Talk:Siege of Sidney Street

Contradiction in whether they were anarchists
There is a jarring contradiction within the section entitled "Latvian emigre gang". It states in the first paragraph that "the small group of Latvians ... were not anarchists". Then in the second paragraph, "The probable leader of the group was George Gardstein ..., who probably was an anarchist". Perhaps the solution is to write that the group were not ALL anarchists, but I would not make that edit without knowing the evidence for each claim. Jmchutchinson (talk) 07:40, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Not that jarring: the group weren't, but one member was. Anyhow, I've tweaked accordingly. – Gavin (talk) 09:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Just because you didn't fall off your chair doesn't mean he didn't. ;) Jyg (talk) 21:25, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

The state of mind of the members of the gang
The state of mind of individual members of the gang is a matter of speculation, unless the member/s themselves make a statement, which they did not. How their state of mind came about is also a matter of speculation. There are no statements to this effect by the members of the gang, in any source. HarrySime (talk) 14:06, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

You need a section 'speculation by academics as to motive'

if you want to include that speculation as to their state of mind or how it came about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HarrySime (talk • contribs)


 * 1. You need to stop edit warring on this point. As I've indicated on your talk page, per WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO, the extant version remains unless there is a change in the consensus. The consensus on this article was agreed at an extensive peer review followed by a second review at FAC stage.
 * 2. WP reflects only what the sources say; it also does not ignore key information that the sources say. Please see WP:TRUTH: a. "Editors may not ... delete content they believe to be untrue, unless they have verified beforehand with a reliable source", and our content is "determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of editors".
 * 3. You are not, I presume, an expert on the Siege, or of the police investigation that interviewed many of the people who knew the gang members (from whom the information could have been garnered), nor do you have a source that states that the opposite is true, or even that questions the information we have provided? As such, and as you cannot point to any reliable source, the information remains.
 * 4. Just to confirm, the information we have in the sentence is sourced to two reliable sources. Two. They both trump what you think may or may not be the case.
 * 5. A section on 'speculation by academics as to motive'? No. When you've been here for more than the handful of edits you have been, you will realise that is not the way we present information in articles. - SchroCat (talk) 16:19, 19 January 2020 (UTC)