Talk:Bulldog Bash

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

M40 shooting[edit]

I appreciate that the full facts aren't yet known about this case, and that there may be no direct link at all, but it's a huge news story and the Bulldog Bash is mentioned in just about every report of it. Not mentioning it at all in this article seems just a little... surprising. 86.143.51.249 22:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I now see that something was added about this, then removed on the grounds that there was no link - which is true as far as it goes. But I think that making out that the link is as tenuous as it would be with the London Eye is slightly disingenuous. The Bulldog Bash is a motorcycle event after all, and as the BBC News page says, the police "had earlier said biker gangs [were] a "strong line of inquiry" in the investigation". 86.143.51.249 22:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies - the above comments are mine; I forgot to sign in. Loganberry (Talk) 22:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is an obvious link between Bulldog Bash and the shooting. Please don't remove the references from this page.--   Avg    22:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since the section is named 'In the Press' I felt that any news mentioning the Bulldog Bash is relevant - no-one is putting forward that the Bulldog Bash is to 'blame' -- it is simply adding coverage which the event receives. Since there is now a heading for the shooting incident itself, I presume it answers the issue. Dzstudios 05:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That heading and its content have now been removed once again. I'm not going to replace it partly for obvious reasons of wishing to avoid edit wars, but mostly because I don't have sufficient knowledge to do so. However, I'm not comfortable with there being no mention at all, since such a possible link has been widely covered in the media. Even if it remains the case that no link is discovered, it is encyclopedic and correct to mention that the press have been speculating that there may be. WP editors should not speculate themselves, but they should report such speculation if in a major source such as a national newspaper.
As an overlapping, but not directly related, point: at the moment this article looks a little too much like a fan page for comfort; it seems a little bit more defensive on some points than an encyclopedia page should be. I certainly don't think references to negative coverage should be added just for the hell of it... but they should be added for NPOV and balance. Loganberry (Talk) 10:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree and as a note to other users, any removal of the M40 incident without justification will be reverted. It is all over the press and it is linked with the Bulldog Bash. It would be unencyclopaedic not to mention it.--   Avg    17:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The only way it is linked to the Bulldog Bash is because the murdered person was riding home from the event. It did not happen at the bash and it was not initiated at the bash. If the Rover 620 the police are looking for was at the bash, they would have it on video and would be able to trace it.

If the victim was riding home from the London Eye, would the incident be recorded on the London Eye Wiki entry? I think not. All the press say is that he was riding home from the bash, which is not related to the bash itself. Adding the M40 incident just continues to enhance the bad name bikers and the HA in general already have. There is no point what so ever in this incident being recorded on this page. Alcapone69 09:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, quoting news papers speculation/guessing helps the news papers justify their speculation when they can claim "its in an encyclopaedia". An encyclopaedia should contain facts only and not repeat speculation. Alcapone69 10:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't anything wrong with quoting speculations; otherwise you'll be taking massive chunks away from a huge range of articles (air crashes, JFK murder, mass extinctions etc...) Phonemonkey 15:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, so long as it is clear that it is speculation and not fact. Alcapone69

I'm responding the RFC. I wonder if this would help as an accurate summary of the news item: "In 2001 three bikers driving home from the Bulldog Bash on the M40 were shot at and survived. In 2007, an individual biker driving home from the Bulldog Bash on the M40 was fatally shot. News media widely reported on police speculation that in both of these incidents, the shooters might have been associated with biker gangs which, in further police speculation, might have been present at the Bash." VisitorTalk 01:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. As the 2007 incident, it didn't happen at the Bash. I'm sure people have been killed in car accidents driving home from Tescos, is that recorded in the Tescos article? It is police and media speculation, not Bulldog Bash speculation. There is no evidence that either of the shootings were linked to the Bulldog Bash. If it needs to be recorded, do it on the police or media articles. I see the 2007 shooting has (quite rightly) been recorded on the M40 article. Alcapone69 08:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In Law, all you need to establish is a "sufficient causal link" between him having been at the Bash and then having been shot. If it happened at the Bash or not is I'm afraid, irrelevant. --   Avg    17:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it didn't happen at the Bash and there is no proof of any link to the Bash makes the murder irrelevant to the Bash. I'm not sure why you are linking 'sufficient causal link' to Causation (law). From that article: "Causation is the bringing about of a result, and in law it is an element in various tests for legal liability." - are you trying to say the Bash is legally liable for the murder? Alcapone69 14:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the police and media are making the speculations and specifically asked people who had attended the bash for information makes the incident related. Add to that the fact that he is prominently mentioned on the bash's website and appear to have been involved in the event --Neon white 23:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't. They are only asking others who had been at the Bash if they had information. The murder did not happen at the Bash, it happened on the M40. The murder is not related to the Bash. I am not disputing that he was linked to the Bash, I am saying his murder wasn't. If Gerry was murdered a few days later, he is still linked to the Bash but his murder still isn't unless there is proof that the murder was due to an argument that started at the Bash. Alcapone69 18:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear god, it's like talking to a brick wall, it doesnt what happened and what didnt happen, it doesnt matter who commited the murder. the point is that one aspect of the police investigations is the bash and any possible events there. There are citation that back that up so what's the problem? --Neon white 00:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Murders happen on a regular basis and you believe in a god? I think you need to correct what you typed above, it's doesn't make sense to me. I don't care who speculates about what, all I care about is recording facts. Unless there is a proven link between Gerry's murder and the Bash, the murder should not be recorded on the article. The article is about the Bash and not about Gerry or his murder. Alcapone69 10:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well let's just put down all those: Police and media are speculating a link between the Bash and the shooting. People from the Bash are questioned. Gerry Tobin was undoubtedly linked to the Bash. The Bash organiser made a statement about the shooting. And all these are not a worth a mention? --   Avg    20:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care who speculates about what, all I care about is recording facts. Unless there is a proven link between Gerry's murder and the Bash, the murder should not be recorded on the article. The article is about the Bash and not about Gerry or his murder. Alcapone69 10:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
yet again the article is not about links but the speculation of links byt the police and media. You might not care about speculation but it is certainly noteworthy in my opnion. --Neon white 19:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I don't care who speculates about what" - well, that's a shame, because the whole point of Wikipedia is that it draws on what "reliable sources" say, and on Wikipedia, whether you believe it to be true or not is secondary to what reliable sources say.
Those sources are not talking about fact. An encyclopaedia should record fact. It is a fact that there is speculation, but the speculation is not fact. Record the speculation on an article about the people who speculate, but not about something they speculate a link to. Alcapone69 15:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "all I care about is recording facts" - that's good, so I presume you are interested in recording the fact that a significant media speculation took place.
Yes, on the media article. No, not on the Bulldog Bash article. The fact is 'media speculation', the fact is not Bulldog Bash speculation. Alcapone69 15:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Unless there is a proven link between Gerry's murder and the Bash, the murder should not be recorded on the article" - this discussion page is not a court of law, and is not a place to discuss whether the murder was actually linked to the Bash or not. None of us know, or are able to prove (or disprove) a link between the murder and the Bash, but even if we were able to, it would still be irrelevant to whether or not the fact that a media speculation took place should be mentioned. Phonemonkey 11:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So if we don't know, it's not a fact and should not be recorded. Alcapone69 15:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No-one is suggesting we should. It would likely be libel. We are suggesting that media and police specualtion should be included, which would not be libelous against the police or media as we have citations for its existance. --Neon white 19:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is going round in circles. Perhaps a poll? --   Avg    16:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alcapone69, so by your logic, all significant media speculations throughout history which has not been proved correct belong in one big article entited "media", and nowhere else. Correct? Phonemonkey


Once again I have removed the the mention of the M40 shooting. As specified at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/coventry_warwickshire/7736455.stm "The trial was told he was targeted by members of the rival Outlaws motorcycle gang simply because he was a 'fully patched' Hells Angel." Not because he had been to the Bulldog Bash, not because he worked for Harley Davidson and not because he e a motorbike, simply because he was a Hells Angel. Alcapone69 19:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My message above is repeated at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/coventry_warwickshire/7748708.stm. Alcapone69 19:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment:Mention of M40 shooting incident[edit]

Comments If the media has actually speculated that there is a link between the shooting and the event, then the fact that there has been a media speculation should be reported in the article. However if the media sources only go as far as reporting that the victim was riding home from the event (as Alcapone69 suggests) then the London Eye analogy makes sense. I haven't looked through all the sources so I don't know which is the case. Phonemonkey 16:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is the case that the media only report the victim as returning from the event. Alcapone69 23:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it in general agreement that an encyclopaedia should report speculation? Isn't it more logical to report facts rather than just repeat the dribble created by the media? Alcapone69 23:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Press coverage in itself makes it notable - see Wikipedia:Notability. Phonemonkey 12:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quote: "Notability is an article inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability. The topic of an article should be notable, or worthy of notice".
Something that is not factual is not "worthy of notice". Alcapone69 22:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If there has been a media speculation, then the fact that there has been a media speculation is indeed a fact. Phonemonkey 04:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But if the speculation is not fact, it is not "worthy of notice". Alcapone69 10:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By your logic, no speculations are noteworthy, since all speculations are mere speculations. Bob Woolmer's death was followed by widely reported speculations as to the cause of his death. Is this not noteworthy either? Phonemonkey 12:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, not if the media were wrong. Although it may seem relevant to some people now, it will seem totally irrelevant to people in the future. However, I see the article you refer to is actually "Bob Woolmer murder investigation", rather than "Bob Woolmer's death". They are not the same. If you are talking about an investigation, speculation may be more important. But if you are talking about the facts of the death, speculation is irrelevant. Alcapone69 00:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has been side tracked a bit. The question is 'Should the M40 shooting be added to the Bulldog Bash article because the media mentioned that the victim was on his way home from said event'. In my view, because the murder did not happen at the Bulldog Bash, it should not be included in the article. Which takes me back to my argument that if he had been on his way home from the "London Eye", would the murder have been added to the "London Eye" article? I think not. Alcapone69 10:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As stated before, if the media speculated that there was a link, then the fact that the media speculated that there was a link is notable.Phonemonkey 12:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you are saying an encyclopaedia should just be an archive of media speculation? That makes it pretty worthless. If the media thinks something up which is not true, it should be included under a new article "Media Speculation", only facts related to the article in question should be part of that article. Yes it is fact that the media guessed something, but unless they guessed correctly, their guess is not related to the article. Alcapone69 00:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're diverting from the facts. It's not media speculation, it is an official line of police inquiry that the killers were people in the Bash. You also seem to omit the fact that the Bash organiser himself made a statement about the shooting and said that everything went fine except the murder, meaning that himself had made a link. --   Avg    18:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the killers were at the Bash, it's not relevant. The shooting didn't happen at the Bash so is not linked other than the fact that the victim was there. That is not relevant. The victim has probably been on the London Eye, he may have even been to Tescos. He may have been followed from the garage where hi filled his bike. But we don't see it mentioned on the Tesco, Esso (or what ever garage) or any other article. As for the organiser's comment, that doesn't link the murder to the Bash either. If the victim had fallen off his bike and died, the organiser would have also mentioned that, but that would not be linked to the Bash. The fact is that it did not happen at the Bash and should not be included in the article. Alcapone69 10:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
As for "official line of police inquiry", again, it's not relevant. Again, if the line of enquiry passed through Tesco or the London Eye, would that be mentioned in those articles? The fact still remains that it didn't happen at the Bash. Alcapone69 10:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reason the Bash is mentioned is not because he was just there, it's because there is suspicion that this is the work of a biker gang. They might all be together at the Bash and then they followed him in the M40 and killed him. It is a plausible theory, given the facts, whether you like it or not. --   Avg    18:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alcapone69, quote: "it is fact that the media guessed something, but unless they guessed correctly, their guess is not related to the article". - You seem to be saying that "whether or not the fact that there has been a speculation is noteworthy depends on whether or not that speculation has been correct". Am I right? Phonemonkey 21:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are two issues here, one is the credibility of speculation and the other is the extent of coverage this speculation has received. Although it can be argued that even media speculation itself is noteworthy enough to be included in an article if it has made headlines and influenced many people, I'm additionally saying that this is not only media speculation, but police speculation, which is generally more credible, hence it should be mentioned. Police are investigating whether the incident can be attributed to biker gangs that had their meeting point that day at the Bulldog Bash. It is true that there is no conclusive proof yet. --   Avg    23:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it is gang related and even if the gangs did meet at the Bash, the incident didn't happen at the Bash. If they had their meeting on the London Eye, would it be recorded on that article? Alcapone69 08:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why does it have to be physically located in the Bash premises to be relevant to the Bash? This is a very narrow view IMHO.--   Avg    16:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quite simple, if it wasn't there or wasn't intended to be part of the Bash, it isn't related to the Bash. I know... the victim was riding a Harley Davidson Night Train, lets add the details to the Harley Davidson page. The shots were fired from a Rover so why not add to the Rover article? Alcapone69 00:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, another example, a drunk guy argues with another drunk guy in a pub and they agree to take it out. So they fight outside the pub and one of them gets injured. Is it related to the pub or not? --   Avg    00:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, probably not, the fact that they were at a particular pub is probably not relevant as they could have been at any pub, club, bar, in one if the person's own homes or even on a bus on the way home. However, if it was proven that the pub encouraged such activities, then yes it would be related to the pub. Alcapone69 16:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I've been drawn here by the RfC. AVG seems to have an agenda here and as such I'm ignoring his/her comments. There should not be any mention of a link between the Bash and the murder until anything has been proven idle speculation is inappropriate. I think the London Eye and Tescos comments summarise the argument best. AlanD 08:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An agenda? That's too ridiculous to even comment. Care to enlighten me what kind of agenda I have or do you have any more insulting comments to make? --   Avg    12:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hooray, someone wanting to stick to facts! Alcapone69 16:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not up to us to debate whether the shooting was related to the Bash or not - what we personally believe is irrelevant. It's not up to us Wikipedia users to speculate what happened on Wikipedia. The question is, did the media speculate that there was a link? Now I don't know the answer because I haven't scoured the media sources. If all the media says is that the biker was on his way home from the Bash, then the London Eye / Tescos analogy stands - the media did not actually speculate that there was a link and there is no point in mentioning anything. However if the media actually speculated that there was a link, then the fact that it is only a speculation is not a reason why the fact that the media speculated a link should not be mentioned. Also, if it is true that the police speculated that there was a link, this needs to be sourced before it can be mentioned in the article. Phonemonkey 15:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I already said, media speculation should be under it's own article. If the question is "did the media speculate that there was a link" and there is not a proven link, then there is no link and the media speculation is related to media rather than the Bash. Alcapone69 16:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the logic "if the link is not proven then there is no link", would you care to elaborate? Speculations that Osama bin Laden is dead is also unproven, it doesn't mean he definitely isn't dead. Phonemonkey 17:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't mean that at all. Speculation isn't fact, so he may be dead or he may be alive. If it is speculation, it is nothing more, so is not hard fact - that is the reason why it isn't "worthy of notice". An encyclopaedia should contain facts. Media speculation is fact, but not "worthy of notice" under any article other than "Media". Alcapone69 17:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By your logic, specuations that Osama has died is not worthy of notice, and therefore does not warrent a mention on the Osama bin Laden article. Right? Similarly by your logic, speculations that Alexander Litvinenko was killed by the Russian government are not worthy of notice since they are speculations. The list goes on. Phonemonkey 18:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe in an article about Osama, you could include speculation that he may be dead. Maybe in an articla about Alexander Litvinenko you could include speculation that he may have been killed by the Russian government. Maybe in an article about Gerry Tobin, you could mention he had been to the Bash. But the article in question is about the Bulldog Bash. The event in question didn't happen at the Bulldog Bash! Alcapone69 19:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here is one of the hundreds of links regarding this incident: M40 reopens after Hell's Angel shot dead i quote: The spokesman said detectives were investigating whether the killing was gang-related. The spokesman added: "This is certainly one line of inquiry. Officers will be looking at events over the weekend to see if that had anything to do with today's incident." So it is beyond doubt that it is an official police line of inquiry.--   Avg    20:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But unless it happened at the Bash, it is media speculation (which should be included in an article for media) and not related to the Bash. Alcapone69 00:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is police speculation. This is why I put the quoted text. --   Avg    01:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, it's police speculation, so could be included under an article titled "Police". It is not a fact related to the Bash, it is a fact related to the police. Alcapone69 14:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there are verifiable and relaible sources linking or speculating a link between the incident and the event then they are notable in the article and are therefore considered facts by wikipedia. Remember this is not a discussion as to whether the speculation is correct. It's recording that the speculation was made by the press and the police --Neon white 00:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not disputing that the speculation is a fact, but I am saying those facts are not related to the Bash other than the Bash was mentioned. A mention that someone had been to a venue before a non-related incident does not make that venue a link of any kind. Alcapone69 14:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If reputable media sources speculated a link between the shooting and the Bash, then the fact that there was a speculation is obviously related to the Bash. This is irrespective of whether the speculation has proved to be right or wrong (and as far as I am aware, the speculation has neither been proved right nor wrong, so it's not up to you to assert that the incident is "non-related"). Phonemonkey 14:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the article was about the murder of Gerry, I see no problem in mentioning that he was returning from the Bash. The Bash is relevant to his life and it was on the way home from there that he was shot. The article in question is about the Bulldog Bash and the murder is not related to the Bash, even though the victim was.Alcapone69 10:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alcapone69 let's go for a moment to Madeleine's case. As you probably know Kate McCann is a suspect. It has not been proved, it's just police speculation and it has been reported in the media, so according to you it should not be mentioned in the relevant Wikipedia article? Guess what, it is mentioned. Even suspects who are proven innocent are in the article, just pecause of the huge media publicity and speculation.--   Avg    22:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I never said that at all and neither did I imply it. The article on the disappearance of Madeleine McCann should include speculation about who may or may not be involved. Similarly, an article about the murder of Gerry Tobin, should include his interest in the Bash. But an article about the Bulldog Bash should not include anything about the murder of Gerry! It's all quite simple really, even though he was related to the Bash, his murder was not and because the Bulldog Bash article is about the Bulldog Bash and not about Gerry's life or murder, the M40 incident should not be included. Alcapone69 10:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
if you look at the website it says he was 'a valued member of the Bulldog Bash Team, his tireless and selfless input helped to elevate the Custom Show side of the event to the Best Custom Bike Show in Europe, and gave untold pleasure to thousands of Custom Bike fans.' So he was obviously related to the event even if it turns out that his death didnt. --Neon white 23:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As already stated above, even though Gerry was related to the Bash, his murder was not. Alcapone69 10:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the police do not agree with you there and that is the fact of the matter. --Neon white 00:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care who speculates about what, all I care about is recording facts. Unless there is a proven link between Gerry's murder and the Bash, the murder should not be recorded on the article. The article is about the Bash and not about Gerry or his murder. Alcapone69 10:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alcapone69, as stated many times, we are not here to debate whether his murder was related to the bash or not. Quite simply, we don't know - the media specuated on a link, and they may be right, or they may be wrong. It's not up to you to assert that the speculation is wrong, which is what you are doing when you say "the murder is not related to the Bash" when in actual fact nobody knows. Phonemonkey 10:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we don't know, we shouldn't record. As much as it is not up to me to say the speculation is wrong, it is not up to you to say it is right. In the interest of recording relevant fact, the murder should not be linked to the Bash unless proven in a court of law. Alcapone69 15:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We've been through this already, but I am happy to explain it again. This is about the fact that a media speculation took place, not about the specuation being right or wrong. Phonemonkey 16:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I've already said this several times, it is a media fact, not a Bulldog Bash fact. Alcapone69 18:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll copy-paste my post in the previous section, as it makes sense to continue both debate here: - Alcapone69, so by your logic, all significant media speculations throughout history which has not been proved correct belong in one big article entited "media", and nowhere else. Correct? Phonemonkey 23:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Media speculation about a link is not relevant in the Bulldog Bash article unless the speculation turns in to fact. An encyclopaedia is to record fact and not the often scandalous accusations used to sell news papers. It is a media fact, not a Bulldog Bash fact. Alcapone69 08:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again by your logic, all unproven (or incorrect) media speculations throughout history are disqualified from a mention on Wikipedia, apart from a huge list of them on the article entitled "Media". Correct? Phonemonkey 09:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is impossible for me to judge the suitability of an infinite number of scenarios where the media have or may speculate. In this case, the media speculation is not suitable as it is not a proven fact and serves no useful purpose. Alcapone69 12:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are saying that a speculation is not suitable for Wikipedia if it is not a proven fact. So by that logic you are disqualifying unproven speculations from inclusion on Wikipedia. Are you not? Phonemonkey 13:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm concerned, this discussion is about the Bulldog Bash article (hence the title 'Talk:Bulldog Bash'). My comments have been aimed at the Bulldog Bash article though may well apply to many other articles as well. Judging the suitability for inclusion of speculation is something that has to be done on a case by case basis. In this case the media speculation is not suitable as there is not a proven link between the murder in question and the Bulldog Bash so serves no useful purpose. As said many times already, if the article was about the murder, including speculation may be more appropriate. Alcapone69 13:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're going round in circles, so let me explain it in a different way. You state that one must judge a suitability for inclusion of a significant media speculation on a case-by-case basis. So I take it there are two outcomes:
  • Outcome 1: Media speculations which you judge to be suitable for inclusion on a Wikipedia, and
  • Outcome 2: Media speculations which you do not judge to be suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia.
  1. At the moment, your argument seems to be that in this instance, you judge it to be outcome 2, because (quote) "there is no proven link" - in other words, the speculation remains unproven.
  2. From the reasoning which you give above, I conclude that the difference between outcome 1 and outcome 2 (i.e. the reason why you believe it to be outcome 2) in your opinion is dependant on whether the speculation remains unproven.
  3. To this, my argument is that whether or not the speculation has been proved correct has absolutely no bearing on its noteworthiness.
  4. If the speculation links the murder to the Bash, then this fact is noteworthy in both an article about the Bash and an article about the murder (if it exists). This is in the same way as the fact that there were initial speculations linking 2004 Madrid train bombings to ETA, is a fact worthy of note in both the article about the bombing and the article about ETA. As you are probably aware, this speculation has been proved incorrect - in other words, it has actually been proven that ETA did not carry out the bombing. But as I have indicated above, the fact that the speculation has been proved incorrect has no bearing on its noteworthiness.
Please note that I have numbered each level of my argument above to help you clarify your response to each section. Phonemonkey 16:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Yes, for this article.
  2. Yes, for this article.
  3. Yes, for this article.
  4. This article is about the Bulldog Bash, not the murder of Gerry. All arguments against mine have mentioned speculation being recorded in an article about the event or person that the speculation is about (Osama bin Laden, Alexander Litvinenko, Disappearance of Madeleine McCann, 2004 Madrid train bombings), i.e. the article and the speculation have been about the same event or person. This article is not about Gerry Tobin or his murder but the speculation is and as such is not, in this case, worthy.
Please note that I have numbered each level of my argument above to help you clarify my answers. Alcapone69 07:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1, 2 & 3 - AS shown by example below, the fact that a speculation is unproven has no bearing on whether the speculation is noteworthy.
4 - Contrary to your assertion, there is nothing illogical about also recording media speculations on articles about something which the original incident is being linked to.
Let me show you an example:
  • Speculations linking the Russian apartment bombings to the FSB remains unproven, but that doesn't mean this cannot be mentioned in the FSB article.
  • This speculation is justifiably recorded not only in the main article about the bombings, but also in the FSB article. Phonemonkey 10:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Having just read some of the article on the FSB & Russian apartment bombings, the fact that FSB agents were caught planting a bomb seems like a proven link to me, so including the link between the FSB and the Russian apartment bombings is worthy. Alcapone69 12:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you feel that reading a few lines on Wikipedia enables you to arrive at the truth about something which public commissions, authors, journalists etc have been thoroughly investigating for years, Wikipedia is not a forum for users like yourself to evaulate evidence. In Wikipedia and the society at large both remain "unproven" speculations, and the fact that they are unproven has no bearing on whether they are noteworthy. Phonemonkey 14:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


There is no proven link between the murder and the Bash other than the victim had been to the Bash (as he had been to the petrol station, Tescos, his local pub and many other places), the article is about the Bash and not about the victim nor the murder. The addition of the M40 shooting serves no useful purpose in an article about the Bash. As such it is not worthy of a mention. Alcapone69 12:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speculations linking the Russian apartment bombings to the FSB is unproven (in society at large, irrespective of who you may think is responsible), yet the speculation is justifiably mentioned not only in the bombing article but also the FSB article.
One article is about the Russian apartment bombings and the other is about the FSB. Speculation regarding the FSB is is worthy in an article about FSB. It is stated as fact that FSB agents were caught planting a bomb. The article in question is about the Bulldog Bash, not the crime of murder, not the victim and not the people who committed the murdered. Alcapone69 17:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speculation linking the Madrid train bombings to ETA has actually turned out to be wrong, yet the speculation is justifiably mentioned not only in the bombing article but also the ETA article.
One article is about Madrid train bombings and the other is about ETA. Speculation regarding ETA is worthy in an article about ETA. The article in question is about the Bulldog Bash, not the crime of murder, not the victim and not the people who committed the murdered. Alcapone69 17:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speculation linking The Notorious B.I.G. to the killing of Tupac Shakur is also unproven, but the speculation is mentioned not only on the Tupac article but Notorious BIG's as well.
One article is about The Notorious B.I.G. and the other is about Tupac Shakur. Speculation regarding The Notorious B.I.G. is worthy in an article about The Notorious B.I.G.. The article in question is about the Bulldog Bash, not the crime of murder, not the victim and not the people who committed the murdered. Alcapone69 17:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suspicions that John Ausonius was linked to the killing of Olof Palme. This is actually believed to be incorrect as Ausonius was in prison at the time, but this speculation is still justifiably mentioned not only in the article about the killing, but also in the John Ausonis article.
One article is about John Ausonius and the other is about Olof Palme. Speculation regarding John Ausonius is worthy in an article about John Ausonius. The article in question is about the Bulldog Bash, not the crime of murder, not the victim and not the people who committed the murdered. Alcapone69 17:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you get the picture. I don't see anything about this article which sets it apart from the examples given above. Phonemonkey 16:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Except the article in question is about the Bulldog Bash, not the crime of murder, not the victim and not the people who committed the murdered. Maybe repeating my argument several times will clarify my point. The article in question is about the Bulldog Bash, not the crime of murder, not the victim and not the people who committed the murdered. The articles you mentioned above are about the people the speculation is about. Alcapone69 17:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the cited articles clearly mention it. 'He was riding home from the Bulldog Bash motorcycle festival 20 miles away at the Long Marston airfield near Stratford. Det Supt Lawrence said a possible feud between biker gangs was one line of inquiry.' and 'Officers are examining a similar shooting involving bikers from the Bulldog Bash six years ago.' --Neon white 19:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He was riding towards London, should it be included in the London article? He worked for Harley Davidson, should it be included in the HD article? He was riding AWAY form the Bulldog Bash, AFTER the event had finished. The fact that he was riding away from the Bash doesn't link the murder to it any more than his murder can be linked to London because he was riding towards London. The speculation has not been proven and is therefore not worthy in this case. Alcapone69 20:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First thing first, before moving on. Do we now at least agree that noteworthiness of a media speculation has nothing to do with whether its been proved right, wrong or remains unproven? Phonemonkey 18:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the article it is being quoted in. In this case, just because the victim had been to the Bash does not make speculation about his murder relevant to the Bash unless it is proven to be fact. Alcapone69 19:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what the article says or what is being suggested. It has been explained many times over. The article makes no attempt to present the media and police speculation as facts. If you continue to maintain that it does please state which phrase is the problem and we can discuss that otherwise it needs to be dropped. --Neon white 19:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the speculation is saying the Bash murdered Gerry, or Gerry was murdered at the Bash, the speculation is not worthy. If the events of 6 years ago (9/11) were planned at the Bash, they are not linked to it. If Gerry was murdered by bike gang feuds, that doesn't link the murder to the Bash. Even if the murder was commissioned by someone at the Bash, that does not link the murder to the Bash. The Bash is a peaceful festival and murder is not on the agenda. Alcapone69 20:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, Alcapone69 - this seems to be your position as it stands.
The media (or police?) speculation, that the shooting is related to the Bash, is not actually related to the Bash, the reason being it has not been proven.
Correct me if I am wrong. Phonemonkey 19:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unless proven to be correct, it is not linked to the Bash. Alcapone69 20:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I the fact that he was involved with the organisation of the bulldog bash makes his death noteworthy alone. --Neon white 19:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So are you saying every biker involved with the Bash who has been killed in a bike related accident should be listed there? Alcapone69 20:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alcapone69, if you feel the press and the police unfairly linked the murder to the Bash, then your issue should be against the press and the police, not Wikipedia editors who are only recording the fact that the press / the police made this link. Phonemonkey 20:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The police have not made a link between the murder and the Bash, they only suggested there may be one (i.e. speculated a link). That's why I view it as unworthy for inclusion in this article. If the article in question was an article covering the life of the victim or the murderer, speculation about the crime is appropriate because it speculates about the primary persons of the crime.
thank you for confirming that, the specualtion is what the statement says, i take it you have no objections now? --Neon white 15:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The press/police speculation is primarily about the murder so, again, would be worthy in an article about the crime. The speculation is not primarily about the Bash. Alcapone69 22:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a section entitled "in the press" in the article - and from what I can tell, it seems that the most common reason why Bulldog Bash is mentioned in the mainstream press in recent months is in connection with the M40 shooting. It is both notable and relevant to the article - we just have to be careful with the wording so that it is clear that it is only a media / police speculation. Phonemonkey 09:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "In the press" section references press articles which are directly about the Bash. The link between the Bulldog Bash and the murder are not, at this point in time and probably never will be, factual. As the speculation is not regarding an event at the Bash, it is not worthy of a mention. Alcapone69 08:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, although admittedly this might be unfair, the shooting is the primary reason most people unrelated to the scene learned about the Bash. It is this single fact that gave tremendous exposure to the Bash. --   Avg    18:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely irrelevant and only true as much as the name "Bulldog Bash" goes. I think the majority of the worlds population will be aware that there are bike festivals of this type in most western countries. Alcapone69 08:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They probably are, but the article is about the Bulldog Bash specifically, not bike festivals in general. Phonemonkey 19:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus[edit]

Right, it seems unlikely that the discussion is going to lead to a unanimous agreement amongst all participants in the near future. While I am happy to continue with the discussion, I also think it's necessary to establish whether there is a general consensus is in the meantime to put a stop to the edit warring. Looking through the whole page it seems to me that there is a general community view, reinforced by the RFC - that the M40 shooting should be mentioned in the article (although how this should be mentioned has not really been discussed.) Your opinions please. Phonemonkey 09:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mention it. I believe there is a consensus in this one, since there is only one person (AlCapone69) with a different view. I also agree that the fact that police and media only speculate about a link should be made clear. --   Avg    17:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a very small bit about the M40 incident, I hope that will keep everyone happy. However, I don't feel anything more is justified and will edit out any expansion on the story. Alcapone69 01:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will edit out the M40 incident in one years time if there is still no evidence of any link. Alcapone69 01:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the case is due in court, i believe, towards the end of november, if it transpires there is no link, it should possibly be removed as the police only speculated the link initially --Neon white 15:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it is proved that there is no link, I will remove the mention at an earlier time. Alcapone69 18:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'm happy with that - the previous versions certainly gave the shooting undue weight in relation to the rest of the article. Phonemonkey 18:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the assumption that the press can be used as proof, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/coventry_warwickshire/7736455.stm and http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/coventry_warwickshire/7748708.stm break the link between the M40 shooting and the Bulldog Bash. Alcapone69 19:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Police opposition to 2008 license[edit]

I think it would be appropriate to add a small section about the police opposition to the Council granting the Bulldog Bash a license for 2008.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/coventry_warwickshire/7376382.stm

http://www.birminghammail.net/news/birmingham-news/2008/05/02/police-bid-to-block-bulldog-bash-97319-20854198/

Also, our local paper this week carried a story that the police are planning to appeal after the council went against their advice and granted the license.

While I do not agree with the police stance on this, I do think it is noteworthy. 82.37.55.15 (talk) 09:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really? That would come as a surprise to anyone reading our article, because "the Bulldog Bash has a consistent record of causing the Warwickshire Police little trouble". Strange... --   Avg    17:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bulldog Bash. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:34, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:44, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bulldog_Bash&oldid=1206474381"