This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Murder of Keith Blakelock has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on October 6, 2011, October 6, 2015, October 6, 2017, and October 6, 2021. |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On 6 October 2021, it was proposed that this article be moved to Killing of Keith Blakelock. The result of the discussion was moved to Murder of Keith Blakelock. |
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
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). | ||
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. |
|
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)
" 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)
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)
It has been in the article since 2011The argument that we should keep bad content because it's old bad content has never been treated on Wikipedia as a strong argument.
generally prohibited.
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.
generally prohibited.
Its the Daily Mail and should not be being used for quotes. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:54, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
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)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)
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)
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)
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)
Also pinging Sunrise, Jo-Jo Eumerus, Tazerdadog, who co-closed the RfC. SarahSV (talk) 22:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
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.
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)
Pointless off topic nonsense
|
---|
|
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)
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)
There are many opinions above, and even a substitute quote from another source. What is the opinion on this issue?
(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.)
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:
So this provides a similar, less tabloidy, eye-witness account, and avoids the need to use the DM.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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Murder of Keith Blakelock has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on October 6, 2011, October 6, 2015, October 6, 2017, and October 6, 2021. |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On 6 October 2021, it was proposed that this article be moved to Killing of Keith Blakelock. The result of the discussion was moved to Murder of Keith Blakelock. |
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
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). | ||
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. |
|
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)
" 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)
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)
It has been in the article since 2011The argument that we should keep bad content because it's old bad content has never been treated on Wikipedia as a strong argument.
generally prohibited.
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.
generally prohibited.
Its the Daily Mail and should not be being used for quotes. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:54, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
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)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)
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)
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)
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)
Also pinging Sunrise, Jo-Jo Eumerus, Tazerdadog, who co-closed the RfC. SarahSV (talk) 22:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
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.
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)
Pointless off topic nonsense
|
---|
|
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)
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)
There are many opinions above, and even a substitute quote from another source. What is the opinion on this issue?
(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.)
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:
So this provides a similar, less tabloidy, eye-witness account, and avoids the need to use the DM.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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)