Talk:Death of Blair Peach/Archive 1

Southall Riots

It was a little more serious than

...a demonstration by the Anti-Nazi League against a National Front election meeting taking place in the town hall.

The local Asian population were very vocal in their opposition to the meeting (and it should be noted that the area the candidates were being chosen to represent was nowhere near Southall, and was part of then NF policy to hold contentious meetings in areas of high non-white populations to both gain media coverage and to intimidate the locals) and attempted to physically stop NF members from gaining access to the hall. The NF were unprepared for the level of hostility and physical threat, being used to intimidating other ethnic groups who did not have the traditions of the local Pathan/Pashtun derived population, and called in the police. The arrival of the Special Patrol Group, notorious in their application of force against non-Middle Class/white groups (my opinion based on observation), precipitated a riot. Peach was struck during this phrase. Further and more intense rioting resulted in the aftermath of his reported death. This was primarily between the local Asian population, together with sympathisers and other locals against the police, who were regarded as part of a racist, reactionary, State apparatus. The NF were very little in evidence after the initial trouble.

Whilst Peach is notable, and worthy of his own article, the premise behind the protests, and why they turned into days and nights of rioting, and the subsequent results (the SPG was serverely criticised, and eventually disbanded, and the NF were banned from holding meetings outside of constituencies they were contesting and also declined as a political force). As such, I think an article titled Southall Riots should be created, detailing all of the above. I am not, however, the person to write it - I would not be able to contain my bias' toward both the event and the political/cultural landscape of the time. LessHeard vanU 21:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I am not, however, the person to write it - I would not be able to contain my bias' toward both the event and the political/cultural landscape of the time." Particularly since you grossly misstate what occurred, and lie about the definition of assassination.

Peach was not assassinated

Assassination requires the targeting of an indivudual - Peach was allegedly killed by policemen who believed that it was sufficient that he was agitating for the removal of the NF from the area, and was therefore a legitimate case for a swinging truncheon. <redacted>. LessHeard vanU 12:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you're completely wrong.

as·sas·si·nate ( -s s -n t ). tr.v. as·sas·si·nat·ed, as·sas·si·nat·ing, as·sas·si·nates. 1. To murder by surprise attack, as for political reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.91.41.49 (talk) 03:58, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"RUC involvement" in Peaches death

Re this edit summary, I am concerned over the bias which may be apparent in this - and a previous one - edit summary. While the SPG holding of illegal weapons may have included items originating from the RUC there is no source for this fact, and therefore it cannot be said if a majority or even a significant minority of them, nor why the RUC are specifically mentioned (just because they were another police unit with some very dubious attitudes does not mean there was any link). If there is a source that makes some connection between the SPG and RUC as regards Blair Peach (or the SPG's unsavoury methods of that time) then it needs to be quoted - otherwise mention of the RUC does not belong in the article. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

School named after a brutal Communist rioter

Maybe I am missing something as an American but why would a state school be named after a Communist who somehow thought he had the "right" to use deadly force (stoning with bricks) to stop members of a political party from peacefully assembling?

Yeah, brains. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence whatsoever has been presented to suggest BP was using deadly - or indeed any - force. Interestingly the Cass report does make a case for collective guilt on the part of the demonstrators, though oddly omits the same argument for collective guilt on the part of the police. The school named after Peach is about 300 metres from the place of his assault. Whilst you may be disapproving of BP's political inclination - far left socialism rather than communism - one would hope that you would be in support of the anti-racist and anti-fascist activities he was engaged in. Certainly the community of Southall appreciated BP. It seems entirely appropriate to me to name the nearest school after a teacher who has been killed as a result of supporting the local community. I recommend you read this article to get some insight into what happened that day. I have trust that you are not merely a troll, but have a brain which is capable of empathising with decent human beings doing decent things. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I may be missing something but I thought stoning another political gathering with bricks simply because you don't agree with their views and seek deny their right to peacefully assemble pretty much IS fascism. 72.209.63.226 (talk) 11:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you appear to be missing is any connection between the stoning and Blair Peach. Guilt by association just does not wash in civilised society. Why are you so intent on demonising this individual? What purpose is served by ascribing false and baseless behaviour to him and then criticising him for such ascriptions. If you have to lie and dissemble and falsify in order to promote your point, of what possible value is your point? Did you bother to read the linked article, or are you trying to keep yourself as firmly esconced as possible in an evidence-free and prejudice-led cocoon? --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The National Front pursued a policy of intimidation of ethnic minorities and inciting racial hatred, and their presence in a predominantly Asian (Brit-Eng meaning; peoples originating from the Indian subcontinent) constituency where their candidate had no chance of even keeping their deposit, was a calculated effort to forment civil misbehaviour. The National Front was uninterested in securing political office, but only in provoking a race war between Britons of a generally European descent and those recently originating from India, Africa, and the Carribean. (Of course, as in this instance, as soon as there was violence directed toward them rather than the other way round then they really rather quickly retired from the scene.) LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

School named after a brave anti-fascist hero

For the benefit of the anonymous American contributor, a brief history of the naming of Blair Peach School: it was a brand new school which opened in 1986. Ealing's in-coming Labour Council named the school after Blair after representations from parents and anti-fascist groups. Some time after the Conservatives seized control of Ealing Council in 1990, despite having no representation in the Southall part of the borough, they announced they would rename the school: they were supported in this regard by letters in the local newspaper from members of neo-Nazi and holocaust denying groups. The new council announced a parents' "consultation", and gave them an option of two alternative names, however no parents opted for either name - preferring instead the old one. The council then imposed a name (Hayes Bridge School). When Labour regained control of Ealing Council in 1994, it bowed to the popular wishes of the community to have the Blair Peach name reinstated. I and one other anti-fascist were co-opted onto the school governing body to help plan the renaming ceremony, which was attended by Peter Hain MP and members of the local police. A commemorative booklet was issued which chronicled the experiences of Indian and other children growing up in Southall and their experiences of bussing and other forms of racism. Those who opposed the name of Blair Peach merely succeeded in giving increased prominence to the integral part he played in Southall's history. The Conservatives subsequently succeeded in regaining control of Ealing Council (from 2006-10) but made no further attempt to alter the school name preferring, instead, to broaden their electoral appeal to an increasingly affluent local Indian population. They now routinely poll one third of the total votes cast in that area, rather than the 10 per cent they were polling twenty years ago. Multiculturalist (talk) 08:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great article, good discussion; could you just help please with what is 'bussing' - I am guessing that it's segration of bus use on the basis of race, but couldn't find any references/explanations on the www to confirm that. Mungo Shuntbox (talk) 06:47, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to your question, "bussing" took place in Southall between 1963 and 1979. It was introduced at the behest of a white residents association who did not want Indian children mixing with their own children. The council agreed and stipulated that no school could have more than a one third proportion of Asian pupils. It did so under the spurious pretence of wanting to help with integration (i.e. by introducing Southall's Asian pupils to those indigenous white pupils who were attending schools elsewhere in the borough). As a result vast numbers of Indian kids were bussed out of the area but as the central Southall district was almost 100% Asian by the 1970s the policy ended up being scrapped. Multiculturalist (talk) 22:26, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

what a biased article

but as wiki is lorded over by far left communists, it is just another normal article on here. He, along with thousands of others attacked a meeting by another party (whoever they were it doesnt matter) having a peacefull meeting. To stop people getting hurt police was despatched to stop the trouble makers. He got struck, once. and died. Hardly an assassination!! A JURY found the police innocent and classed it as death by misadventure, IE HIS OWN FAULT. But no, the far left communists on here that preach freedom for all decide what is actually allowed to written on wiki and say its a political assassination!! Wiki was such a fantastic idea, and now it is the laughing stock of the world, as are the far left loonies who run it! Good bed fellows.

A fool goes to attack other people and dies because of his own stupidy, hardly a loss to the world is it.

Wait for all the lefty haters to start the personal attacks on me after this statement! Couldn't care less, I have a real life that is going amazingly well. I dont sit alone on my PC all day finding people to blame and hate because my life is so shit. It cant possibly be your fault that you are so pathetic can it. lol

^^^ In answer to whoever wrote this: it's okay we make allowances for the fact that you're not terribly intelligent. Multiculturalist (talk) 22:27, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Abductive, any chance you discuss the unnecessary changes, rather than just revert again? - SchroCat (talk) 09:18, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not edit warring; I did not revert your reversion. You complained that the convert template should not be the cvt template. So I partially restored my edit while leaving the covert template alone, then you reverted me. You are attempting article ownership. I also note that you have been changing my edits to talk pages. Please desist. Abductive (reasoning) 09:24, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't drop to the gutter with rather childish and misguided accusations of ownership. Your edits are of no benefit to the readers or editors, so just stop with poor changes and ridiculous and uncivil accusations. As to the accusation, yet again, that I have been "changing [your] edits to talk pages": a diff that shows I have engaged in any wrongful act would be best, and it better not be something uncontentious like me moving one of your comments from within my own post. - SchroCat (talk) 09:26, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here I am wikignoming, making perfectly good changes, and you keep reverting me. Your behaviour is uncivil. I can think of no other reason than that you are exerting ownership. Abductive (reasoning) 09:29, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's ownership, so drop the BS insults. Here I am stewarding the article from unnecessary or unhelpful changes, and you keep making unnecessary changes that don't improve an article for editor or reader (indeed, in this case, as you have done before, you've managed to move the position of someone's death from a position supported by the sources to one not supported by the sources). Your behaviour is uncivil and your accusations misguided. Just because one of your edits is reverted doesn't mean it's ownership: it means there's a problem with what you've done. - SchroCat (talk) 09:35, 23 April 2023 (UTC) (ps. still waiting for the diffs of where I "have been changing [your] edits to talk pages": note - you've referred to edits plural that I have changed of yours, so provide diffs or multiple changes or strike your baseless accusation. - SchroCat (talk) 09:38, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have made thousands of similar tidying edits, which are geared towards making Wikipedia better. I doubt very much that others who look past your bluster at your actual edits and your behaviour will be fooled. Now, I am going to continue to attempt to compromise on the edits. Please take a second to refrain from a knee-jerk reversion. Abductive (reasoning) 09:44, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. Provide the diffs where I "have been changing [your] edits to talk pages or strike your petty and inaccurate accusation. 2. Are you saying that you are going to continue to edit war? (Great work!) 3. I note you have not acknowledged that you have changed Peach's death to the wrong position: I do hope the message has got through that your "tidying" edits are do not always make Wikipedia better. This isn't bluster any more than your comments are whining: it's an explanation of why your edit was reverted. - SchroCat (talk) 09:48, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FFS... Will you try and take on board that your changes are moving the position of where the death happened. How are you not able to grasp this? If you can't get to grips with the fact that you are moving the point with your changes, then don't change it! Trying to justify it by using the edit summary "Per MOS:COORDS" doesn't wash at all: MOS:COORDS allows both formats and doesn't favour either of them. - SchroCat (talk) 09:54, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have changed it yet again: and, yet again, you've moved the position to the wrong spot as indicated by the sources. Why? - SchroCat (talk) 09:58, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abductive, I am waiting for 1. the diffs to support your accusation above, and 2. an explanation as to why you think the map should indicate the wrong position of Peach's death, as recorded by the sources. You have provided nether, but edit warred without reference to the sources. This is not the first time you have decided to move the position of killing on an FA, and it is disruptive to continue to move these events after someone has informed you of where you are making an error. - SchroCat (talk) 10:07, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The position of the little body in the map; is it correct? The coordinates previously in article pointed quite a bit down the street from the position indicated. So I had the temerity to attempt to correct them and meet WP:MOS, and you revert. and revert, and revert. Abductive (reasoning) 10:10, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. Show the diffs of where I "have been changing [your] edits to talk pages".

2. Have you noticed that it's quite a big figure on the map? The coordinates as they were previously in the article, are correct. Why have you changed them to something that is wrong? I have pointed out to you several times that the position is now wrong, and yet you haven't moved the position back. That is disruptive. - SchroCat (talk) 10:18, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Abductive to deal with the two outstanding points they are trying to ignore. - SchroCat (talk) 10:33, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The position of the little body in the map; is it correct? The coordinates previously in article pointed quite a bit down the street from the position indicated. Abductive (reasoning) 10:36, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said several times now, the coordinates were correct and you have made them incorrect. Can you explain why you have made them incorrect? - SchroCat (talk) 10:39, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT: Is the map in the article correct or not? Abductive (reasoning) 10:49, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. To repeat: the marker on the map is large and covers a lot of space.

2. Why have you moved the coordinates to an incorrect position? - SchroCat (talk) 10:52, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that they are correct. The marker and the article make it quite clear he was struck down in the intersection. The coordinates that you are defending pointed noticeably to the west of the intersection, by about 30 feet. Also, now that I am looking at it, he was not "killed" there, would you have any objection to changing it to "struck" or some other word? Abductive (reasoning) 10:59, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feck me, how many times do you have to be told you're wrong. The article does not say he was at an intersection when he was killed. He was killed where the coordinates previously said he was, which is what the sources say - how many times do I have to keep repeating that until whatever reason you have for being obstructive is finally overcome? Yes, I have an objection to the proposed change: he was killed there, but it's not where he died - this is the usual way such matters are described. (Yvonne Fletcher was killed in St James Sq but died in hospital, to draw a parallel. Again, for both Peach and Fletcher, this is the form the sources use.) - SchroCat (talk) 11:10, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All I can say is, the little body on the map is smack-dab in the intersection. The coordinates unfortunately restored to the article do not point to the intersection, and are over-precise to boot. You had best look at your WP:Battleground behaviour through whatever lens you have and, if it is not too difficult for you, reform. Abductive (reasoning) 11:23, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Battleground? Pot... kettle. I'm still waiting for the diffs for the untruthful accusations you've made against me. You have edit warred on this article against the consensus of the FAC review process, made false accusations against me and tried to force incorrect information on a page, despite being told otherwise. I think there is nothing constructive that can come out of this, except the retraction of those false accusations and the aspersions you have made elsewhere about me. I suggest this comes to an end now. - SchroCat (talk) 11:29, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I urge any interested editor to look over the interactions between User:SchroCat and me and draw their own conclusions. Abductive (reasoning) 10:36, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs? You've still supplied no diffs to cover your untruthful accusation that I have done anything nefarious to your talk page edits. If you can't provide a diff or strike your unfounded accusation, then I guess everyone can drawn their own conclusions. - SchroCat (talk) 10:39, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Abductive, please stop edit-warring. You have already stated that you disagree with the settled version of the article, but more than one other editors disagree with you, so stop. Your objection is noted here on the Talk page, and everyone can review the situation. Do not just keep repeating yourself. See WP:EDIT WAR. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:24, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the sentence "killed by the police"

The fact Blair Peach was killed by the police is stated in several RS eg.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/apr/21/southall-demands-justice-killing-of-blair-peach-1979 https://www.channel4.com/news/undercover-policing-blair-peachs-partner-horrified-to-have-been-spied-on

Boynamedsue (talk) 05:33, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We need better sources than journalists normally. The current version covers all quite correctly, and the experienced reviewers at PR and FAC judged the wording to be accurate and encyclopaedic. - 109.249.185.75 (talk) 06:11, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are literally dozens of sources which state that Blair Peach was killed by the police, the fact this happened is not questioned by anybody, and it merits a place in the first sentence. Here are a selection of quotes from RS books and journal articles:

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=oTjpDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA149&dq=¨Blair+Peach¨&hl=it&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiWxObpwZvwAhUBZcAKHfh6CnYQ6AEwA3oECAEQAg#v=onepage&q=¨Blair%20Peach¨&f=false

"following the killing of Blair Peach by a police officer's truncheon"

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=6bW4WSRgfKoC&pg=PA123&dq=¨Blair+Peach¨&hl=it&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiWxObpwZvwAhUBZcAKHfh6CnYQ6AEwBnoECAYQAg#v=onepage&q=¨Blair%20Peach¨&f=false

"There was a violent confrontation, the SPG led a charge down a road and Blair Peach was killed by a blow to the head. The group of 6 SPG officers responsible were identified by an internal police inquiry..."

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1409920?seq=1

"Following the controversy which surrounded the deaths of Jimmy Kelly and Blair Peach at the hands of the police..."

I'm not on my computer which has journal logins, I'm pretty sure I can put in another few. Have you got any modern sources which disagree with this verdict? Boynamedsue (talk) 09:01, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the introduction is completely unsourced, so I am surprised this article passed featured article in its current state. Boynamedsue (talk) 09:06, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly don’t understand how things work with articles. A lead does not have to be sourced (except for quotes), as long as it reflects the body of the article. This is the version as it passed FAC, so yes, the lead is ostensibly the same as went through the review process. [Addendum: This comment was made in response to the erroneous claim that “I doubt this article passed featured article in its current state”. Regardless of the subsequent change by the OP, they have it entirely wrong. 109.249.185.75 (talk) 10:34, 26 April 2021 (UTC)][reply]

The lead paragraph clearly identifies the likely culprits for action, but there is no need to have the thing rammed down readers throats in such a poor manner. Although it is highly likely that it was a member of SPG Unit 1-1 who hit Peach, the inquest concluded Death by Misadventure, which is not the 100 per cent certainty that many others claim (there were bricks and other missiles being thrown, for example, and it is possible, but not likely, that Peach was hit by one of these). The first paragraph of the lead is, as it stands, written in a WP:NEUTRAL manner and encyclopaedic in tone. 109.249.185.75 (talk) 09:18, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The inquest is a primary source, and an exceptionally biased one at that, we should be looking at what reliable secondary sources say. There are no recent secondary sources I am aware of which cast doubt on the idea that the police killed Peach. Are you aware of any? Boynamedsue (talk) 10:21, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Look, the lead makes clear what the situation is, but does so in a rather better way than the clumsy manner in which yours did. There is no definitive answer on who or what struck Peach, just a strong balance of possibility/probability. The theory put forward by Cass (which is most likely the correct one) has never been tested in court and the members of SPG Unit 1-1 have never been arrested, let alone cross-examined. The first paragraph, which isn’t very long, states very clearly who is most likely to have killed Peach, and does so in a Wp:NEUTRAL and encyclopaedic manner, without repeating the same fact in the first paragraph (which is a sign of very poor writing. As many are still alive that also means there is a BLP angle to this, albeit a rather narrow one. 109.249.185.75 (talk) 10:31, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article must be based on sources, rather than personal opinions. Are you aware of any secondary sources which would contradict those I have provided? Boynamedsue (talk) 10:43, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am well aware what the article must be based on, and the first paragraph adequately fits the bill. It makes it incredibly clear who was responsible. Just to remind you, the opening paragraph states quite clearly that Peach “was hit on the head, probably by a member of the Special Patrol Group (SPG), a specialist unit within the Metropolitan Police Service. He died in hospital that night”. And yet you want to repeat this exact same information in the same paragraph? 109.249.185.75 (talk) 10:52, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Look, you've been on wikipedia a while, you must realise you need to provide sources, you can't just restate your point. It may be that they exist, I have had a look and didn't find any. If there is any actual doubt in this matter, it should be recorded in reasonably contemporary secondary sources (basically anything after about 1990). A second matter is your reversion of "was killed" when that is more accurate than "died". There has never been any doubt at all about the fact an act of violence killed Peach, though there were a few conspiracy theories at the inquest that he might have been murdered by an agent-provocateur.

As for the first paragraph, I believe the fact he was killed by the police should appear in the first sentence. I don't see the second sentence as repetition as it contains different information, but if inclusion of the agency of the police in sentence 1 means the second sentence is also tinkered with then so be it.Boynamedsue (talk) 11:00, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And you also appear to be restating your point, and you seem to be putting forward some straw man to suggest the lead is incorrect. It isn’t. The opening paragraph states he was most likely killed as a result of a blow on the head by a member of an SPG Unit. This is in line with 99 percent of the sources and is therefore the way we need to do it. There is no need to repeat the information over again (a sure sign of very poor writing). This is an FA, which means it has been through two community review processes, both of which thought the lead was well written and entirely acceptable. It is certainly better than the versions you have put forward. I suggest we wait until anyone else chips in with their thoughts, but the WP:STATUSQUO remains in place until a new consensus is reached. 109.249.185.75 (talk) 11:07, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could you then cite one of the relevant sources, otherwise your arguments have no merit. If the language is hedged on a similar way to the text in 99% sources, just give me 4 or 5 of them, as I did for you. The reason I repeat myself is the wikipedia is based on reliable sources, and absolutely nothing else, and at this moment I am not aware of any reliable modern sources which cast doubt on the fact of police responsibility. If you are aware of such, you must cite them here. Boynamedsue (talk) 11:18, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again with the straw man argument. The current paragraph is 100 per cent correct, based on any and all sources. It makes it entirely clear who is probably responsible for Peach’s death. That horse is,dead: please step away from it and stop beating it... 109.249.185.75 (talk) 11:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The key word being "probably", which implies doubt, do you have any sources to back that up? My request is not in any way unreasonable. This is how it is supposed to work.Boynamedsue (talk) 11:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh...

The ONDB "almost certainly been killed" (note the "almost")

East London Advertiser: "he had most probably been killed by one of six special patrol group officers"

BBC:"an officer probably struck the fatal blow which killed Mr Peach"

Networks and Network Analysis for Defence and Security - Page 221: The documents “appeared to confirm the long-held suspicion that Peach was likely to have been killed by an officer ..."

The Guardian: An interesting one as the police aren’t mentioned until para three. Before that it refers to “the death of protester” and that Peach “was killed during”. Para three says “A report compiled soon after by Metropolitan police commander John Cass, but only released in 2010, concluded that Peach was “almost certainly” killed by one of six riot police officers who were members of the Special Patrol Group”. Not the “almost”, which isn’t 100 per cent.

There are others. Oh, and one of the sources you quote above has an error in the claims it makes too, which make it a bit questionable: Peach wasn’t killed by a truncheon. If they make an error on something so fundamental, you have to query the rest. 109.249.185.75 (talk) 11:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing sources, this conversation would have been much easier if you had done so immediately. I am a little surprised to find you alter your view on newspaper stories, but still. The East London Advertiser is a local level paper, not usually used for a national level story, its article reports the result of the police investigation, rather than stating it as a fact. There are other stories from the same paper which explicitly state the police were responsible in the paper's voice eg this, they also report the result of the inquiry, showing this is not a contradiction, simply an omission in the story you link.

The book you link explicitly states its view that Peach was killed by the SPG later on using the phrase "and, in the case of Blair Peach, killing"

The BBC report is again reporting the findings of the Cass inquiry, rather than offering an opinion. News reports are inferior to academic sources.

All in all, I don't find these sources to strongly support your point of view. However, given the recurrence of the phrase "almost certainly", and given the widespread statement of police responsibility as being a fact which is shown by my sources, would you agree to changing "probably" to "almost certainly" in the second sentence? Boynamedsue (talk) 12:17, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These are a range of sources, some stronger, some weaker, and there are others. “Probably” is an adequate term and there is no need for an unnecessary change. 109.249.185.75 (talk) 12:23, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The weakest option given by any source is (and then only used when misquoting a report) is "probably" the almost universal option is "they did it". To me, there seems little logical argument to choose the weakest option for the text per WP:NPOV. This is coupled with the fact that the sources which state responsibility are much better quality than those which use more minimal language, only one of those you produced seems valid, and then only arguably so. Boynamedsue (talk) 12:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As you still seem to be pushing this beyond reasonable boundaries, I’ll add a few more for you:

'This Is Not Justice': Ian Tomlinson, Institutional Failure and the Press Politics of Outrage. Chris Greer, Eugene McLaughlin The British Journal of Criminology, Vol. 52, No. 2 (MARCH 2012), pp. 274-293 "the death of Blair Peach ... allegedly from injuries sustained in an encounter with a Special Patrol Group ( SPG ) officer"
Tony Bunyan "The History and Practice of the Political Police in Britain" Robert Reiner Crime and Social Justice, No. 13, FOCUS ON PRISONS (Summer 1980), pp. 55-58 "eyewitness accounts and other evidence suggested that an SPG officer killed Blair Peach"
The Gibraltar Shootings and the Politics of Inquests June Tweedie, Tony Ward Journal of Law and Society, Vol. 16, No. 4 (Winter, 1989), pp. 464-476 "In 1979, Blair Peach was killed during a demonstration in Southall"

The article as it passed FAC, which is how it appears here, was subject to rigorous scrutiny in all aspects. The lead, as always, came under the most heavy scrutiny to ensure it adequately, fairly and WP:NEUTRALly summarises the body of the article. It did then, and still does now, just as it stands. FACs are not set in stone, but hacking about with the lead to remove nuance is not a wise step. 109.249.185.75 (talk) 12:36, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated to this, you really did accidentally edit one of my comments, look at the history and AGF. I am trying to help you not to make the same mistake with somebody else. Boynamedsue (talk) 12:17, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As this sometimes happens with the slightly buggy WP software, it is not something anyone is aware of when they do it, and not something anyone can avoid doing. Trying to berate people for a problem with the software (including several times on their talk pages), it not helpful. 109.249.185.75 (talk) 12:23, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand this, which is why I politely drew your attention to the matter when you started to make comments about me changing my posts. You met these comments with hostility and incivility. Similarly, your discussion on this page has been excessively combative and has involved a hostile tone. You should probably rethink how you interact on here. Boynamedsue (talk) 12:37, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you stop trying to rile me on this point. You crossed a line in not assuming good faith, and in trying to berate me (twice) on my talk page when we are in disagreement here. Do not blame others for buggy software, and drop it. There was nothing polite in your accusation that I “altered one of [your] comments powering through an edit conflict”. I did no such thing, and you lacked the good faith to assume otherwise. 109.249.185.75 (talk) 12:42, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Look, your edit history suggests you are new here, perhaps there are things you do not know? You very much did change my comment, I have shown you the version in which it happened twice. The fact that I know this was accidental does not mean it did not happen. I went to your page to tell you what you had done and ask you to be careful not to do it in future, this was not to "berate" you, but to stop you getting into trouble in future.Boynamedsue (talk) 12:54, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What bit of ‘drop it’ are you not getting? What bit of ‘buggy software’ do you not understand? It doesn’t matter how careful any editor is when they press save, sometimes an intervening edit gets overwritten, without the editor having no idea it has happened. It’s time you moved on from this. You also don’t get my personal history, which has nothing to do with the number of edits I’ve made with this dynamic IP address. I have edited WP since January 2007 as an IP, then as a named account from 2011 to last year, and now as an IP editor again. After about 130k edits I may have a better idea of how WP works than you suppose - and that includes how to write a balanced lead that needs context and nuance. 109.249.185.75 (talk) 13:04, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you will have had time to peruse WP:CIVIL then? I would suggest your posting here has not been up to the standards laid out there. Boynamedsue (talk) 14:46, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, if you are aware of this problem you are having (never had it myself) it is best not to have a window open for more than 10 minutes to compose your reply, this is the only way that your overwriting of my comment could have occurred. Boynamedsue (talk) 14:50, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Drop the stick and stop making mountains out of molehills, and don’t tell me how to edit. Your continued pushing on this point, despite the explanation given several times, is becoming increasingly tendentious. 109.249.185.75 (talk) 14:59, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the FA reviewers, I emphasise the point made immediately above, that unless a consensus can be reached for major changes such as proposed, the text must remain as it is. My view is that the more nuanced original is preferable to the oversimplified and slightly tendentious changes recently made and reverted. But of course if there is a consensus for the changes, so be it. Let us see if others who watch the article have views. Tim riley talk 11:15, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that nuance is warranted if nuance exists in reliable sources, however, the vast majority of modern writing on the subject baldly states the police to be responsible. I am personally unaware of anything outside of the initial phase of the investigation which suggests otherwise. Again, this is not based on what I think, but what I have seen. If a nuanced view predominates in RS then that is fine, but I see no evidence for this. Boynamedsue (talk) 11:24, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then you have not done sufficient research. A slew of links are above for your perusal, but I can dig out others from sources I still have to hand. Either way, the first paragraph is quite clear over where responsibility lies. - 109.249.185.75 (talk) 11:53, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources don't say what you argue they do. They are reporting the findings of the Cass report rather than stating the Cass report is correct. One of the sources you link specifically states the police to be responsible for the murder, another states in a separate article that the police were responsible for the death. Boynamedsue (talk) 12:37, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense; just because they don’t agree with what you want to say, it doesn’t make them wrong. And as one of the sources you are using to justify your changes contains a glaring error, I wouldn’t touch that one with a barge pole. They situation is not clear cut and without nuance, you are trying to force it into a position where that nuance is removed. WP:NPOV is something you should avoid. 109.249.185.75 (talk) 12:42, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This exchange is evidently going nowhere. Boynamedsue will evidently not be convinced by the facts explained by the other editor, nor, one imagines, will the latter be persuaded by the former's asseverations, however strenuous. I repeat, we must wait to see if a consensus emerges for a change, and if not, the matter must be closed. Tim riley talk 13:45, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One of the ways to achieve consensus is discussion. As for the IP's point, one of the sources you yourself linked specifically states that Peach was killed by the SPG, and the newspaper you link also does so in another article. Boynamedsue (talk) 14:43, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let me say for the third time, in the hope the message will get through, that if you can establish a consensus for your opinion, fine. Otherwise, you might consider Attlee's advice to Harold Laski. I think we all now know what you think about the matter. Tim riley talk 15:20, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Death of Blair Peach. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:00, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927171604/http://www.mpa.gov.uk/committees/mpa/2009/090625-agm/minutes/?qu=Blair%20Peach&sc=2&ht=1 to http://www.mpa.gov.uk/committees/mpa/2009/090625-agm/minutes/?qu=Blair%20Peach&sc=2&ht=1

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:26, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Southall Riots

Peach was not assassinated

"RUC involvement" in Peaches death

School named after a brutal Communist rioter

School named after a brave anti-fascist hero

SEE ALSO

what a biased article

Edit warring

Use of the sentence "killed by the police"

External links modified

External links modified