Talk:Murder of Keith Blakelock

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Death of Keith Blakelock/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: GregJackP (talk · contribs) 03:12, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Please recheck your references. One comes back with a suspicious/dead link (fn119 - soft 404); 4 come back to connection issues. There are 3 paywall refs (which are OK, just noting their presence). If possible to use an archive site, that is preferable, but not required. OK, with the connection error showing as noted below by SV - and like she said, the link itself works fine.
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	While valid fair use rationale is used, I would recommend a further search for alternative photos or images, especially if the plan is to take this to FA.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	On hold for 7 days to check footnotes/refs. I don't anticipate any problem in passing this once that is fixed. Passed, congratulations.

Hi Greg, many thanks for the review. I think I've fixed the links. This one is still coming up blue, but when I click on it, it's fine.

Regarding the two fair-use images (PC Blakelock in uniform, and his overalls after the attack), there aren't any free replacements, so it's either fair use or nothing, I'm afraid. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I was afraid that might be the case. It is properly justified, and like I said, doesn't affect it passing GA. You would know more about going to FA with it than I would, but I encourage you to nominate it for FA. It's a very good article. GregJackP Boomer! 23:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much for passing it, Greg, and I'll definitely think about taking it to FA. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:59, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Surprised this isn't a FA to be honest. Very good read and excellent work. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

First or third?

"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)

Please stop edit-warring a deprecated source into the article

The WP:DAILYMAIL is a deprecated source, with a history of forging quotes. Even on the occasional plea that this is the Sunday version, it's still an unreliable tabloid.

SlimVirgin, you know Wikipedia sourcing better than this. Why are you blind-edit-warring this extremely dubiously sourced material back in? WP:BRD requires you to discuss, which you clearly didn't do - you gave no reason, I gave two explanations. What's the defence of this material under WP:BURDEN? - David Gerard (talk) 18:16, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

You should not be removing this source over objections. My understanding of the consensus is that the Daily Mail can still be used, but not casually or routinely. You also removed a link to the image posted by The Sun, which is very much part of this history.

The Daily Mail is used here as a primary source for the quotation from Divisional Fire Officer Trevor Stratford, starting "I remember running in with another fire officer to get Dick Coombes. I literally slid into the group ...". It's a very moving description of what the men did to try to save Blakelock. There is no reason at all to suppose that it isn't an accurate quote. It has been in the article since 2011. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:27, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

It has been in the article since 2011 The argument that we should keep bad content because it's old bad content has never been treated on Wikipedia as a strong argument.

The consensus I'm working to here is the two strong general consensuses reached in 2017 and ratified in 2019. You asked in your edit message that I respect consensus - I am. You appear to be invoking a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS that I see zero evidence of on this talk page - if this isn't the "consensus" you were invoking, please clarify.

Your claim is that "The Daily Mail can still be used", even though the RFC conclusion was that the DM is generally prohibited.

The precise exception you claim, to keep the quote - from the Daily Mail, a site with an extensively documented history of fabricating quotes, which is why it was deprecated - is: It's a very moving description - that is, "I like it". Even though eyecatching details and ginned-up descriptions are precisely the sort of thing the DM fabricates.

This doesn't seem a strong argument for keeping the DM quotes, and wouldn't last long at WP:RSN - which is the proper venue should you wish to carve out an exception to generally prohibited.

If there are zero other sources for the quotes than the DM, that's an argument against keeping them (per the RFC conclusion), not for keeping them. If there are other sources, we could of course use those and not the DM.

Have I missed aspects of your argument?

- David Gerard (talk) 19:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Generally prohibited doesn't mean prohibited in every case. It is used here as a primary source. That kind of exception was discussed with the closer after the first RfC. It will take me time to track down those discussions. But clearly there's no reason to suppose the named reporter would have made up that quote from an interviewee. You're engaging in a serious BLP violation to suggest otherwise. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:53, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

If you seriously think that not including the DM constitutes a BLP violation, you know where WP:BLPN is. If you don't seriously think that, you're really not helping your argument any.

Your argument appears to be "exceptions might exist, so I'm going to say this is one."

This is not a primary source - it's a news story. This is literally not what the words "primary source" mean.

The DM is a deprecated source. This means it is presumed unreliable and untrustworthy. It's been caught fabricating whole interviews. I keep finding, over and over, even examples where it claims to be quoting a press release and gins up the wording. RSN recently discovered that the DM faked its own past content on dailymail.co.uk - we literally can't trust the DM as a source for the content of the DM.

The WP:BURDEN of proof is on you to show that anything from this source is both necessary and irreplaceable, not on anyone else. That's why we went through two RFCs to establish its status as such.

Let me know when you want to take this to WP:BLPN, per the above. WP:RSN would also be a suitable venue - David Gerard (talk) 20:00, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

It's a BLP violation because you're alleging of the reporter with the byline that he makes things up. The interview is a primary source. No other aspect of the story is used, just a quote from an interview with the person quoted in the article. I can contact the interviewee if you like to ask him to confirm that he said those words. He could email OTRS. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:07, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

That's a nonsensical use of BLP. The Daily Mail has a serious track record of pure fabrication, that's well documented, and it's the reasonable default position. Is that your total backing for your claim that this should go in?

I am also unconvinced by the offer to literally go out and do original research for a Wikipedia article to support the use of the DM as a source - David Gerard (talk) 12:11, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Call for more eyes posted to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Use_of_extended_quotation_solely_from_Daily_Mail_on_Death_of_Keith_Blakelock - David Gerard (talk) 12:15, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I can't see this being considered an allowed use of the DM. To use for the source of a "moving' quote is right out for both being the DM and that we are not her to create sympathy (WP:NOT#MEMORIAL) - even if that quote appeared in the BBC, we should not be using it. --Masem (t) 12:44, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Do not use — DM has been known to fabricate quotations and cannot be relied upon to report them accurately, failing WP:RS. buidhe 15:33, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Its the Daily Mail and should not be being used for quotes.Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• Well, ONUS is pretty clear on who is responsible for the reinsertion of controversial material. More to the point though, why isn't this quote found anywhere else? One might assume that the bloke's interview might have been picked up by others, syndicated perhaps. But the only news outlet that has it is the Daily Mail; likewise no books either.
  However. I'd say the words are inaccurate but maybe convey the basic sense: Tim Brain's A History of Policing in England and Wales from 1974 quotes Stratford as saying:

  I half turned and saw the PC about 20 yards behind me. He just stumbled and went down and they were upon him. It was just mob hysteria. I stopped about 40 or 50 ft further on and turned. They had fallen on him and I completely lost sight of him. There were about 50 people on him" He was in "one hell of a mess". Sergeant Pengelly, in charge of the serial, turned and ran at the mob, bravely driving them off. Couch, Mr Stratford, and other officers ran back too and managed to pull PC Blakelock away, but by then he had sustained multiple stab wounds and a knife buried deep into his neck, right up to the hilt. Within minutes the 40-year-old father of three was dead.(OUP 2010, p.113)

  Suggest using this quote, or paraphrasing it, instead.
  Or as Masem says, just don't include it as a non-encyclopedic, NOTMEMORIALisation...it is rather (probably unnecessarily) florid.——Serial ^# 16:18, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

So, the DM may not in fact be accurately quoting, enough said.Slatersteven (talk) 06:29, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Depressing

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)

Super not interested in the bigger fight going on here, but with respect to the fireman, Trevor Stratford, would not have complained, 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)

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)

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)

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)

I think WP:DAILYMAIL needs to be revisited, and how this whole thing unfolded. I remember at the time saying that the wording of the RfC close would cause problems. Throughout the RfC, you see people saying "Support prohibition though noting that common sense also applies"; "Only very limited circumstances"; "Support prohibition (within reason)"; "Support with reasonable exceptions".

The close at first appears to reflect this consensus: "Consensus has determined that the Daily Mail is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited ... " (my bold). That reflected consensus. But then it veered into a supervote: "nor should it be used as a source in articles". I pointed out this contradiction on AN at the time. I wrote:

"Primefac, "generally prohibited" reflects consensus, but it's contradicted by "As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles." That last part says: "Do not use this as a source", and that will be interpreted strictly by editors who will remove it no matter how justified the use.

Primefac replied: "We used the terms 'generally prohibited' and 'nor should it be used' specifically because it gave a small amount of wiggle room for IAR/historically reliable usage of the DM to be used. It's not a 100% ban (which we did discuss as a possibility), because that would go against the overall consensus."

Not a 100 percent ban. But now editors are going around removing it from all articles, no matter how it is being used. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Also pinging Sunrise, Jo-Jo Eumerus, Tazerdadog, who co-closed the RfC. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

"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)

The Rambling Man, 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)

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)

Break

This is far from the first time that people saw "generally", "usually" or synonyms and read it as "always". Changing some sentences in WP:DAILYMAIL - such as cutting the "source" sentence mentioned above, which should probably go - might help but I wouldn't bet on it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:19, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus, forgive the repetition but I want to make sure this is clear. The RfC was closed by Yunshui and countersigned by you, Primefac, Sunrise and Tazerdadog. But it contained a contradiction (my bold):

Consensus has determined that the Daily Mail (including its online version, dailymail.co.uk) is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles.

Calling it "generally prohibited" implied that it could sometimes be used. But adding that it should not be used implied that it could not sometimes be used. This was a fatal flaw in the close, and it meant that it did not reflect consensus. I pointed this out on AN at the time. Primefac responded that it was not a 100 percent ban. I said: "the problem is that it will be interpreted as written. Another problem is that the close didn't distinguish between the Mail as a primary and secondary source". The RfC also wasn't advertised on CENT. Now David is removing the Mail and the Mail on Sunday from every single article in which they are linked. The Mail on Sunday is a separate newspaper with a different editor and staff. Here he removed the Financial Mail on Sunday. SarahSV ^(talk) 13:05, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• @SlimVirgin: can we lose (I assume none of you were living in the UK when this happened) the subjective assumptions/ calls to emotion please. For the record, I was drinking in The Swan a fortnight before it kicked off so I don't suppose I have to draw you a diagram.
  Back on objective point, there are two issues here: the contents of the quote and the sourcing of it. Personally, the material as it stands strikes me as unnecessarily lurid, and I can't see that knowing a rugger tackle was used particularly aids the reader. Likewise, the machete stuff: too much detail? I don't see why that can't that be described noncommittaly in the prose.
  The bottom line seems to be that contentious and disputed material is being sourced only to the DM, but we have a reliable, independent source that provides much the same material without the doubts as to its authenticity, it seems a textbook application of WP:DM. ——Serial ^# 09:37, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Serial Number 54129, it's an eyewitness account that describes the situation of four of the men, far better than any third party could summarize. SarahSV ^(talk) 13:10, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
    • I gave a >60-word quote from the same individual's eye-witness account, the only real difference being that this isn't as lurid and is cited to an impeccable source. ——Serial ^# 13:20, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
      • But it loses the others and what Pengelly did: "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." SarahSV ^(talk) 13:24, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
        • I know it does. But I don't see why that's an issue; concision is a virtue. If Coombs and Pengally were otherwise notable I'd be much closer to agreeing with you, but as they are not (in wiki-terms, notwithstanding their personal bravery), this is basically shoe-horning in lurid extraneity from a source of proven unreliability. BTW, what problem did Cass and Tim have? ——Serial ^# 13:55, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
          • That reporter is not a source of proven unreliability. It's a mistake to see the Mail as one entity. It has weak and strong areas. Its police and court reporting are (or used to be) its strengths. SarahSV ^(talk) 14:08, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
          • Dave Pengelly was the sergeant in charge of the unit. He was awarded the George Cross for what he did that night. That is not "shoe-horning in lurid extraneity". SarahSV ^(talk) 14:16, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
        • Pinging Cassianto and Tim riley, who I see had the same problem. David has done it to one of my FAs and to this one that I would like to bring to FA. I've wondered about asking FA people about not being allowed in any circumstances to use the Daily Mail or, it seems, the Mail on Sunday, no matter how reliable the reporter. This is contrary to everything I know about choosing sources on Wikipedia. SarahSV ^(talk) 13:42, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• SarahSV, responding to your question, I think the anti-Mail zealots sometimes lose sight of what we mean by a WP:RS. I wholeheartedly support the decision that the Mail is not to be trusted on matters of fact, but I get a bit ratty when someone tells me I can't quote in an article on, say, a play what the Mail's critic said about the piece in 1908 or a performance of it in 2008. Quoting a critic's opinions verbatim is a simple matter of record, and the factual reliability of the source is not, ipso facto, at issue. But on any matter of fact or presentation thereof, I entirely concur with the WP consensus that the Mail is not a reliable source. Tim riley talk 15:11, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• Tim riley, thank you. The problem is that we're not allowed to decide whether any particular use of the Mail might be an appropriate use. The idea of "appropriate" has been thrown in the bin. Sources are now deemed, out of context, to be RS or non-RS, which is nonsensical. SarahSV ^(talk) 15:20, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• Quite so. One would have to be excessively doctrinaire to disagree you with on that point, in my view. Tim riley talk 15:27, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
• Per Tim. Also, to me, this seems to be more political rather than a result of some desire to honour the results of an RfC. Gerard does seem to have a biased political agenda here. Cassianto^Talk 19:53, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
• Another article, another crusade, I see. While I !voted to support the general bar on the DM, I note that RfC was that the source should be "generally prohibited". That is very different to "completely banned and a disruptive crusade by a small number of editors must be made to remove it". But there again, if you type things in bold and occasionally in capitals, that must mean it must be much more persuasive than a good argument built on facts and details. - SchroCat (talk) 18:55, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Pointless off topic nonsense

You claimed this previously on RSN; I noted a few days later that neither the 2017 RFC nor the 2019 RFC show evidence of you posting to them, and you didn't answer. Are you sure you're not misremembering? - David Gerard (talk) 19:26, 13 June 2020 (UTC) No. And I was ignoring you, after you were so disruptive by edit warring to remove the Mail on Sunday - a source that hadn't been "generally prohibited", but didn't return to 'fess up to the fact you fucked up and were unapologetic about it. I voted against it, and I'm not misremembering - and of all the uninteresting and petty points I've seen scattered across this 'discussion', that's the one you want to try and pick holes in? - SchroCat (talk) 19:38, 13 June 2020 (UTC) Right, so you're claiming twice now that you did a thing there's no evidence you did, and that you can't produce the simplest evidence you did when I notice this, and blustering when called on it? - David Gerard (talk) 21:31, 13 June 2020 (UTC) No blustering: just replying to explain why I didn’t reply last time. Personally I couldn’t give a toss whether you believe me or not, but it’s interesting to note how little you take note of AGF. Perhaps if you’re disruptive as often as you, then AGF is something you don’t think you have to bother with. I certainly voted in one of the RfCs, but under a legitimate second name, rather than this one (I think I voted in the second, but I just can’t be bothered to check) It’s incredibly easy to find out, but I just don’t think I can be bothered to explain, as you haven’t asked pleasantly on any of the occasions you’ve raised - your silly combative BATTLEFIELD approach means I just don’t want to. - SchroCat (talk) 22:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC) I'm yet again amazed to see just how consistent a grasp of civility Daily Mail advocates (to describe your observable behaviour) have. Well done - David Gerard (talk) 00:47, 14 June 2020 (UTC) And I’m amazed to see how consistently you troll other users, despite what you’re told. You continue to refer to me as a “Daily Mail advocate” when I said at the RS noticeboard that I dislike that particular publication and that I voted against it. I Have repeated here that I voted against it, and again you jump back to ad hominem comments. Take the trolling elsewhere - I really can’t be bothered with the pettiness you constantly demonstrate. - SchroCat (talk) 06:53, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• • • • • • Featured article criteria include to use reliable sources - and the Daily Mail is, by the strong consensus of two RFCs, the opposite of a reliable source. This is not complicated, and at this point you seem to be trying to conjure excuses from nothing. Have you not noticed yet the broad consensus in this very discussion against your position on the DM? - David Gerard (talk) 13:55, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
            • FACR requires appropriate sourcing. There was broad consensus in the RfC, but it did not amount to a ban and it did not cover the Mail on Sunday. Yet you are proceeding as if both are banned entirely. SarahSV ^(talk) 14:03, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
              • Yes, that's always been the main problem with these mass edits which leave errors and linkrot behind. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 14:04, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
• Not A BLP Violation. Not usable as a source. When your name is on something that was published in The Daily Mail, BLP does not protect you from someone pointing out the fact that TDM has been caught fabricating quotes and entire interviews again and again. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the claim that under certain limited circumstances TDM doesn't lie is very much an extraordinary claim. Saying "it doesn't make sense to me that they would lie in this circumstance" doesn't cut it. I for one am tired of playing Whac-A-Mole, documenting new ways that TDM fabricates information as editors claim "I know in my heart that this time they can be trusted". No more. Show me evidence that they can be trusted in certain circumstances. Don't ask me to prove again and again that they can't be trusted. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:05, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

The discussion here has become a relitigation of WP:DAILYMAIL, to the point of pinging the RFC closers to this end. As such, I've moved the discussion text that was here there, to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Use_of_extended_quotation_solely_from_Daily_Mail_on_Death_of_Keith_Blakelock, to avoid the dangers of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS in reevaluation of an RFC - David Gerard (talk) 11:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I've restored. If you want to copy posts somewhere, that's fine, but please don't move them. I'm about to post something. SarahSV ^(talk) 12:56, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• Hell caught faking their own historical headlines. This is why they are depreciated, so we do not have to show every damn time they are telling porkies yet again.Slatersteven (talk) 11:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

  We have never caught The Daily Mail fabricating stories on a Tuesday under a byline that contains the letter "Q", so it would be a clear WP:TLA to remove those citations. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

  Guy, as someone living in the United States, where does your information about this newspaper relative to other British tabloids come from? There are four main tabloids in the UK: the Daily Mail and Daily Express are higher quality (within the tabloid-journalism genre) and the Sun and Daily Mirror are lower quality. (There are others that are lower still.) The Mail, Express and Sun are right-of-centre. The Mirror is left-of-centre. Only the Mirror can still be used on Wikipedia. That should cause concern about this whole process. SarahSV ^(talk) 14:00, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

  I do not come from the USA and I say its junk, and so are ALL the others. I have argued more than once to deprecate the other Daily Myth. So lets not have whataboutism arguments, as I (have said before) its not us who are stopping them being deprecated.Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

  Yeah. All this stuff "Where are you from" stuff is well out of order. Or at least irrelevant. The material will be inserted into the article if a talk page consensus agrees to it. If there are elements of the DM that should be allowed (err, court reporting etc)^{In any case,} then that should either have been raised at the original RfC or relitigated. But we can only play the cards we've been dealt, and right now those cards are ONUS and V.

  Incidentally, SlimVirgin, there's currently a ~13,000 word discussion on the DM taking place, and would be the perfect place to raise your suggestions, although it seems you haven't commented there yet. ——Serial ^# 15:01, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

  I actually forgot about wp:npa and the fact "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views" is against policy.Slatersteven (talk) 15:11, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

  And canvassing too. Shame. ——Serial ^# 15:26, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

  (ec) Serial Number 54129 and Slatersteven, the reason I asked is that I get the impression most of the people responding to these RfCs aren't familiar with British tabloids. I think that familiarity matters. If you add that their RfC responses were turned into a more extreme outcome than they intended, you end up with this kind of situation, with everyone now trying to sound more anti-Mail than anyone else, because suddenly it's what's expected. SarahSV ^(talk) 15:28, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

  ""Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views" is against policy"", so no it is not relevant, it is a PA and I suggest you stop.Slatersteven (talk) 15:56, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Daily Express higher quality than the Daily Mirror, are you kidding me? You mean the same Daily Express noted for its obsession with Diana and absurd weather warnings? I agree with some of the other commenters that reviews published in the Daily Mail, whether published historically or not, should be usable provided the critic is notable. I think it is probably worth holding another RfC to specifically ask about the reliability of the Daily Mail for reviews only. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:29, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia, I agree that I'm probably wrong about the Express. I remember the complaints about them from the McCanns. I'm not defending any of these newspapers; it's the idea that never ever ever in any circumstances can we add a link to one of them that's so alien to the idea of choosing appropriate sourcing. What we need is for the 2017 RfC close to be made clearer, because "generally prohibited" doesn't mean "never use it". SarahSV ^(talk) 00:40, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Indeed interpreting as "never use it" is going too far, and I believe that David Gerard has incorrectly referred to WP:DAILYMAIL when removing cites for other newspapers and for opinions. But, unfortunately, it does seem to be applicable for removing quotes, "generally". Retaining this quote would require consensus and so far that is lacking. Unless others unequivocally say they support retention? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:41, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Peter, unfortunately, discussion about the quotation has been tainted by discussion about the newspaper. I don't know how to keep the two issues separate so that the quotation alone can be examined. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:54, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

In the above comment, I see SarahSV making the same basic error in thinking that I have seen again and again by editors who desire to cite The Daily Mail.

They want us to keep discussing new situations and whether The Daily Mail can be trusted in this new situation.

Again and again I see people claiming that they "just know" that:

• The Daily Mail wouldn't lie about a direct quote,
• wouldn't fabricate an interview,
• wouldn't lie about whether the person who's name is on the top of an editorial is the author who actually wrote those words,
• wouldn't lie if that "author" has a sufficiently famous name,
• wouldn't lie if doing so would result in a lawsuit or fine,
• wouldn't lie about material being original as opposed to being plagiarized with a few errors thrown in to make better clickbait,
• etc., etc.

Those who "just know" that there are situations where the Daily Mail never lies expect the rest of us to find, not just multiple examples of The Daily Mail lying. but examples of them lying in every conceivable situation.

Last month I had no evidence that The Daily Mail might lie about the contents of their own historical pages, but I knew from experience that they lie in all situations, so I didn't need an example of them lying is this specific situation.

Now I have an example of them lying in this new specific situation.

I am getting sick and tired of playing Whac-A-Mole. At what point do we simply conclude that those who "just know" that The Daily Mail doesn't lie in some situations "know" no such thing and that The Daily Mail will lie about ANYTHING? --Guy Macon (talk) 10:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

You're putting "just know" in quotes but I don't see opponents using those words in what is above. You're saying this is an "example of them lying" but the only evidence is your claim that they lie in all situations. In this thread (yes I actually read it) the verified fabrication-etc. example was from The New York Times not the Daily Mail. However, the question that I asked was whether others unequivocally support retention, and so far I guess not. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Clarification: "they lie in all situations" means that there are no situations where they can be trusted not to lie, not that they can be trusted to lie in every case. (Examples: "usable for sports scores". "Usable as a source for what the daily mail previously published". "usable as a source because I am safe in assuming that what they put on my computer screen in the US is the same as what they display to people in the UK", "usable for direct quotes". "usable as a primary source for the words of the person listed in the byline", "usable as a primary source for the words of the person listed in the byline if the person is a DM staff member". etc.) Sometimes they print the truth. But you never know if this time they decided that it was too much work to look up the actual quote or actual sports score and just made something up instead. If you have evidence that they didn't lie this time because another source has the same material, use that other source. If they add some detail that the other source missed, that detail might be fabricated. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:59, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Remember this is not RSN, and is only about the use of the Daily Mail. It doers not matter if it is the only source we depreciate, it is deprecated and pretty much is banned for use of this kind.Slatersteven (talk) 07:53, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

The discussion here is notably filled with canvassed past Daily Mail advocates, who have tried bringing their particular DM advocacy to RSN previously and been rebuffed, which is why they're so enthusiastic to try to synthesise a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS here to reverse WP:DAILYMAIL. Since this is an article discussion page, it's time to bring it back to the article, for a straw poll at least - David Gerard (talk) 10:50, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I was alerted about this thread due to this post by David Gerard. If that means I was canvassed, okay. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:38, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Straw poll: Use the DM as a source on this article?

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 Serial Number 54129 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)
• No Its deprecated for a reason, one that may well be the case here.Slatersteven (talk) 11:09, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
• I'll just place WP:POLL here so we can all be assured to have read it, and to understand that the purpose o the poll is not to decide consensus, but, rather help us actually reach true consensus, evaluate whether a consensus exists, or "test the waters" of editor opinion among a few discrete choices.
  There are two component factors to be considered wrt the question, the general and the particular.
  The Daily Mail should not, generally, be used in our articles per WP:DAILYMAIL: any side-wide caveats—such as interviews or reviews of long weekend operas, for example—should be raised at WP:RSN per policy. This discussion has merely to establish whether the DM can be used on this specific article this single time.
  For this article, there is no necessity for the DM to be used and no persuasive argument has been presented to do so. I have already suggested it is unnecessarily lurid. Others have pointed out its unnecessary length. The argument for its inclusion—that it describes a chain of events and mentions individuals is countered by the fact that, as I noted above, reliable sources already do this:

1. Tim Brain's A History of Policing in England and Wales from 1974 quotes Stratford as saying:

   I half turned and saw the PC about 20 yards behind me. He just stumbled and went down and they were upon him. It was just mob hysteria. I stopped about 40 or 50 ft further on and turned. They had fallen on him and I completely lost sight of him. There were about 50 people on him" He was in "one hell of a mess".(published by Oxford University Press, 2010, p.113)

   So this provides a similar, less tabloidy, eye-witness account, and avoids the need to use the DM.
2. Other sources ([1],[2]) discuss the roles of Pengelly and Coombes (although coverage in RS is not extensive on these two, so due weight should be given to them).
3. The only other main concern argued is that we want to mention a rugby tackle; I suggest that suits a tabloid—like the DM—but not a respectable online encyclopedia. Or at least not one which wishes to be seen as respectable.
   TL;DR The suggested source is only to be used in exceptional circumstances, and, since the claims it makes are either unencyclopedic or can be cited to alternative independent, third party reliable sources, this is not one of those exceptional circumstances. So, no, do not use as a source in this article. ——Serial ^# 12:04, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• Refuse to play Whac-A-Mole, constantly relitigating what the community has already decided: While I understand why this was posted, I am saddened that the behavior of certain editors made it necessary. The closing summary of WP:DAILYMAIL was countersigned by four respected editors, and nobody has ever challenged that close. You don't overturn a site-wide decision on a page by page basis. See WP:LOCALCON. Post a new RfC if you think the community has changed their mind. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:56, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

It's been a week with no more support for the DM quote. I've replaced it with the OUP book quote. If anyone strongly disagrees that satisfies the rough consensus above on use of the DM quote vs. the OUP book quote, please say so.

That quote is sourced to another source, "Rose p. 69". Does anyone here have Brain's book, and can see what this primary source was? - David Gerard (talk) 09:09, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

Requested move 6 October 2021

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)

---

Death of Keith Blakelock → Killing 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)

• Move back to Murder of Keith Blakelock. This is a common sense issue. Sometimes it is obvious when something is murder, whether an individual is convicted or not. He was not accidentally stabbed multiple times. It was not manslaughter. He was murdered. The three individuals convicted of murder had their convictions quashed because it was not proved beyond reasonable doubt that they were guilty of murder. Nobody questioned that it was a murder. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:24, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

• Why was it changed? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:30, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

• 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)

Ah yes, I wholly agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:07, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

There wasn't a consensus to move it to its current title. Jim Michael (talk) 15:04, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support Murder of Keith Blakelock per Necrothesp. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 12:42, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support Murder of Keith Blakelock per Necrothesp. The only point in keeping this as "death of" would be to highlight that no one has ever been convicted of this incredibly brutal crime. But that would be WP:RGW. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:07, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support Killing of Keith Blakelock as per nom and WP:DEATHS. 162 etc. (talk) 15:32, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

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) p.s. one of the principal sources here is the 2010 book A History of Policing in England and Wales from 1974 by Tim Brain. He plainly describes it as a murder e.g. on page 114.

• Support Killing of Keith Blakelock. WP:DEATHS and WP:BLPCRIME. It is fallacious for an editor to interpret adherence to these guidelines as some sort of "vindication" of an alleged perpetrator or crime. In fact, the inverse issue arises when we as editors assign legal terms to events that have not been legally evaluated as such. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 20:40, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Surrounded by a mob of around 50 people, he received over 40 injuries inflicted by machetes or similar weapons, and was found with a six-inch-long knife in his neck, buried up to the hilt." 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)

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)

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)

• Support Killing of Keith Blakelock per nomination, 162 etc. and Tpdwkouaa, but would not oppose return to Murder of Keith Blakelock, which was the main title header from June 2007 until August 2011 (the original title, starting with the article's creation in September 2005, until June 2007, was simply Keith Blakelock).-- Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 21:27, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. Re the flow chart. There actually were three convictions for murder. To reiterate what I said above, the three individuals convicted of murder had their convictions quashed because it was not proved beyond reasonable doubt that they were guilty of murder. Nobody questioned that it was a murder and the jury in fact obviously found that it was. If not, they could have found the three defendants guilty of manslaughter instead. The quashing is irrelevant to whether or not the act of murder had been committed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:37, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

  Miscarriages of justice are also tricky. The Murder of Lynette White in 1988 saw "one of the most egregious miscarriages of justice in recent times". All three accused were imprisoned. All three had their convictions quashed. The police eventually got the culprit 15 years later In the interim period, no one suggested it somehow "wasn't a murder". Martinevans123 (talk) 13:52, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

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)

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.

Private flickr photo in "Outdoor elevated walkways" box

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)