Talk:Death of Kevin Gately

Article accidentally makes it look like Gately was a fascist

Consider this:

“ Kevin Gately (18 September 1953 – 15 June 1974) was a student who died as the result of a head injury received in the Red Lion Square disorders in London; it is not known if the injury was caused deliberately or was accidental. He was not a member of any political organisation, and the march at Red Lion Square was his first. He was the first person to die in a public demonstration in Great Britain for at least 55 years.

On 15 June 1974 the National Front, a far-right, fascist political party, held a march through central London in support of the compulsory repatriation of immigrants.....

”

Because the National Front march was mentioned first - and, indeed, it will not be mentioned in any way that Gately was part of the group protesting the march until "During the surge by the SPG, they came into contact with the peaceful demonstrators in the march, driving them apart, as had happened with the IMG contingent. During this action several demonstrators were left on the ground; one of those was Kevin Gately." which is five sections into the article - the implication is that Gately was part of the National Front. I've tweaked things - a simple addition to the start of the second paragraph nips the implication in the bud - but this is a major mistake; I'm honestly shocked it didn't get caught at FAC. But then, it's the sort of thing where, if you know what it should be, you're not going to catch the implication as it's subtle, and if you don't know what it should be, it's one of those things everyone knows and therefore won't explicitly mention it so you're unlikely to catch that you were wrong. Doesn't come up often, but it's very easy to fall afoul of when it does. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 11:18, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't imply or make it look as if he were a fascist - the second paragraph makes it clear the only violence was between the police and the anti-fascists. It wasn't "caught" at FAC because there was nothing to catch. A great number of people have been over the article in the two years since it was rewritten and no-one has been left confused by the wording so far. - SchroCat (talk) 11:41, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Front page

• @SchroCat: I expected this to be on the main page today! Gutted. A proper anniversary TFA, rather than some obscure medieval battle or nunnery!  ;) SN54129 11:55, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

• Hi SN. As I'm sure you'll understand, I'm never happy when 'my' articles end up on the front page! The resulting brouhaha is too tiresome to have to cope with!. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:30, 15 June 2023 (UTC)