Talk:Murder of Keith Blakelock

message: "Broadwater Farm riot": The second death was that of PC Keith Blakelock, the first police officer since 1833 to be killed in a riot in Britain.
"Death of Keith Blakelock" (this article): He was the third officer to be killed in a riot in the London area since 1833, when PC Robert Culley was stabbed to death in Clerkenwell.
Which is it?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.184.247 (talk) 02:37, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  First or third? 

message: I can't tell you what a depressing discussion this is for me. It's upsetting for several reasons, partly that I put a lot of work into this. But it's also the ideology over thinking that upsets me. It upsets me that that has gained the upper hand on Wikipedia, because our most important rule was always IAR. The significance of that was precisely a signal that ideology should never replace thinking on this project. Whenever I've helped to write a content policy, I've tried to build space for thinking into it.
As for the topic, I assume none of you were living in the UK when this happened. The importance of this to recent English history, and the way the country saw itself, can't be overstated. There are lots of competing interests and viewpoints, which made achieving NPOV hard, and I believe I succeeded. If it doesn't look as though it was hard, that's because you haven't read the article and you're not familiar with the topic.
That quotation is an important part of the effort. The article has been written to hang together. One thing is there because of the proximity of something else. I've been intending to tidy it and nominate it for FAC. When I write, I follow Wikipedia:Guidance on source reviewing at FAC. I look for the most appropriate source. Sometimes that will be a primary source; that's particularly true for quotations. Of course you take under things into account, but the idea that Paul Harris, the Daily Mail reporter, would not have conveyed this accurately, or that the fireman, Trevor Stratford, would not have complained if he had not, doesn't stand up to a minute's scrutiny.
There is a similar quote in The Times from Stratford about Blakelock that I could use. But it loses Dick Coombes and Dave Pengelly, and the image of Stratford sliding back into the crowd like a rugby player. This is important imagery: "I remember running in with another fire officer to get Dick Coombes. I literally slid into the group, like a rugby player charging into a ruck. We dragged him out, but he was in a hell of a state ... Dave Pengelly kept a rearguard barrier between us and the rioters, standing in the middle of it all with just a shield and a truncheon, trying to fend them off, which is an image I'll never forget."
Coombes never recovered his health. Pengelly was awarded the George Medal. The quote is a good one because it very neatly describes the involvement of the four men (Stratford, Coombes, Pengelly and Blakelock) at that moment. SarahSV (talk) 20:24, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Super not interested in the bigger fight going on here, but with respect to , I think you are mistaken: one of the surprising things about the Jayson Blair scandal was that he'd been making up quotes and interviews for ages, and that no one complained.  Presumably, that's because people don't remember exactly what they say in interviews, and Blair's fabrications didn't cast any of the non-quotees in a bad light.  --JBL (talk) 21:00, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  But there is no reason to suppose that the quotation was made up or changed. This business with the Mail is conspiracy theory, something I despise and that I thought all sensible Wikipedians did too. But for some reason, when it comes to the Mail, the community (or part of it) has let itself be led down that path. SarahSV (talk) 21:25, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am not a disputant here (I have never added or removed the DM as a source anywhere, particularly not on this article); I am just observing that your argument (which is, to paraphrase, "this quote is presumably real because if it were made up the person who is alleged to have uttered it would have complained") is not convincing. Because in the few cases where this can be documented clearly, people seem (as a general rule) not to complain when made-up quotes are attributed to them (as long as those quotes do not obviously cast them in a bad light). --JBL (talk) 21:51, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Mail has traditionally had good police sources and was known for its court reporting. If it is true that they made up quotes elsewhere, they are exceptionally unlikely to have done so about the police or firefighters. SarahSV (talk) 22:04, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

text: Yes, that's right.  With patently incorrect edit summaries too.  I mentioned this before Christmas, to no avail. But certain users feel they are above reproach so there's nothing that can be done I'm afraid.  I have also requested a method to eliminate their edits from my watchlist, but that, sadly, is technically difficult. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I remember the bit where you were furiously edit-warring a controversial claim cited to a dead link in the Sun into a BLP, without at any point noticing that the link you were insisting needed to go in was dead - David Gerard (talk) 22:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever David.  You are making false claims in edit summaries time after time.  The source is not deprecated.  There was no "furious edit-warring".  I think you've mis-remembered.  But whatever.  I'm here to improve Wikipedia.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh I remember, the same issue as usual where you leave a mess behind that someone else has to clear up.  Marvellous stuff, what a proud contribution to Wikipedia.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:41, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

text: Not to mention the WP:LINKROT you introduce to just about every reference you "add". The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:22, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

text: It's a bad source with a long and well-documented history of fabricating quotes. That's one of the many reasons why it's deprecated. That's quite apart from all the other reasons others list above not to include the quote. The discussion on use of the source is, so far, WP:1AM against you - David Gerard (talk) 22:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

text: If your aim is - as this comment appears to be - to relitigate WP:DAILYMAIL, it's probably time to move this discussion in its entirety to WP:RSN, so as to avoid the dangers of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS - David Gerard (talk) 22:33, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: My aim is not to relitigate it here. My aim is to show you that one part of the wording of that RfC did not reflect consensus, and that this was discussed at the time. We do need to revisit it. Not here, but we do, because you are acting on that one sentence ("do not use") but not the overall close ("generally"). SarahSV (talk) 22:46, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: "One part of the wording of that RfC did not reflect consensus"??? The closing summary of WP:DAILYMAIL was countersigned by four respected editors, and unless I missed something, nobody has ever even tried to challenge that close. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:23, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

text: , we can and should do something about it. I keep seeing these edits, and editors being left angry and distressed, sources removed and text left unsourced, or text removed. It's unacceptable, and I don't believe the people who responded to the first RfC ever intended that to happen. But any attempt to gain new consensus needs to happen slowly and carefully to make sure we finally get it right. I'm going to start by researching how each of the RfCs came about and their closes. SarahSV (talk) 23:03, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

text: Take it to RSN, but given the recent "they oven fact their own front pages" BS I know how far you will get.Slatersteven (talk) 06:31, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Depressing

message: There are many opinions above, and even a substitute quote from another source. What is the opinion on this issue?
:Yes - Use the DM as a source on this article
:No - Don't use the DM as a source on this article
(As  correctly notes, this is a non-binding rough measure per WP:POLL to further the discussion on the specific article issue at hand.)
===Opinions===
*No - WP:DAILYMAIL, WP:NOTMEMORIAL, someone's literally provided a substitute quote - there is no remaining reason to insist on the DM quote for this article, there is no policy, guideline or consensus reason it's overwhelmingly required and a pile as to why it isn't - David Gerard (talk) 10:50, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have it but Google books has excerpts of other pages in Tim Brain's book, citing A Climate of Fear by "D Rose", a writer for the Mail on Sunday. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:56, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's where I got it  :) I've got a copy of Rose coming, should be here within the week. ——Serial # 14:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Straw poll: Use the DM as a source on this article?

message: *No - WP:DAILYMAIL, WP:NOTMEMORIAL, someone's literally provided a substitute quote - there is no remaining reason to insist on the DM quote for this article, there is no policy, guideline or consensus reason it's overwhelmingly required and a pile as to why it isn't - David Gerard (talk) 10:50, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have it but Google books has excerpts of other pages in Tim Brain's book, citing A Climate of Fear by "D Rose", a writer for the Mail on Sunday. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:56, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's where I got it  :) I've got a copy of Rose coming, should be here within the week. ——Serial # 14:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Opinions

message: :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 to Murder of Keith Blakelock. Clear consensus to move. "Murder of" ended up with more support than "killing of". Per WP:NOGOODOPTIONS a new request can be created to move to "killing of" if anyone objects. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 18:46, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Death of Keith Blakelock →  – because it's more accurate; there's no doubt that he was killed Jim Michael (talk) 07:02, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

text: *Why was it changed? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:30, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: *See Talk:Death of Keith Blakelock/Archive 1#Requested move. To be honest, I'm not really sure! Probably because nobody has ever been convicted of murder without the conviction being quashed. Normally I would agree that we shouldn't use "murder" when the circumstances genuinely are unclear. But sometimes a death is so obviously murder that using any other term is a painfully contrived euphemism. Stabbing and hacking an unarmed police officer forty times with machetes and knives (as the post mortem established) is not accidental, manslaughter or self-defence! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah yes, I wholly agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:07, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: There wasn't a consensus to move it to its current title. Jim Michael (talk) 15:04, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

text: *The flow chart at WP:DEATHS is very neat but it's overly simplistic. Can you seriously argue this was not a murder? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:37, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: *WP:DEATHS works precisely because it is simplistic.  There is no need for arguing viewpoints or sorting out legal arguments.  There is a murder conviction, or there isn't. 162 etc. (talk) 18:06, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Well ok, if we want simplicity to trounce what is an obvious fact, that's one way an encyclopaedia can "work", I suppose. And all those deranged shooters, who are shot dead or who kill themselves, seem to be also summarily absolved too. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:20, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

text: * Perhaps just a nasty accident, then. Perhaps no-one really intended to kill him. What about all of these? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:49, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate the reply, but I'm not sure what response I could offer other than just repeating myself. Calling it a killing versus a murder isn't intended to downplay or otherwise characterize the intentions or actions of any perpetrators, as I stated. I believe this is the best way to practice neutral coverage when a prevailing legal judgement is unavailable. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 00:46, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the clarification. I can see your point. I just think it allows for a degree of obscuration and inconsistency. There is no "prevailing legal judgement available" for everything at List of unsolved murders in the United Kingdom. How would you rename that article? "List of killings in the United Kingdom with no legal judgement"? I should also comment here though, that I think "Killing of Keith Blakelock" would be a better title than the current one. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:58, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

text: I change my position to moving it to Murder of Keith Blakelock, with Killing of as a second choice if WP policy is against having Murder in the title. The same should go for other cases in which it was clearly murder, but who killed them is/was unknown, in doubt or disputed, including the murder of Meredith Kercher, the killing of Tessa Majors (on which there's currently a move discussion) the killings of Nick Spanos and Stephen Melrose, the killing of Heidi Hazell, the murder of Melanie Hall, the murder of Billie-Jo Jenkins etc. Jim Michael (talk) 14:39, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 6 October 2021 

message: The "external media" box titled "Outdoor elevated walkways" now points to a private flickr photo. Ideally a replacement would be found, otherwise it should probably be removed since it no longer serves to illustrate this article. Nffwp (talk) 18:04, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Private flickr photo in "Outdoor elevated walkways" box