. The article title at present is a NPOV failure. We should be describing what the page is about, not assisting in pushing spurious rhetoric/theories. TarnishedPath^talk 00:20, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose - the current title is the result of a move request that was closed less than a week ago. The new proposed title is not a common name for this general English language phrase, and with 'theory' in it, it is not a neutral title. For that proposed title to be acceptable it would need to be either the common name of the topic or be that there was consensus amongst the reliable sources that the topic is a "theory". The current title is the WP:COMMONNAME and is an WP:NPOVTITLE as it isn't judgemental, whereas 'theory' can be used to imply that the phrase is a 'conspiracy theory'. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:24, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

  Whilst 'two-tier' may be a general English language phrase, 'two-tier policing' is not. The article is precisely about the far-right concept or theory that is represented by 'two-tier policing', so presenting it in the current way as just a general phrase is clearly not appropriate. Wikociewie (talk) 15:30, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

  You say: The article is precisely about the far-right concept or theory that is represented by 'two-tier policing'. Wow! Are you imagining other articles then, to cover the other stances on the subject? See WP:CFORK. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:30, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

  The passing use of the phrase in other contexts is adequately covered by Racism in policing. What makes this distinct is that it is the language used by the far-right for their claims of reverse-racism. I think you need to stop citing irrelevant policies. Simonm223 (talk) 16:41, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

  There is nothing in Racism in policing about this phrase, and the phrase isn't only associated with racism. The far-right's adoption of it is one chapter of its usage, maybe, but there are others. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:50, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

  The sources in the article all use 'two-tier policing' in reference to a theory. No, I'm not "imagining other articles to cover other stances on the subject" because there aren't any sources to do so. Wikociewie (talk) 16:49, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose If it's not "conspiracy theory", it should probably not include any additional wording. "Theory" gives a greater impression that it is an idea with academic credence when it's an unfounded claim. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:34, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose. The article is currently located at the WP:COMMONNAME, and the subject isn't a theory in any sense of the word. I also agree with Maltazarian's side note. Thryduulf (talk) 16:47, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose As per WP:COMMONNAME and as Maltazarian has commented, there are multiple reliable sources which describe Two-tier policing as a term and do not put the term in quotation marks in many instances. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 21:48, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose: I originally opposed the move to remove "conspiracy theory" from the title on the grounds that many other articles use that term. But I think any further attempt to clarify anything in the title will just result in more interminable discussion. Let the lead provide the balance. gilgongo (talk) 08:01, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose As The C of E states, the current title is WP:NEUTRAL and WP:COMMONNAME, adding anything on the end was WP:WEIGHT. Plus, it is rather soon, I think there should be a moratorium here. Halbared (talk) 20:51, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

  There is nothing neutral about pushing a spurious theory as if it is fact. TarnishedPath^talk 00:21, 13 August 2026 (UTC)