Talk:Forest Gate raid

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Enforcement Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Politics of the United Kingdom Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Crime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Chemical weapon#Chemical weapons and terrorism|chemical weapon]]

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Rewrite

I've tried to re-write this as consisely as possible, removing anything that was not suitably cited. I would stress at this point, that adding {{fact}} to an uncited critical claim will not suffice, but should be removed - WP:BLP#Remove_unsourced_criticism is explicit on this matter. With that in mind, I removed the reference to what "some neighours" were reported to have said, despite a reputable paper printing it, as I do not regard a vague reference from unnamed persons in the midst of an event as a reliable source.

I have also removed the crime stub, because labelling it as a stub might encourage expansion without sources, and when dealing with current affairs, and especially current events regarding living people, extreme caution must be taken before adding in speculation, which I why I think events of this nature should only be on wikinews, and not on wikipedia until the dust has settled. But as it's here, I will do my best to make sure it's fully referenced. Regards, MartinRe 10:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the rewrite, although I can't say I agree on everything you say. Sources (including Police) seem to have been inherently unreliable if not misleading. PizzaMargherita 10:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources being misleading is one of my main reasons for believing that breaking news stories should not be on wikipedia and on wikinews instead. Which part of what I said above did you disagree with, by the way? Regards, MartinRe 10:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean, but on the other hand it's nice to have a record of what's been said by whom so it's easy to see who changes their version and how. But I accept that this is probably not what WP is for.

As to what I disagree with:

"I removed the reference to what "some neighours" were reported to have said, despite a reputable paper printing it, as I do not regard a vague reference from unnamed persons in the midst of an event as a reliable source"

Vagueness and reliability are two very different attributes. If a reliable source says "some neighbours", then the source is being vague, but not unreliable. PizzaMargherita 11:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean, and on hindsight I didn't explain it that well. "some neighbours" is the primary source, and because that is so vague and an unverifable primary source, we should be careful about how it is cited. The article as written said that "some neighbours said", but really it would be more accurate to say "according to Paper X, some neighbours said", as, while the paper may be a reliable source in most matters, breaking stories are, to my mind, a little less reliable, so should be cited appropiately, or if "relatively unimportant" removed, and I thought it was the latter case.

As for a record of who changes their version, that's not what WP is for, unless another reliable source mentioned that change at a later date. Regards, MartinRe 12:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP is absolutely ideal for keeping track of what was said by whom on these matters. There are always two parts to a developing story like this -- There's the facts as best as we can ascertain from all the available up-to-date sources, and then there is the sometimes-more-real version of the story as believed by the wider public. The existance of the latter must be acknowledged.Goatchurch 12:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/delete

Now that this story seems to have settled down somewhat, it looks to me as if it can be summerised as "police raid house, nothing found, one injured, two arrested, later released without charge, and may sue". Is this really notable enough for an encyclopedia article? (as opposed to wikinews) Would it not be more appropiate as a section/note on more appropiate pages, such as Forest Gate? (I mention merge/delete above as, with this case, all informtion that can appear in a summary is self contained in later sources, so the summary can be written from scratch very easily, which wouldn't require this history retained (which contains speculation, later proven incorrect) Regards, MartinRe 11:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose. The article is ~~very~~ incomplete and this is only the beginning of the events related to the raids. I would contribute myself, but unfortunately I have no time at present. PizzaMargherita 14:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain what you mean by "only the beginning of the events"? Remembering that wikipedia is not a crystal ball, what is in the news now to indicate that anything will happen in the future? (as opposed to may do so). Regards, MartinRe 14:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And also what is incomplete about the current article? I have some time, if you give me pointers I may be able to find sources. Regards, MartinRe 14:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Off the top of my head: official reaction from Muslim council, official reaction from Tony "101%" Blair, "extreme" demonstration of angry Muslims, more moderate demonstration which is ongoing as we speak. Also the ongoing IPCC investigation about the shooting (also missing) guarantees that this is not the end of the story. It's all over the news. At any rate, IMHO it's been a historic event of proportions similar to de Menezes, so absolutely do not delete. Thanks again for your work, sorry for not being able to help. PizzaMargherita 16:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll track down some sources for those, but on consideration, I think the article only needs a slight re-write to alter the focus from the raid, to raid + aftermath. That's what I was trying to do in my last edit, moving it from "people arrested, details of raid, PS released without charge" to "people arrested, released without charge, details of raid". Slight difference, but quite important, in my view. Regards, MartinRe 17:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This blog entry is a bit outdated, but contains a few interesting links. For more up-to date stories, have a look here. Cheers. PizzaMargherita 18:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have added references for the muslim council reaction, the 101% comment, the two demonstrations (friday and sunday) as well as the IPCC comments. It still needs work, especially for an appropiate lead paragraph.

I still think that current affairs (especially those as high profile as this) are tricky to write about until the story settles down, due to the amount of unfounded speculations that get "reported" and subsequently corrected - look at the inital version of these articles, for example. But as it's here, I'll do my best to make sure it's as referenced as I can get it! Regards, MartinRe 19:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that some time has passed, it is clear that the Forest Gate raid is most definitely notable enough for an encyclopedia. I live in Forest Gate and last week, met with a team of police officers from Burnley who came down to speak to local people, the local police and Newham_Monitoring_Project. Apparently the Forest Gate raid is a touchstone issue for young people in Lancashire whenever discussions about terrorism and extremism are raised. I've heard the same thing from other people from different parts of the country but it's the sort of thing that is difficult to find references for, as there has been little academic research. The report by Newham Monitoring Project reportseems to be the only specific commentary of the raid. Has anyone heard of any other analysis that has been produced?

External links

I've removed the section for the moment, as I believe the current links aren't necessary. One is a blog link, another is a link to an opinion which might be relevant into the main text under protests/reactions (if it's not too fringe (NPOV#undue weight) and the register article discusses "what wouldn't have happened anyway if this event turned out to be what was suspected (which it didn't)" which is somewhat a stretch for relevence. Regards, MartinRe 11:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Renamed

Per naming conventions, I have renamed the article to reflect the more widespread name given to the events. The Guardian, The Associated Press, The Independent, The Times and ITV all use the term "Forest Gate raid". --Irishpunktom\^talk 13:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should be Forest Gate raid. There is no need for the date, as this is the only notable raid that has taken place in the area. Jim Michael (talk) 23:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]