Talk:DSEI

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles

Military history: Technology / British / European

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force

Untitled

In discussions on user talk pages between myself and User:213.38.179.130 a few issues about this article have come up:

The description of DSEi as an "arms fair" (s/he said "DSEi is not an 'arms fair'. How can it be, when weapons and related systems make up less than 4% of the show? It is like calling the London Boat Show a windsurfing exhibition, or calling the Motor Show a gearbox show.") While they may have a point, I don't think it's unreasonable to use "arms" as shorthand for "military equipment", and it is the term that the BBC uses in its coverage of DSEi.[1]
The human rights issues - 213.38 says "I appreciate the need to document the controversy and protests involved with the show for Wiki readers, but the stuff about regimes with immoral human rights records is wildly inaccurate, as is always the way with DSEi reporting - not sure we're ever going to change that though!!" I definitely disagree with the last point, we should always be trying to ensure Wikipedia's coverage is NPOV. I don't think what we currently say is "wildly inaccurate" - it is my understanding that regimes with poor human rights records have been invited to attend DSEi, although we should have sources for this. Which leads me on to...
Something that I have noticed, the distinct lack of sources or references in the article, which we really should do something about - I'll try to find some later today.

213.38 has also mentioned the lack of images other than of the protests, which is definitely a problem - I have explained to him/her what they need to do if they have images to upload. -- AJR | Talk 12:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme Court case

The reference is a (not particularly well written) PR release on behalf of the appellants' lawyers, who specialise in this area. It should therefore be treated with extreme caution. However it seems clear that the Supreme Court ruled on proportionality, the "lawful excuse" had been established at the magistrates court. It's not clear what the "point of law" was which persuaded the High Court. Calling back to the "extreme caution" I note that both "lawful excuse" and "proportionality" might be considered technicalities. Ideally we should refer to the opinion, but the name of the case isn't given.

From the ref:

It was agreed that each case has to be judged on its own merits, and the state has to consider, under human rights legislation, whether the arrest, prosecution and conviction is a proportionate response to the defendants’ actions – which they [the Supreme Court judges?] agreed it was not.
— Yellow Jersey PR on behalf of Hodge, Jones and Allen

All the best: Rich Farmbrough 12:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Case is DPP v Ziegler