Talk:Death of Ian Tomlinson/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Eric Pickles

I removed the section about Pickles' opinion, [1] because it didn't really say anything, and it definitely isn't part of how the story emerged. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Autopsy and post mortem

Is there a reason someone keeps changing autopsy to post mortem? Both words are commonly used. The problem is that people are changing them without an eye on the writing — sometimes one word is used to avoid repetition of the other. There's no need always to use the same word to describe something e.g. sometimes we speak of police cordons, sometimes of police lines, sometimes of kettling. Which word is more appropriate depends on the sentence and the paragraph around it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the reason might be that "Autopsy" is a more American word, "Post mortem" a more British one. But anyone who changes it for that reason is an idiot - supposing either word was confusing, the meaning would only be a click away...! ninety:one 15:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I hope no one is changing anything in this article because they think it's American; that would be depressing. Regarding autopsy, it's from the Greek, and it's often used in the UK, both in newspapers (as we've seen in the Tomlinson articles), and in medical articles. Encyclopedia Britannica (2009): "autopsy, also called necropsy, postmortem, or postmortem examination. Dissection and examination of a dead body and its organs and structures. An autopsy may be performed to determine the cause of death, to observe the effects of disease, and to establish the evolution and mechanisms of disease processes. The word autopsy is derived from the Greek autopsia, meaning "the act of seeing for oneself." SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

It is confusing to use two different words for the same thing when one has overwhelming prevalence, as a reader may potentially think that because a different word is used, something different is meant. Almost without exception, British media sources being cited here use "post mortem," which is also used overwhelmingly within the British legal field and government sources (e.g. "postmortem" or "post mortem" on .gov.uk sites outnumbers "autopsy" by 7,630 to 613). The fact that the change to the more correct terminology has been repeatedly reverted despite edit summaries pointing this out says more about the editor doing the reverting. Nick Cooper (talk) 07:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Not a particularly good example there, since "line" and "corden" in this context have the same meaning, but "kettling" is not the same thing. Nick Cooper (talk) 07:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Nick, the point is that it really doesn't matter what British govt sources tend to use. We're not sheep! What matters is that both autopsy and postmortem are acceptable; both are used in the UK; both are used in articles about Ian Tomlinson -- just like us, the same article might use both words. The point I'm trying to make is that the writing sometimes requires us to use a different word to avoid repetition, and it would be good if that could be respected. Writing can't be algorithmic. We can't have a list of words we're for some reason not allowed to use. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

You are overlooking the fact that "post mortem" is the term used in English law and legislation, not "autopsy." The use of the latter here is as incongrous as saying "third degree murder" instead of "manslaughter" would be. Introducing an alternative but far less-used (by a ratio of around 10:1) term simply for the sake of variety is ridiculous. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Where do you get your 10:1 figure from? A google search shows for autopsy 9,220,000; for postmortem 2,740,000; for postmortem examination 297,000. A search for autopsy UK 1,300,000; for postmortem UK 354,000; for postmortem examination UK 124,000. Searches show autopsy used in British newspapers, including The Times and the BBC; in the House of Lords and House of Commons; in British medical articles, including in The Lancet; by the High Court of Justiciary in Scotland; and it's the word the Encyclopaedia Britannica chooses over postmortem.

Hansard for Bills and Legislation gives 134 to 13 (5 of which are Scottish bills); Hansard as a whole is 2546 to 335 BBC news site is 58,100 to 3,020. Googling .gov.uk domains gives 8,190 to 1,060. It's only when Googling .uk as a whole that you get 104,000 to 44,800. So actually there's a range of between 7.6:1 and 19.2:1 in what would be classed as authoratative sources, and still 2.3:1 on the (obviously) more colloquial .uk as a whole. Nick Cooper (talk) 07:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Both terms are acceptable. With respect, I feel it isn't reasonable for someone to decide that a perfectly ordinary English word is not allowed to appear in this article. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 14:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I had thought that an autoposy was different from a port-mortem (examination) but I was wrong. I suggest we use the term post-mortem rather than autopsy throughout the article. (Its OK for variety to sometimes say bucket, and sometimes pail if and only if everybody knows they are the same thing. If there is doubt on the point, use one term consistently). PS It's post-mortem not postmortem according to the compact OED. [2]--Philogo (talk) 00:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

And "postmortem," according to the Encyclopaedia Britannica -- perhaps another good reason to use autopsy. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the use of post-mortem rather than autopsy in most of the article sources, a good reason to use post-mortem?

Wnjr (talk) 11:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree: post-mortem--Philogo (talk) 12:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Peterloo Massacre

This was an inspired addition to See also by Philogo, but for some reason people keep removing it. I'd like to restore it. It's directly relevant in a number of ways: First, it was another case — almost 200 years ago — of the authorities (cavalry, not police, in this case) causing violence among demonstrators -- protestors who were asking for parliamentary reform. Second, it was regarded as "one of the defining moments of its age," as one historian put it, just as Tomlinson's death is almost certainly going to be, in terms of state/citizen relations in the UK. Third, it led to the creation of The Guardian, which has played a pivotal role in the Tomlinson story.

I feel this is exactly what See alsos should be: people should look at them, think "what does that have to do with this?", click on it, learn something. Does anyone mind if I restore it? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I'de say go for it Slim Lodi01 (talk) 01:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, will do. Thanks, Lodi. :-) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems somewhat obscene to compare a deliberate cavalry charge with sabres killing 15 people with the random police thuggery at the G-20 demos. There are plenty of events that at a stretch that might be considered similar to Peterloo (e.g. the Battle of Orgreave), that in themselves have some similarities with G-20, but it's bordering on the absurd to go straight from Peterloo to G-20. It's also rather alarming that you are basing your judgement on your personal belief that, "Tomlinson's death is almost certainly going to be... one of the defining moments of its age." This page seems in serious danger of losing its neutrality. Nick Cooper (talk) 07:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I assume you can cite a reliable source for your claim that there was only 'random' police thuggery?

Wnjr (talk) 11:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

"Random" in the sense that it was not deliberately planned or orchestrated. Can you cite a reliable source that proves it was the latter? Nick Cooper (talk) 12:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

You made the claim, you back it up.

Wnjr (talk) 15:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I've clarified what I meant by it, although I would note that my initial comment was only dealing with the implied comparison between the actions of the cavalry at Peterloo with the police at G-20. Perhaps you should clarify the exact basis for your objection? Nick Cooper (talk) 19:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

You say it's alarms you that SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} compares Peterloo to the G20 protests based on a personal belief, which you back up with your personal belief that all that is being discussed is "random" police thuggery, rather than something more systemic or institutionalised, using "well-rehearsed tactics".

Wnjr (talk) 23:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

What alarmed me was the justificatioin that Peterloo was, "one of the defining moments of its age," and her conviction that Tomlinson's death would be, as well. That sort of extreme crystalball-gazing isn't to be encouraged.

On the issue of police thuggery, clearly we have to diffrentiate between what does inevitably stem from ACPO guidelines and the like, from mere cultural habit, and again from that which goes beyond either. Clearly the first two were in operation on the day, but on top of that there were clearly cases where individual officers clearly acted in a manner not in accordance with guidelines or would be condoned by other officers (although the latter doesn't neecessarily mean they wouldn't/didn't turn a blind eye to it), which was the extreme "random" element I was referring to. Collectively, however, none of it compares with the inevitable consequences of a cavalry charge with sabres. Had the TSG AFOs opened fire on the crowd with live ammunition, it might be a valid comparison, but they didn't, so it isn't. Nick Cooper (talk) 07:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I meant that having unidentifiable police officers with no shoulder ID, wearing masks over their faces while assaulting people on the streets of London, and that being shown on video all around the world, will be some kind of watershed in terms of police/public relations in the UK. You don't need much of a crystal ball to be able to see that. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

You're talking as if this is the first time these things have happened (e.g. on one of my first demos in the 1980s, I was advised by an old hand: "When you see the coppers taking their numbers off, start looking for an escape route!"). What about the Poll Tax riots in 1990, the anti-Criminal Justice Bill protests in 1994, May Day 2000, May Day 2001, the 2004 Countryside Alliance march, etc.? Just about the only "new" aspect this time around is the propogation of footage by non-mainstream media means (although that has been seen elsewhere in recent years), and an exceptionally clear-cut example of the police attacking someone who wasn't even involved in the protest. Maybe it will be a watershed, but it's too early to tell, and certainly too early to fall into the usual left-wing romantic historical identification trap (I'm slightly surprised nobody has mentioned the Tolpuddle Martyrs yet). Nick Cooper (talk) 11:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

You seem rather caught up on the cavalry charge point, ignoring the wider context in boths cases. SlimVirgin is far from alone in seeing this as a watershed for policing, e.g. "Indeed, I suspect the repercussions of the tragic death of Ian Tomlinson and the footage of other incidents may well set the tone of the debate about British policing for several years to come." -Lord Toby Harris, the Home Secretary's nominee to the MPA

Wnjr (talk) 12:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I'm just too old and too cynical from seeing so many declared-at-the-time "watershed events" that turned out not to be, for all we might have wanted them to be. I think, though, that you are actually underestimating the significance of the cavalry charge. Such an operation with drawn sabres is inherently more severe than a modern charge by mounted police with batons, and even more so than individual officers on foot clobbering anyone within range. Batons can be and are potentially lethal, but they simply do not remotely compare with a sabre in the hands of a soldier who was trained to use it as their primary weapon in warfare. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

If we can not cite any sources to show that the assualts were random or planned we should not say that they are either. I am not sure that random and planned are contraries. A body of people can behave in a non-random way without planning, thorugh licence, ill-disipline &c. Were the Mail Lai massacres planned or random? What about Crystal night? --Philogo (talk) 12:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)--Philogo (talk) 12:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I've always thought that My Lai and Bloody Sunday were cases of the respective troops being briefed in such a way that they were convinced they would face a certain situation on the day, but when it didn't materialise, they carried on regardless. Given the press hype in the run-up to G-20, one could speculate a similar phenomena at play in the minds of certain individuals, but it self-evidently wasn't widespread enough to suggest the same was true collectively. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure that "obscene" would be the right word even if the see also link were "inappropriate". I assume that a "see also" section is to list other articles that the reader might find of interest, rather than imply any strict and direct comparabilty. The press has a number of examples drawing the readers attention to other events in history involving crowd control, demonstrations, death or injuries in same, right of desent or demonstate. Refently the toll puddle martyrs have been mentined. Therefore I see no reason why we might not direct the readers attention to Peterloo. I had provided a link to Kent State Massacres and the 1967 demonstration in Grosevenor Square (calvary were used) thinking they would be of interest to the reader. Other editors deleted them however, othewise I might had added a link to the the demonstration in Chicago during the democratic convention, or Napoleans "whiff of grape shot". Thos who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. At the reisk of sounding condescending the idea that the assualts are "random thuggery" is a good example of being doomed to repeat history. Was it SO long ago that the treatment of prosners in Irag was blamed of a few bad apples, but now we see emails at the highest level in the USA re-defining torture to allow just such abuses. --Philogo (talk) 12:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the further back in history we go, the less relevance there is, as events took place in a very different social and legal context. Grosvenor Square is more appropriate (although there is a deal of different between army cavalry and mounted police), not least because there was a mass of news footage clearly showing how the police operated. As regards "random thuggery," we have to be level-headed enough to recognise that if police actions were pre-planned and sanctioned, there would have been far more incidents under investigation now. This is really the flip-side of the coin where you have other people saying, "many/most/all of the demonstrators were out to cause trouble," since logic dictates that if that were true, the police would have been overhwelmed by sheer weight of numbers, for all their resources. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I do not agree at all with your view of history. Regarding being level-headed, I say again, If we can not cite any sources to show that the assualts were random or planned we should not say that they are either.--Philogo (talk) 12:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

You may well "not agree," but the fact remains that British society in 1819 was very different to what it is in 2009, not least because the masses at Peterloo were demanding many of the things that we now have, specifically universal suffrage and voting reforms. Incidentally, you seem to be arguing against something I haven't actually advocated, i.e. describing police excesses as "random" on the subject page. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

This is ludicrous. You can't really be saying that we should compare a massacre conducted by the military which directly killed 11 and injured at least 700 - with the death of one protester, after contact with the police, in circumstances which are not yet proven? I totally agree with the use of the word 'obscene', this article needs to get a grip. ninety:one 20:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Nick and Ninetyone, ignoring See also for a minute, which parts of the article do you feel are not NPOV, by act or omission? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, I assume that a "see also" section is to list other articles that the reader might find of interest, rather than imply any strict and direct comparabilty. If that is a misunderstanding that refer me to the approraite Wik-rule. If it is not a misunderstanding then it is unreasonable to object to a "see also" on the grounds that it is not a fair comparison; you would need to show that readers of this article would not be interested in Peterloo. The use of terms like "obsence" and "get a grip" are purely rhetorical; if the rhetoric is removed, what is left?--Philogo (talk) 13:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

To the contrary, the reasons given for the inclusion are worse. It starts with some equally 'inspired' rhetoric. In this case, 'the authorities' did not cause violence amongst demonstrators - please show me a video of mounted police cutting up crowds with sabres? The protesters in this case were not asking for 'parliamentary reform', so that point is also irrelevant. The claim that Tomlinson's death will be "one of the defining moments of its age" is against WP:CRYSTAL, let alone total poppycock. The one remotely valid point is the role of The Grauniad, which I feel should be covered properly in the article. That is the linking factor, but to put a link to Peterloo implies a comparison of the entirety of both events, which would be simply invalid. ninety:one 23:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Policing of protests

I think it may be time for the creation of a new page on the Policing of protests. This will be a place to put some of the material more peripheral to the case of the death of Ian Tomlinson, and it can also draw in a large amount of material from other pages and incidents, see [3]. Thoughts? Fences and windows (talk) 01:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC) Btw, there already is Riot control, but that focusses on the police tactics and equipment, and the title would be too POV (assuming rioting) for the addition of material about non-violent protests! Fences and windows (talk) 01:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a good idea, though I think a hard article to write, because we'd need to do a lot of historical research. It would also be difficult keeping it NPOV. But I'd certainly try to help out if you were to start it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs}

+1 on it being a good idea. Turkeyphan^t 12:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes a good idea, possibly better would be Management of dissent since this could encompass suppression of dissent other than expressed in protests (eg other activites of descenting movements (eg creation of organisations eg parties, unions, churches or dissemination of ideas eg petitions, pamphlets, festivals, newspapers) and other than by means of policing (eg military actions, repressive legislation, repressive court judgements eg transporations (as in toll puddle martyrs), intrusive intelligence eg photographing activists (As UK now), black-listing (as in McCarthy era) deportations (as in Charlie Chaplin), repressive or preventitive police bail (eg UK now), suspension of human rights (eg suspension of habeas corpus, right of legal representation, freedom from illegal search and seizure, inteference with privacy of correspondence (UK now), rendition, right to remain silent, right to trial by jury of peers, right to any action that is not illegal, free speech, free press) and the confisation and retention of private property (eg recently mobile phones, copy of New Statesman from people who have not been found guilty or even charged with any offence). --Philogo (talk) 12:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Two comments on this suggestion by Philogo. First, the title "Management of dissent" is not a common phrase. Second, the scope seems too broad. Much of that content is already covered by Civil liberties and its subpages. Also Human rights, Template:Particular human rights, Freedom of association, Freedom of speech, etc., Due process, McCarthyism, etc.

Policing of protest is a defined topic, and I can't find a page that really covers the area. It will be difficult to write and maintain NPOV; involving the Law enforcement Wikiproject will be a good idea. Fences and windows (talk) 21:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Also see Civil society, Democracy, Political dissent, Civil disobediance, Activism, Oppression, Political repression, Police misconduct, Police brutality, Police riot, Blacklisting, State terrorism, Subversion (politics), Sedition, Rebellion, etc. There's a lot of articles already covering this ground. Fences and windows (talk) 22:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I am not sure whether an article's title should be a "common phrase" and how to judge whether a phase is common. Do you mean its not snappy enough? The subject of the article is broad, deliberately so: broader than any of those you mention. It would surely refer to the articles that you mention, but I doubt whether the latter would eshaust the scope. The exisitence of more particular articles does not diminish the value of the more general: the article on science is not redundaant because of the existence of articles on chemistry, physics etc. A good reason (in general) for having more general articles is that they can (a) outline the general issues (b) direct the reader to the more specific articles. --Philogo (talk) 22:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

"Management of dissent" is too broad. What type of dissent - to your parents, at school, in a company? The title also assumes that dissent needs to be or is "managed". A better title might be "Government responses to dissent" or "Dissent and the state". Actually, Political repression might already be an umbrella title that could be expanded. Anyway, the two proposed articles are not mutually exclusive. Fences and windows (talk) 23:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The title assumes that dissent could be managed (not needs to be). "Repression" is too narrow excluding tolerance, neglect, containment, isolation, absorption and dialogue. Management includes. "Government" and "State" are too narrow excluding churches,society. The way churches for example practice religious tolerance or intollerance would be covered. "Political" is too narrow, because there can be dissent other than poitical, eg religous. "Management of dissent" would cover the way tolerant or intolerant societies deal with minority views or customs, e.g. the way a tolerant society deals with intolerant views or pracitices, or the way a democratic society deal with totalitarian views and vice versa). The way that the Roman State (and society) dealt with e.g. religious dissent tended be absorption and tolerance rather than repression, and quie effective it was too. Police repression, witch hunts an Inquisitions may be the most exciting topics but not necesarily the most interesting. --Philogo (talk) 21:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

"Police Cordons"

This sounds euphemistic to me - is it obvious to everyone else that this means solid lines of officers? A police cordon could easily mean a line of tape set up by the police. 129.67.127.65 (talk) 09:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it allows no distinction between tape, loose lines and an "absolute cordon", as was in place for much of the day on April 1st.

It looks like police cordon is not at all the right term - see [4] or [5] or [6]or just google it. Perhaps an editor with police experience could tell us the technical term? It's a sort of Phalanx formation is it not?--Philogo (talk) 22:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

ACPO's guidelines on public order policing guidelines might be of use, although a skim-read doesn't reveal a specific term. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

No not much use. The section on batons is quite intersting however:

Authority levels For use as group tactic: 1. Pre-planned: Silver Commander. 2. Spontaneous: PSU Commander, serial/section supervisor if separated from PSU. Whilst acknowledging the importance of these authority levels, it must be noted that they do not affect the right of an individual officer to draw and use a baton, to protect themselves, a colleague ...

(unsigned comment by Philogo (talk) 12:51, 23 April 2009)

'Cordon' is used by the police themselves, e.g.:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2005/480.html#para299

"Location Oxford Circus. … Time 2 pm. Nature: cordons to be implemented to detain and prevent movement of demonstrators. Course of Action: cordons implemented by Bx 8 at Oxford Circus. Rationale: very large group of demonstrators engaged in unlawful procession at Regent Street -> Oxford Circus. Demonstrators in the roadway held at Oxford Circus by cordons implemented around them based on grounds that I had grounds [sic] to believe the public would be subjected to violence and there would be widespread criminality plus damage. Supplied by intelligence pre-event and during morning behaviour of protestors thus far, previous behaviour and criminality of protestors at similar events (J18, N 30 May Day 20000. The obvious fear of the public. Containment to be under regular review - officers to monitor crowd distress etc. When containment completed those contained to be informed of reasons. This deployment in line with tactical plan (outlined at meeting 26/4)."

but doesn't seem clear enough on it's own.

Wnjr (talk) 14:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It's worth noting that "kettling" is a term which - if Google is anything to go by - is not used on any .police.uk domain. Does anyone know what they call it "officially"? Nick Cooper (talk) 14:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, it seems it's "containment" as above, judging from this Nick Cooper (talk) 14:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

TSG section

Hi Wnjr, I tried to fix the writing of sentence about Nato helmets in the TSG section, but you reverted. [7] That sentence does need to be fixed. Can you say what you didn't like about the copy edit, so I can redo it? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

They are actually called NATO helmets, it makes no sense to me to refer to them as 'so-called', as if there was another more proper name. Your copy also suggested that the TSG always wear them, rather than only when their superiors deem necessary.

Wnjr (talk) 14:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Point taken about "so-called," and I thought they did always wear them. My apologies. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 10:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

It's very easy to slip into that habit, SlimVigin, the papers do it all the time! By admirable restraint we resist the temptation to write .. "Courageous" so-called police officers charge concerned citizens seeking reform.--Philogo (talk) 21:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Channel 4 report

A Channel 4 news report of April 22 is here:[8]. The report by Simon Israel gives the number of the officer they believe pushed Tomlinson. The IPCC tried to stop this film being shown. It shows a "melee" occurring beforehand, including the chase of a man who punched a police officer.

Also, it was a cameraman for More 4 News who captured the footage in which Tomlinson's head is seen hitting the ground in the background:[9]. Fences and windows (talk) 22:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I added a bit about the Channel 4 report to the section about the officer. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't give the number of the individual officer, only his unit (U41 = U4:1, serial 1 of 4TSG). This seems to contradict earlier reports that the officer was from 5TSG in Clapham, as 4TSG are based in Catford. More of 'U41' are visible in this video (from 03:35) further West along Cornhill.

The footage in which Tomlinson's head is seen hitting the ground (the 'Guardian Cornhill video' shown April 22nd on C4 News) was not shot by a More 4 cameraman, the Alex Thomson article is about different footage (the 'Channel 4/Ken McCallum video' shown April 8th).

Wnjr (talk) 10:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Police complaints

Hi Philogo, regarding adding this to the lead, "The Evening Standard reported there were 1,000 complaints aginst the police by the police themselves" -- can you say why you feel it's appropriate? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, I just noticed the date of the article -- February this year -- which makes it OR, specifically a violation of WP:SYN. We'd need to find a source who mentioned it in relation to this case, though even then I think it would be better in the body of the article. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Briefing by INQUEST

Someone may like reference and make use of this new briefing from INQUEST into his death.PeterEastern (talk) 08:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Peter. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 09:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Police impersonator

This Daily Mail article says that the police have claimed that the person who pushed him to the ground may not have been a policeman but in fact an impersonator. As unbelievable as this is does it deserve a mention? Smartse (talk) 15:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it should probably be added, bizarre as it is. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

FAC

I'm thinking it might be possible to get this article up to featured-article status in time for the first anniversary. Whether it could get on the main page or not, I don't know (that can be difficult as there's lots of competition), but it's still the case that the readership of the article will increase as the anniversary approaches. I'm therefore going to start editing it with a view to getting it to FAC standard. I don't want to commit myself to doing it, so I'm not promising, but I'm going to make a start, in case anyone wonders what I'm doing. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 19:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course, it being April 1, we couldn't because people always want an April 1 joke that day. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 19:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

In house

The text at the moment gives the impression the "The Job" is the in-house magazine of the TSG. Actually, it seems to be for the whole Metropolitan Police. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.148.66.223 (talk) 14:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. [10] Many thanks. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 21:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Some Thoughts On This Article....

Why does the lead passage perpetuate the misleading cause of death that the police initially declared? Shouldn't it at least list the most recent cause of death and leave the initial one for the summary that follows?

Those questions aside, I thought I'd offer a couple comments on the article from the perspective of someone who basically knew nothing of this incident until 15 minutes ago. Reading how everything played out while aware of latter revelations (ie. not having watched everything unfold while enduring the initial attempts to mislead), it appears the effort and scope of manipulation by the police to conceal their involvement in this case is astonishing. One of the fishiest aspects of the whole thing seems to be the circumstances around the Channel 4 footage that was released on April 8th (once the other footage implicating the police was made public). If I was working to cover something like this up, the first thing I would do is track down every media outlet that may have been filming the protests and do what I could to suppress any footage they might have (bribery would probably be easiest). In addition to all the other aspects of this case that should be followed up on for this article's ongoing improvement, people should keep an eye out for further info pertaining to that reporter and his 'broken camera' that he should be able to comment on by now.

And finally, while I'm pleased I got to read about this incident as a result of its being posted on the main page, I can't help but notice the concerted effort to draw attention to it as the anniversary approaches. As it is a still unfolding, politically charged event, it seems to toe a fine line between paying homage to an event's anniversary and blatantly drawing attention to a cause. I probably shouldn't, but for some reason, I find it a bit alarming.
--K10wnsta (talk) 01:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, K10. Regarding listing the cause of death, we just try to report what was reported, in the order it was reported. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 01:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Lead

In the lead there is a sentence "After The Guardian published the video, the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) began a criminal inquiry from which the police were removed." What does this mean, what were the police removed from? Should it say that the police were not involved in the investigation? Or the police involved were removed from service? Or the police were not investigated? It just isn't clear what this sentence means so please could someone who knows what it is supposed to say adjust it accordingly. Thanks Jdrewitt (talk) 07:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The police were removed from the investigation, which means they were not permitted to participate in it. I don't see any ambiguity in the sentence, but feel free to suggest better wording. Crum375 (talk) 12:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

To say that the police were removed suggests to me that the police were involved in conducting the investigation in the first place. If this is the case then the sentence is valid. If it is not the case then the word "removed" ought to be replaced. Also saying the police are removed could also be interpreted as the police being removed from being investigated. "...inquiry independant from the police" or something would be better, although that's purely my opinion. Jdrewitt (talk) 13:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Your understanding is correct. The police were initially involved in the inquiry, but they were subsequently removed from it. That's what happened, and that's what we say. So according to you, the sentence is valid. Crum375 (talk) 13:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

OK thanks for the clarification, sorry for taking up your time! Jdrewitt (talk) 14:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem.:) Crum375 (talk) 14:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Sources for statements

Twice I have flagged a number of unsourced statements of fact, and each time, they have been reverted wholesale, with comments to raise the issue on this page (see: Wikipedia:Edit warring). However, this page seems to be given over to arguments about the subject matter, not the format.

I note that Wikipedia:SOURCE and its derivatives warn that important facts "must be attributed to a reliable, published source". Here, an entire paragraph, pertaining to who is responsible for what, lacks even a whisper of a source cite. This is of concern to those who see Wikipedia as an initial source, which can be used to lead to primary sources. In particular, the policy advises "If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider tagging a sentence by adding the {{citation needed}} template, a section with {{unreferencedsection}}, or the article with {{refimprove}} or {{unreferenced}}." This is exactly what I have been doing (I don't know where to find these cites, but I'm sure others do), which seems so objectionable to some. In light of the controversial nature of the topic (and particularly the denials of responsibility that seem to have been flying), it seems that it is better to over-cite than under-cite. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 16:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Everything in the article is sourced, Ph, even if the source is not directly after the material you're looking at; or is the kind of thing that's unlikely to be challenged. Can you give one example of a sentence you need a source for, and what you feel is problematic about it? It's best not to tag articles that are on the front page, but I'm happy to help provide a source for you. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 17:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

"The British Transport Police, responsible for policing the rail network and the London underground, were also involved in policing the G-20 protests." If this is significant to the article (if it isn't, it should be removed, of course--we're all aware of the tendency of Wikipedia articles to become bogged down in irrelevancies and trivia), it reflects on who was responsible for (in control of) certain police. Were transport officers in "over their depth"? Etc., etc.--Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 19:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I can hunt down the source that says that if you like; it's mentioned in several of the sources that talk about who policed the protests. I don't see there being any implication that anyone was in over their heads. The point of mentioning it is simply to list the police forces that fell under the Gold commander that day. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 19:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

As requested. [11] SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 19:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Plagued by Alcoholism???

Yeah, the PLAGUE always makes me think nuetral thoughts... It's clearly an attempt to cast a sympathetic light on the subject of the article and absolve him of responsibility for constantly drinking. Which is I think is a bit of an unenclyclopedic leap to take. Just saying he had been an alcoholic is a much more nuetral statement and basically just states the fact without assigning any responsibility one way or the other. The way it reads now is unacceptable. I tried to fix it but it has been reverted twice. Could either Slimvirgin or Crum375 Please provide some explanation of why you reinserted this weasel word so it can be discussed. 162.24.9.213 (talk) 20:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi 162, the problem with your edit is that you want to label him as an alcoholic. We have a guideline somewhere (can't think where right now) advising against such labels, as in A was an X. "Plagued by" really is quite appropriate given the effects alcohol had on his life: it separated him from his family and made him homeless. It doesn't assign responsibility to him any more or less than any other word would. It just means he was dogged by it, that it had been a long-term, negative part of his life. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 20:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

So you are saying someone who is plagued by alcoholism is not an alcoholic?? hmm... Anyway, perhaps you can think of another more nuetral way to state it then. Such as he was called an alcoholic by X or diagnosed with alcholism. However I don't see any citation which states he was an alcoholic because the one at the end of the sentence(which you would think means it does) does not. I tried to clarifiy that but you revert that as well. It makes it appear like you have a source for saying he was a homeless alcoholic when you don't. 162.24.9.213 (talk) 20:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a slightly more polite way of putting it, that's all. I don't know whether he was diagnosed, so we can't say that. There are lots of sources out there saying he was homeless and suffering from alcoholism. I can spend some time to hunt down something very explicit if you'd like me to, or you could do it, but it won't solve our "plagued by" issue, because that's a question of the writing. "Plagued by" really doesn't undermine his responsibility. I could be plagued by a desire to rob a bank, but if I do it I still go to jail, unless doctors say the desire was so overwhelming that it morphed into illness, but that's a separate step. If anything, I'd say "he was an alcoholic" tends to undermine responsibility slightly more, if that's your concern here, because it sounds so settled: A was an X, end of story. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 20:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I think in this instance of something which is debatably a disease or not using a disease such as the plague as an verb right next to it may not be the best choice of words. There are a wide range of suitable choices why insist upon that one if you are not trying to make a statement about responsibility. Also, I just tried to change it to dogged by his own alcoholism and that was changed by crum375, what is the issue with that statement?? 162.24.9.213 (talk) 21:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Dogged for years by his own alcoholism, rather than by someone else's? :) It's important not to try to make a point out of this, 162, or out of anything else. We just report, and it's always better to do that with a lightness of touch when the issues are very personal, as this is. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 21:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Fine removed "his own" by just find another word any other word that's not a disease to replace plagued. Is that so unreasonable? 162.24.9.213 (talk) 21:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've fixed the sentence to remove "plagued." [12] The writing isn't so good, but if it'll resolve this dispute, it's fine. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 21:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I changed it to "he had issues with alcoholism for some time". How do you feel about that? 162.24.9.213 (talk) 21:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The writing is problematic. This is featured article on the main page, 162, so the writing has to be good. I've removed plagued as you requested, and it really is fine now. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 21:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Well can't you figure out a way to "fix the writing" without inserting bias. Suffered from is just as bad as plagued, I think you just need to removed the from so it's not like the alcoholism is some outside force acting upon him. If you want to say his life suffered or his family suffered from his alcoholism that's fine. You are again stating it like it's a disease though like he "suffered from" an illness. 162.24.9.213 (talk) 21:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

162, you seem to be here to make a point, namely that his drinking was his own fault. Wikipedia doesn't engage in that kind of point-making, and in any event whether it was his own fault or not has no bearing on the article. I don't feel it's reasonable of you to expect several people to devote a fair bit of time to this one issue, but your reverts are forcing that on us. The article was fine as it was, but I changed it to accommodate your concern. "Dogged by his own" and "issues with" are not the kind of writing needed for a featured article. "Suffered from" is ordinary language and neutral by any reasonable standard, so please let it be. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 21:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

History of is fine, thank you. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 21:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be attempting to make the opposite point that it was not his responsibilty. Though I freely admit that is my own feeling that drug abuse of any kind is not a disease and that an individuals behavior is indeed his own fault. This is a contentious issue however I am in fact just looking for some nuetral ground which makes niether point. 162.24.9.213 (talk) 21:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have no opinion on it personally. In future, it would be helpful if you could make your suggestions on talk without reverting. When an article is on the front page, the people maintaining it have a lot to do already with vandalism issues, so it helps a lot if extra reverting can be avoided. We have to make sure that, when people click on it, they don't see a version with vandalism or odd expressions. Anyway, thanks for suggesting "history of" which works; it possibly suggests too much that it's in his past, but it's okay, and I'm glad we got it sorted. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 21:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

"what I saw" eye-witness web-site

Immediately after the protests, a web-site came up to collect eye-witness / participent accounts of the protest (in which Ian Tomlinson died).

The site is here; [13]

It is, IMO, well worth reading. The impression I have after reading a large number of first-hand accounts is that the police *planned* to kettle the protestors until the evening, when the press would have departed (and in fact also been intimidated away), and then to attack them; that what occurred was premediated violence. A large number of people had inflicted upon them serious physical and profound psychological injury.

One or two other notes; there is no mention in the article of the police agent provacteurs, who posed as protestors and began throwing missiles at the police. At least one incident of this nature was witnessed by a British MP who was present at the protests.

Kettling was conducted with reckless disregard for life and safety; there was at least one case of a diabetic needing insulin being prevented from leaving the kettle he was in.

It's too late now to dig up references; I'll find them again tomorrow.

In years past, the police lacked the powers to act as they did. These days, the considerable body of anti-terrorism legislation which has been passed has provided a range of new powers, purportedly for anti-terrorism purposes, which are now (inevitably) used for a range of other purposes - purposes for which such powers would never have been granted; one of which was the kettling of the Climate Camp protestors and the intimidation of the press.

The IPCC, as far as can be seen from their responses and how those responses have changed over time as new evidence emerged, appeared essentially to act to cover-up what had occurred. The Met produced a range of disinformation in the days following the protests, which were progressively disproved as evidence emerged from other sources.

There's also no mention of 'distraction' techniques, as employed by the TSG. The TSG is trained to distract protestors, quite literally by physical attack; by punching, by the use of shield blows. These are in all seriousness termed 'distraction' techniques. This is one of the reasons there were so many images of protestors with bloody faces/heads.

Toby Douglass (talk) 22:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Toby, thanks for your comments. Bear in mind that this article isn't about kettling or the G-20 protests. Some basic information about those issues is included because it's relevant, but it's background only. You'd be better adding any material you find to the article about the protests or about kettling specifically, and also bear in mind that you'll need good-quality secondary sources for any allegations of conspiracy or similar. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 22:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

"Award?"

I have to chime in here to say that I find it quite distasteful that an article entitled Death of Ian Tomlinson has an "award" listing in the info box. The gentleman's death did not receive an award, the coverage of the death did.

I suggest that the reference to the Bevins Prize be moved into the body of the article and/or moved to the Guardian article. J. Van Meter (talk)

The infobox is about the coverage, and indeed much of the article is about the coverage. We wouldn't know about any of this had it not been for the digging plus the videos that people took. But that Lewis won awards for it doesn't really justify its own section. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 23:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Known as 'Scotland Yard'

The Met is not commonly known as Scotland Yard. That would be like saying the Ministry of Defence is also known as 'The Met Office' (different Met). No normal person would, for example, on seeing a mass of uniformed officers, say: 'I see Scotland Yard are out in force'. Saying that the Met is also known as Scotland Yard is particularly misleading in this article because the sub divisions of the Met that are Scotland Yard are completely separate from the subdivisions that would have been policing this event. I changed the text to reflect this but it has been reverted. So I'm putting this here to try and gain a consensus. PRL42 (talk) 18:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is what one source says:

• "The name of Scotland Yard is, however, better known by its association with the London Metropolitan Police force"

True, but that does not mean that the entire Met is known as 'Scotland Yard'. It isn't. PRL42 (talk) 19:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• "The Metropolitan Police (aka Scotland Yard)" (emphasis added)

I don't know on what authority the 'Robinson Library' placed that in the article, but they are wrong. This source can hardly be deemed reliable as it does not even have the correct commissioner. PRL42 (talk) 19:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• "The chief administrator of Scotland Yard is the Commissioner, who is appointed by the Crown on the recommendation of the Home Secretary"

And so on. Crum375 (talk) 18:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Again, yes, but that does not imply that the Met is know as 'Scotland Yard'. You are making an unwarranted association (in one direction) from what you quoted. Unfortunately it is not easy - or even possible - to find contradicting sources since people rarely enumerate all the things an entity is not called.

Can anyone who lives in London or has has worked for the Met please confirm that anyone referring to a group of uniformed officers as 'Scotland Yard' would be considered to have got the nomenclature wrong? PRL42 (talk) 19:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

So we have a reliable source saying, "The Metropolitan Police (aka Scotland Yard)", and we have an anonymous editor telling us that source is wrong. This won't get much traction here, unless you can show other reliable sources telling us otherwise. They would have to tell us that the Met is never known as Scotland Yard, and would have to be far more reliable to refute this source. Even then, the best you could achieve is that sources are divided on exactly how "commonly known" it is under that name. Crum375 (talk) 19:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Whether the source quoted is reliable is debatable. It appears to be the work of one person who operates without supervision or peer review. The article in question does not even correctly specify the encumbant commisioner. Suggesting that other sources need to be found specifically stating that the Met is not 'known as Scotland Yard' is fatuous for the reason already stated above. What we have here seems to be a situation where a single person has created a site that contains a significant error and that is being used to support the same error being propagated in Wikipedia. If the Robinson Library stated that the Royal Navy was commonly known as 'Cyril' would that mean that if someone added that 'fact' to Wikipedia it would have to remain forever because (surpise, surprise) no source could be found to say that it wasn't?

When people refer to 'Scotland Yard' in the sense of an organisation, rather than a building, they are invariably refering to the one or more of the Met's specialist divisions (usually detective) and not the Met as a whole which would be ridiculous as the Met exists at multiple locations accross London.

I would hope that others would make some comment on this - even if it's to disagree with my contention of fact - as relying of a foreign work by a single, unsupervised and unreviewed individual seems illogical and the sort of thing that Wikipedia's detractors use to attack it. PRL42 (talk) 10:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Scotland Yard has come to mean the Met—e.g. Scotland Yard: A Study of the Metropolitan Police by Peter Laurie—but it's used most often in connection with investigations, which means the detective branch. If a uniformed copper standing in the street said he worked for Scotland Yard, you'd think he meant he was a detective operating under cover. It has also separately referred, historically and still, to the Met headquarters. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 10:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

So are you saying that if you saw a large contingent of uniformed officers you would think it quite normal for them to be referred to as 'Scotland Yard' (e.g. "I see Scotland Yard are out in force")? Maybe as a Londoner I am being overly pedantic but I think most Londoners would think it odd to refer to the overall entity that is the Met as 'Scotland Yard'. Still, it's hardly a matter of life or death. PRL42 (talk) 11:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

As I said, it wouldn't normally be used for ordinary uniformed officers. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 11:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how referring to Scotland Yard improves this article. The reference to Scotland Yard could be removed. My own opinion is of little authority, although I do live in London, but I have never heard of the MPS being referred to as Scotland Yard. I have only heard it being used of the headquarters or (historically) of detectives based there. I have removed the reference. I suggest that if my change is reverted that the editor adds a commentary here explaining how it improves the article's quality to do so. --Dominic Sayers (talk) 15:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Crum375 has indeed restored the mention of "Scotland Yard", with comment "it's well sourced and adds information about the organization". I disagree. If that's well sourced, then we can also say in many articles related to French politics: "France, colloquially known as Paris". There is a reason we have separate articles for Metropolitan Police Service and for Scotland Yard. As the first of these articles says: "In popular usage the term Scotland Yard (sometimes New Scotland Yard) is often used as a metonym for the Metropolitan Police." Mentioning Scotland Yard in this article, even with a link, while Metropolitan Police Service is not linked, doesn't add information, it only adds potential for misunderstandings. Therefore I am re-reverting and adding the necessary link to Metropolitan Police Service. Hans Adler 17:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that something has been done about this as the actions of Crum375 somewhat dented my confidence in the whole of Wikipedia. Not because this particular edit was of any great importance but because it exposes a significant weakness in the whole process, namely that a rogue admin can, for reasons of obstinacy, stupidty or even malevolence, cause an error to remain uncorrected and there is no defined path to get his or her actions reviewed. In this situation we had an admin using a foreign source of no particular authority (it seems to be one person's hobby) being used to support a supposed factual entry in Wikipedia and the response to any objection amounts to a demand to prove a negative. PRL42 (talk) 08:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

PRL, it's not a question of who's an admin (and the "rogue" thing is uncalled for), because we're all here as editors. I don't have any great objection to Scotland Yard being removed, but I'd prefer it to stay because a lot of reades won't realize that the terms MPS, Met, and Scotland Yard are often used interchangeably. For example, in this Tomlinson story, we see "Brian Paddick, a former top Scotland Yard officer, said the decision not to bring charges risked damaging public confidence in British justice." It would be good if our readers realized this is significant because Paddick is a former member of the same organization (the Met) that has come under scrutiny. And in discussing the fall-out, newspapers are referring to "Sir Paul Stephenson, the Scotland Yard chief," and relatives of Tomlinson and others who died in Met-related incidents are talking about "another Scotland Yard whitewash." But it's not an issue I'd argue about further. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 09:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, As I said in the piece you reply to above, it is not this specific argument that concerns me, it's the fact that someone who has admin rights and is thus supposedly someone who has a reasonable understanding of verification would use as his basis of 'well sourced' fact a foreign web page that appears to be the hobby of a single person. (One wonders if someone were to create three web pages that contained contradictory statements if that would trump the single source quoted.) Further, he goes on to say: "unless you can show other reliable sources telling us otherwise. They would have to tell us that the Met is never known as Scotland Yard, and would have to be far more reliable to refute this source." That is beyond stupid and is why I referred to him as a 'rogue' admin. Anyone who suggests that to counteract a 'fact' that they have established by looking at a web page that does not itself use any citations it would be necessary to find multiple sources that are going to randomly state a negative is either unbelievable stupid or just playing silly beggars. The fact that no one seems to care about such shenanigans has meant that I can no longer rigourously defend Wikipedia as I once used to. (On this particular subject, yes, Stevenson is the chief of Scotland yard as it is a department within the Met. People correctly refer to Scotland Yard when they are refering to actions that may be performed by the invesigative branch of the Met [such as any possible 'whitewash']. If they refer to uniformed officers as 'Scotland Yard' they are simply incorrect - that is a matter of plain fact rather than opinion'. It seems perverse to me that Wikipedia should continue to state that an erroneous appelation is 'common' without any credible evidence. If I see something stated incorrectly that I know is incorrect from personal experience (having lived and worked in London - including for the Met and Scotland Yard) - and cannot get that information sensibly reviewed how can I trust other information that I have no way of personally verifying? How can I honestly try and persuade others Wikipedia is reliable? PRL42 (talk) 13:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The reference to Stevenson as Scotland Yard chief is not because it's a department, but because he's the chief of the Met. Other examples of the terms being used synonymously in relation to Tomlinson:

• "A Scotland Yard riot squad officer filmed knocking Ian Tomlinson to the ground will be told today if he faces prosecution over his death." The Independent

• "Scotland Yard denies claims that it had tried to mislead the public..." BBC News

• "... he was hit from behind by a member of Scotland Yard's riot squad ..." Sky News

And many more like it. Some books:

• The Official Encyclopedia of Scotland Yard [14] Described by Amazon as "The only official book on Scotland Yard, it breaks new ground with previously unpublished images from the Met Museum.... Published with the co-operation of the Metropolitan Police, these entries cover a range of subjects, from the infamous criminals who have featured large in the Yard's history through the strikes, riots, sieges and disasters that have tested the force over the years to the activities, techniques and structures of the modern Scotland Yard" (note: "the force," not just the detective branch). [15]

• The Rise of Scotland Yard: A History of the Metropolitan Police [16]

It seems odd that a featured article would mention other alternative names (including MPS, which hardly anyone uses), and not mention Scotland Yard, which lots of people do use, even if in your view wrongly. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 14:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

In these instances people are using 'Scotland Yard' because that's where the headquarters of the Met are located. But that does not mean the Met are 'known as Scotland Yard' any more than the government is 'known as Downing Street' (although certainly the PM's 'department' is) or the UK is 'known as London' (even though a foreign news service may well say 'London have stated' as a synecdoche for the government of the UK). However, I think you make a good case for including the name - although I think 'referred to as' is better than 'known as'. Most importantly you've actually provided proper justification rather than just posting an arcane source and suggesting proving a negative to refute it. PRL42 (talk) 15:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

In fact, I've edited the entry to add 'sometime refered to by its headquarters ...' which seems more accurate than omitting it altogether. I hope other agree. PRL42 (talk) 15:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

On light of the above, the following should be noted:

• It iss One News that says, "A Scotland Yard riot squad officer," not the actual Independent article, which only mentions "New Scotland Yard" in the correct context (i.e. the building as a physical object).
• ''The Rise of Scotland Yard was published in 1956.

It strikes me that "Scotland Yard" is more beloved beyond the shores of the UK as a means of referring to police in London - if not the country as a whole - than it is within the London itself, or the rest of the UK. As a (naturalised) Londoner, I simply never hear it used to describe the Met as a whole, but rather only the HQ building itself or as a synonym for the senior management. PRL42 analogy with Downing Street it is good one, but another would be the Pentagon for the top-level of the US military, rather than the component parts of that military. Nick Cooper (talk)

SlimVirgin, you claim above that "it's not an issue I'd argue about further. " and yet you have again edited the text so that it states that the Met is 'known' as Scotland yard. It's been explained here very clearly that the Met is no more known as Scotland Yard than, for example, the entire US military is 'known' as 'The Pentagon' although in each case they can, in certain cases, be referred to in that way as a synedoche. Why are you editing Wikipedia to display false informatioon - i.e. that, as a general fact, the Met are 'known' as Scotland yard when this is not the case? PRL42 (talk) 23:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

No, lots of people refer to Downing Street (where the PM lives) when referring to the PM (a press release from Downing Street today said") Also, the British government is regularly called "Whitehall" as in "we've got instructions from Whitehall" because that's where their offices are. I don't understand what the complainer's issue with Scotland Yard is, has he never read any Sherlock Holmes books? 81.156.61.243 (talk) 01:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You've just defeated your own case. Certainly the PM is sometimes referred to by the synedoche 'Downing Street' or 'No 10' but I'll guarantee that if you told anyone that the Prime Minister was 'known as' Downing street they would think you were mad. Similarly with the US military: people often refer to it, particularly its upper command levels as 'The Pentagon' but, again, you would be considered eccentric, to say the least, if you claimed that the US Military is known as the Pentagon. The situation with Scotland Yard is exactly the same. People refer to it because that is where a lot of the higher command levels are located. As to Sherlock Holmes, it may well have been that in Conan Doyle's day all London detectives worked out of Scotland Yard but that is certainly not the case today, and Conan Doyle never referred to the the metropolitan police force as a whole as 'Scotland Yard'. PRL42 (talk) 07:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I think this has reached a point of low return, whether it's an example of synonym, metonym, synecdoche; whether it's known as, or referred to, or called. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

While it's true that the Met is sometimes referred to as "Scotland Yard", it makes more sense to just say "headquartered in" on this article. Fewer words, less confusing. --John (talk) 14:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

That looks good, thanks. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 14:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, a sensible compromise. PRL42 (talk) 15:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Automatic archiving

I've set up an archiving bot on this talk page, seeing as it was getting a bit long. Let me know if anyone objects. Gabbe (talk) 15:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Patel

Matt-eee, there's no need to keep repeating that Patel is facing disciplinary action. [17] We say it in the lead, and we explain it at length in the introduction to the postmortem section, where Patel's background has its own section. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 09:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Provocation

(moved from above) I disagree, for me the video does show provocation. Tomlinson has deliberately chosen to walk in front of the police, obstructing them, and does so much more slowly than he needs to. There cannot be much doubt that he knew they were behind him and that to walk in that direction at that pace would be to get in their way and slow them down. I consider this provocation and that police actions to move him were acceptable. I will edit to this effect and let people decide.--talk —Preceding undated comment added 21:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC).

Incon, you would need a source for what you're saying. As it stands, it's your own commentary. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 21:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Absurd WP:OR apology for fascist pigs. 76.85.196.138 (talk) 11:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

My contribution to this talk page was deleted yesterday, as was the edit, but I state again that I don't agree that the video "appears to show no provocation". This is too subjective to my mind as my first impression was that he was indeed provoking police by walking unnecessarily slowly, right in front of oncoming police. It seems that there are only two possibilities then: a) that the matter of whether he is provoking police is ambiguous or b) that it is contentious, since some who view it see provocation and others don't. Hence the language used at present skews the article too far in favour of the latter with nothing more than debatable opinion to support this claim. Since no definitive answer can be determined either way, I shall change the language to "The level of provocation on Tomlinson's part is uncertain and contested" and add the details about the speed and direction of his walking, as this is crucial insofar as provocation claims are concerned.InconX (talk) 18:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't deleted, just moved here. The problem with your edits is that you're adding your own opinion, which isn't allowed. See our policy, Wikipedia:No original research. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 18:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

In England the word "provocation" legally means something very specific and walking in front of someone simply doesn't come under the definition. InconX's commentary really doesn't have a place in an encyclopedic article 81.156.61.243 (talk) 01:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

OFFICER IN VIDEO - SIMON HARWOOD. Background.

The sub section of the main article that starts beneath the above OFFICER IN VIDEO heading has an opening sentence stating that PC Harwood was based with a TSG unit at Clapham and this information is sourced to a Sunday Mail article. As a matter of concern I raised this matter with my MP as I live in the London Stockwell/Clapham area. My MP in turn raised the matter and received and copied to me a text prepared by the Commanding officer of Lambeth Police who denied that the officer who attacked Tomlinson was from the Clapham TSG and instead suggested that he was based with a TSG in the Lee area of south East London. I mention this just for discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGuntz (talk • contribs)

Hi, thanks, but we can only go by what's published. If you can find a better or updated source by all means add it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 14:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Patel guilty of misconduct

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11142550

General Medical Council have, on the basis of previous conduct, declared him incompetent. On the basis of his past conduct and the incorrect and misleading information the Met gave regarding Mr. Tomlinson's death, one might speculate that he was specifically chosen to produce the required autopsy result. Toby Douglass (talk) 15:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Confusing double cite, or multi-cites without notes

SV, isn't the first cite in the article a double cite of the type you advised me against using? I may be wrong. — GabeMc (talk) 21:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, shouldn't the writer name appear first, not the article's title? — GabeMc (talk) 22:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Cite number 16 appears to be the same type of cite SV, the kind you told me not to use at Roger Waters. — GabeMc (talk) 22:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, 16 has some notes, I was wrong, but wow, how very confusing. — GabeMc (talk) 22:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Cite 18 is confusing. — GabeMc (talk) 22:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Cite 58 needs to be fixed or named. — GabeMc (talk) 22:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Cite 59 is the double type, without notes, that you advised me against using SV. — GabeMc (talk) 22:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Cite 12 needs notes. — GabeMc (talk) 22:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Cite 13 needs notes. — GabeMc (talk) 22:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Cite 1 needs notes. — GabeMc (talk) 00:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Cites

Most of the cites in this article lack access dates. — GabeMc (talk) 22:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Access dates should not be used for sources that appear in print. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Cite 6 and cite 8 are different formats, the citing should be consistent. — GabeMc (talk) 22:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

They appear to have the same format. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Needs source

"the smallest in England and Wales."

Where does the source say this? Or is this original research from the police numbers source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GabeMc (talk • contribs) 23:19, 4 November 2010

See City of London Police. The force only covers an area of 1.1 square miles. Nick Cooper (talk) 00:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

But that's original research, to look at a list and make that statement. — GabeMc (talk) 00:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Take your pick. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Sandwiched text

Text is sandwiched between images at "Officer in the video: Simon Harwood", MoS discourages this. — GabeMc (talk) 23:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

GabeMc, may I make two suggestions? First, perhaps you might combine all of your minor concerns with this article into a single section? Second, some of these things you really could fix yourself. Your approach here seems a little pointy. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

From pointy: "A commonly used shortcut to this page is WP:POINT. However, just because someone is making a point does not mean that they are disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate it, which is the only type of behavior which should be considered "POINTY". " —Preceding unsigned comment added by PRL42 (talk • contribs) 08:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Yep. And what's your point ;-)? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Look at what the quote I included says. It specifically says that making a point is NOT the same as being 'pointy', which is what you have suggested GabeMc was being. Clearer now? PRL42 (talk) 09:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Given the circumstances, I'd say it's fair to say that he's both making a point and being pointy. You're welcome to disagree. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:44, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Quotations in lead

Boris Johnson, calling it "an orgy of cop bashing."

Shouldn't this be cited, since it is a quote?

• I'm putting timestamp in this section, for MiszaBot. 78.35.212.131 (talk) 17:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

It's cited in the next footnote. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 17:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

wikify

This FA is not adequately wikified. It might not necessarily common knowledge to know what The Guardian or Evening Standard is. Mootros (talk) 22:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The article tries to follow WP:OVERLINK. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I am fully aware of this and support this policy! Do you think these two given examples are overlinking? UK would be? Please have a look at the links that I have introduced now and see what you think. Many thanks! Mootros (talk) 22:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the Lead wikification I just had done was superfluous. Mootros (talk) 22:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

What is an Inquest_(England_and_Wales)? You are not serious removing this? Mootros (talk) 22:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec) The Guardian is wikified in the infobox, and really it's the only newspaper that needs to be, because it almost became part of the story. Otherwise, the titles are ordinary newspapers, nothing that readers wouldn't have heard of, given that they're almost certainly all Brits. But they can easily look them up if they haven't. There's already quite a lot of blue in the article, especially early on. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The readers are all Brits? What? Wikipedia is read world wide. I had to look up things like Inquest, because it is not self explanatory and even for a British reader it might not beclear what the exact difference to a criminal hearing is. This should be fixed, I would say. I fully agree we don't want a blue text, but this is pushing the envelope without any doubt. Mootros (talk) 22:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I can't imagine this article attracting a readership outside the UK, especially now, because it's a purely domestic issue. If you want to wikify inquest, that's fine. But remember that people can type in the word themselves. We wikify only when doing so really aids understanding, and where explaining in-text would be too cumbersome. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Inquest might be a valuable link, but subjects that are only tangentially related to the subject of the article shouldn't be linked. Certainly putting a wikify tag on a featured article is not helpful—that star in the corner isn't for decoration. MoS compliance would have been thoroughly evaluated at FAC. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

That's the reason why I immediately contacted the author (user talk) to get this fixed. Mootros (talk) 23:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Mootros, you know the Peter Pan story that every time someone says they don't believe in fairies, one dies. Well, every time someone adds a citation template or unnecessary blue link to Wikipedia, SlimVirgin screams. :) SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 23:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Well OVERLINK has a lot of merit, but some of the authors there would link almost nothing if given their way. We should evaluate links on a case-by-case basis and determine whether they're actually useful—I think inquest is, but with inquest linked, I think there's little to be gained from a link to coroner, for example. I know this is heresy to some people, but there is such a thing as underlinking. This article certainly has the balance right in most cases, but I think Mootros may have some valid concerns. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I avoid overlinking because of early trauma using Wikipedia. When it first started, it was massively overlinked. You'd read a sentence like "Demonstrations took place on Saturday," and click on one of the words expecting more information about the issue, but no, they were just articles defining demonstrations or Saturday! After doing that a few times (and sometimes the servers were slow, so clicking on a link could be a protracted experience), I decided WP wasn't worth bothering about and didn't even look at it again for a couple of years. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 23:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

City of London police

Hi HJ, do you have a source showing it's the smallest in the UK? My understanding is that the Dumfries and Galloway force is the smallest, with City of London the smallest in England and Wales. The source we use says the latter (p. 3). SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 20:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, I hadn't counted on Dumfries and Galloway. As for the rest of my edit, the CoL is the smallest territorial force in England and Wales, but (by number of officers) the Civil Nuclear Constabulary is smaller and there are a handful of tiny private forces. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I've tweaked the wording to say it's the smallest in England and Wales, per the source, because it doesn't say what's meant exactly. Also, I restored the spelling; see tag at the top of the page. :) SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, just looked at the tag again, and it's the wrong one; I'll replace it when I can find the right one (the Oxford spelling one). SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Not to split hairs, but t say it's the smallest in E&W is misleading. As I said above, the CNC is smaller and there are other non-Home Office forces like the Mersey Tunnels Police and the Falmouth Docks Police, so the City of London Police is the smallest territorial force in England and Wales, but not the smallest of all forces. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I restored the link to territorial; I'm just a bit concerned that we don't have a source that actually says that. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 00:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't like the parenthetical dates and times in section heads (3 May 2011)

I think they look poor, and make the article a bit too much like a timeline. --John (talk) 22:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

John, we already had a few dates and times in headers. I added some more to help readers negotiate the article, given that it has stretched over two years and looks set to continue. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I can see that. Couldn't we just assume that the article tells the story in chronological order, then leave the detailed dates for the text body? I think that would look better, and it seems to be what other articles do. --John (talk) 23:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Would you mind if I try to minimize them as a compromise? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 23:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, that might work. Could they even be lower-level headings? That might also be worth trying. --John (talk) 01:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I think you're right, so I went ahead and removed them. I left in the times of the assaults, but I may go back and remove those too. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 23:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Extra ref

Phil, that point is already referenced, and doesn't need another, especially not just a bare URL. This is a featured article, so editing has to be of a minimum standard. I'd really appreciate it if people would respect that, because a lot of work has gone into it. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 00:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Slim: you reversed my edit before I was done. The ref provides a citaton for the specific words enclosed in quotation marks just before the citation. If we quote sometingn we should say where the quote comes from.— Philogos (talk) 00:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

But those words are already referenced in the Telegraph ref. Could you please respect the in-use tag? I'm trying to update and tidy the article, which means we'll get edit conflicts, and I don't want to look as though I'm continuing to revert you. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 01:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

If we quote something we should say where the quote comes from. I quoted a text and provided the citation; it was wrong to remove the citation, IMHO— Philogos (talk) 13:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Inquest ruling

This is a historic ruling, and the actual verdict delevered was as follows:

What was the name of the deceased? Ian Tomlinson.

What was the cause of his death? Injury or disease? Abdominal haemorrhage due to blunt force trauma to the abdomen in association with cirrhosis of the liver.

If the person died of injury, what were the circumstances? Mr Tomlinson was on his way home from work on the 1st of April 2009 during the G20 demonstration. He was fatally injured at around 19.20pm on Royal Exchange Buildings ... This was the result of a baton strike from behind and a push by the officer which caused Ian Tomlinson to fall heavily.

The jury said both the baton strike and the push were "unreasonable".

"As a result, Mr Tomlinson suffered internal bleeding which led to his collapse within a few minutes and his subsequent death." The jury decided that at the time of the strike and push Tomlinson was was walking away from the officer and "posed no threat".

What is the jury's conclusion as to the death? Unlawful killing.

Phil, this isn't good editing. For example, "The Jury formally stated ..." Why is jury capitalized, and why "formally" stated—did they also give an informal verdict? And lots more like it. You're also adding material that's already there.

I think that is the actual quotation word for word but you can check the citation if you like. I assume when we provide a quote we should quote it as written and as spelt etc.

Please allow me to tidy and update the article. You could see that I was in the middle of doing it, so I don't know why you felt you had to choose this time to start editing. I've now added the in-use tag, and you're ignoring that too. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS}

No I did not see you were in the middle of it; I started editing and you reversed me before I was done. If you disagree with my edits please provide reasons on the talk page; its quicker in the long run and easier on the nerves. If we want to report precisely what the jury ruled (rhather than what newspapers et al say they said) then see above. NOt for instance that they do NOT say PC Harwood pushed him, but they do say his death was caused by the baton strike as well as the push (which is suprising since I do not recall the pathologists referring to the batton strike (any more that the dog bite) as being a cause of the death.— Philogos (talk) 01:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Alleged assault

This paragraoh needs to be updated following the inquest jury verdict. It is no longer an "alleged assault" but an "unlawfull killing". It no longer is the case that he APPEARED to be pushed by a PC etc. he WAS pushed by an unnamed PC (as found by Jury). — Philogos (talk) 01:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I've had to stop for now, because to fix the article I'd have to violate 3RR. Thanks a bunch, Phil. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 01:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Just edit without reverting anything three times. If you disagree with another editor in this way you should use the talk page, as I have suggested not just revert. Its politer and quicker in the long run.— Philogos (talk) 01:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

You can't expect me to improve the article while skirting around your addition of things like "Jury" and "formal" verdicts, your addition to the first sentence, then later repeating that he died on April 1 on his way home, as though we didn't already know that, etc. But if I remove it, I violate 3RR.

In future, please respect the in-use tag. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 02:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Above remarks by Slim Virgin do not seem applicable to this section, which is regarding the paragraph entitled Alleged Assault— Philogos (talk) 13:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

unexplained removal of sourced content

May I suggest that editors should make a case for the removal of sourced content before deleting it?— Philogos (talk) 13:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

In-use tag

I may start updating the article later, and if I do I'll add the in-use tag to signal that I've started. It's a featured article, which means the quality of it has to be maintained (see here), but I thought it best to wait for the inquest to finish. It may be a fiddly process, because I'll be checking old refs, removing any not needed now, fixing dead links, and so on. If I encounter edit conflicts while the tag is on, I'm going to override them so that I don't lose the work. I'm letting people know here in advance so that it's clear what's happening. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

FWiW, it might be wise to wait a few days until the article stbilises, since there are clearly a lot more edits than "normal" right now due to the inquest and the media coverage and there's a risk that what's done now migh not be there tomorrow as a result of other edits of varying helpfulness. Alternatively, you could wait til the dead of night if you;re worried about edit conflicts, or, more tricky, work in a sandbox and cut and paste. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Unlawfully killed

Wikipedia is not a mouthpiece of the UK justice system. The fact that a coroner's jury has stated something does not override our usual policy of not stating it as a bare fact unless it is effectively undisputed. – Smyth\^talk 14:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The jury did not merely state something, they reached a verdict. It is normal practice to respect the findings of a court. The findings of the court has not be disputed. The circumstances now are unlawful killing and alleged manslaughter.— Philogos (talk) 17:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Smyth's argument really is incredibly feeble. Based on that logic, we wouldn't be able to source any piece of factual knowledge at all, no matter how reliable or reputable the source, on the grounds that 'Wikipedia is not a mouthpiece of [insert source name].'

Now, nobody is suggesting that Wikipedia is, or should be, a mouthpiece for anything. But this doesn't change the fact that the purpose of Wikipedia is to report facts, not to serve as a repository for every outlandish opinion under the sun. And the legal judgement of a court, given that the said judgement is not under any kind of legal review, is as factual as you get. It is thus perfectly correct to describe Ian Tomlinson as having been unlawfully killed, and Wikipedia should be doing as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elvellian (talk • contribs) 19:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't like your attitude that the results of a legal case are automatically a Fact With A Capital F, and I maintain that my minor rephrase is preferable. But since a quick search doesn't reveal anyone disputing the issue other than the officer himself, I'm going to leave it here. – Smyth\^talk 20:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

We can't start the article by saying he was unlawfully killed. We begin by explaining that he died; how it was thought at first that this happened; and then we lead into subsequent events and investigations. We don't state in Wikipedia's voice anything that could be challenged. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

But anything can be challenged. Given any piece of factual knowledge, you will always be able to find some nutcase somewhere who will challenge it! The issue is how we decide what to report as a fact and on what grounds. 'Unlawful killing' is a legal term, and as a matter of fact, it is now perfectly correct and appropriate to refer to Tomlinson as having been unlawfully killed, given the results of the inquest, as it is to refer to (for example) Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman as having been murdered. Elvellian (talk) 06:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Please don't keep adding that to the first sentence, Elvellian. There have been objections, so the way to proceed is to try to gain consensus on talk, not to keep reverting. Wikipedia doesn't adopt the position of an English inquest jury in Wikipedia's voice, and the first sentence is anyway not the right place for it. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 06:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

These additions to the lead are making a dog's breakfast of it. Please read what you're adding:

Ian Tomlinson (7 February 1962 – 1 April 2009) was an English newspaper vendor who was unlawfully killed during the 2009 G-20 summit protests, when a police officer struck him on the leg with a baton, then pushed his back forcefully, causing Tomlinson to collapse and subsequently die minutes later. The Crown Prosecution Service are currently investigating whether to bring manslaughter charges against the police officer in question, PC Simon Harwood.. A first postmortem examination indicated that Tomlinson had suffered a heart attack brought on by coronary artery disease, and had died of natural causes. His death became controversial a week later when The Guardian obtained video footage ... In May 2011 an inquest jury returned a verdict of unlawful killing, ruling that the push and baton strike had involved excessive and unreasonable force. The CPS announced a review of its decision not to prosecute.

(a) The material is already in the lead, in the correct chronological place, and (b) we can't claim in WP's voice that he was unlawfully killed, when it's something that's clearly open to challenge. It's POV, it's poor editing, it's repetitive, and it's overegging the pudding. An FAC candidate with that lead would not be promoted. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 06:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

SlimVirgin: It's not enough for it to be "open to challenge", you have to find some reliable source showing that it actually is being challenged. Otherwise you come up against the other side of WP:POV, which is "avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion". And I don't think the officer's claims are enough: plenty of people will keep on protesting their innocence even after the rest of the world has decided they're guilty. – Smyth\^talk 10:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

No SlimVirgin, there have not been 'objections'. There is currently one singular objection. From you. You are currently in a minority of one. Of course, other editors may give their views and that may all change. But the fact is that as things stand now, despite clearly holding a minority view, you are attempting to keep the page as you want it, whilst telling the rest of us, the current majority, that we must gain a conscensus on the talk page first. From whom are we meant to get a conscensus? If anyone should be holding off from editing and seeking a conscensus from the community, then it should surely be you!

Now, in your argument, you make one crucial fallacy, namely that we can't claim that Tomlinson was unlawfully killed since, in your words, 'it's something that's clearly open to challenge'.

You are of course completely wrong, because you forget that the term 'unlawful killing' is a legal definition. And once a jury in an inquest has returned a verdict of 'Unlawful killing', it is, by definition, correct to refer to the deceased as having been unlawfully killed. Of course, this does not necessarily mean that everyone will agree with the verdict. And if there is significant dissent from noteworthy people or organisations, then there is no reason why that dissent cannot be recorded. Indeed, a legal judgement may even be subsequently overturned by a later verdict, but unless and until that happens in this case, it is nevertheless correct to refer to Ian Tomlinson as having been unlawfully killed, and to describe him merely as having died would be to present a false and misrepresentative picture to our readers. Elvellian (talk) 19:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

She is not in a minority of one: I don't like it either, but I see no point in arguing this instance unless reliable sources show significant disagreement with the verdict.

However, your principles are completely wrong. Would it also be correct to write "Jesus was a seditionist..."? I don't recall that particular legal judgement ever being overturned, and unless and until that happens, to describe him merely as "having been convicted of sedition" would be to present a false and misrepresentative picture to our readers. – Smyth\^talk 20:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Your analogy does not work. We're talking about a modern day judicial system, operating in a free and fair democratic society, not a hastily arranged show trial that lacked all the legal rigour, regulation and safeguards that now exist in a free and democratic society. Elvellian (talk) 21:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Even modern and fair judicial systems can make mistakes, and frequently do. Are you saying that when someone is convicted of murder (by a legal system which meets your standards), we can, indeed must, write "X is a murderer", but then when they are acquitted on appeal, we have to remove that phrase? – Smyth\^talk 14:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems that some editors object to the "unlawfully killed" element appearing in the same sentence as the act which the jury and coroner found caused the death in the first place. Perhaps it would be better to simply open with, "Ian Tomlinson (7 February 1962 – 1 April 2009) was an English newspaper vendor who was unlawfully killed during the 2009 G-20 summit protests. He was not part of the protests, and was attempting to go home, when a police officer struck him on the leg with a baton, then pushed his back forcefully, causing him to collapse and subsequently die minutes later." We can then cover the bare bones of the first autopsy, inquest, CPS intentions, etc. Nick Cooper (talk) 22:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

It's simply bad writing to introduce the article like that. We don't start "Ian Tomlinson was an alcoholic, homeless man who died etc", even though that's equally well-sourced. Good, neutral writing requires a light touch, and a disinterested tone. We therefore can't begin with "was unlawfully killed." Also, it makes the rest of the lead repetitive. It's just very poor writing overall. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The issue

The British justice system has succeeded in producing a bit of a mess, and Wikipedia can't take a side. First, an officer was seen pushing (most of us would say assaulting) a man who appeared to be posing no threat. Then, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) didn't charge the officer with assault within the statute of limitations, which was a very strange omission. Third, after three pathologists disagreed on the cause of death, the CPS decided to stress the decision of the first pathologist, because he was the only one who saw the intact body. Therefore, they said, they couldn't demonstrate cause of death beyond a reasonable doubt, and couldn't prosecute for manslaughter, or whatever other charge would have been appropriate. Then they held an inquest, and a jury produced an unlawful killing verdict, without being allowed to name the officer (who hasn't been charged with any offence). And so now the CPS says it's reviewing its decision not to prosecute—for something; we still don't know what.

Wikipedia, which has nothing to do with the British legal system, can't wade into this and adopt one of these positions in the first sentence, in Wikipedia's voice, as "The Truth." It is much better—in terms of the writing, the neutrality, and common sense—simply to start the article by explaining that he died, then guide the reader in the lead through the different views of the death; how those views emerged; and where things stand today. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 00:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

You've expressed my opinion much better than I did. However, I'm finding it difficult to support this opinion with the current Wikipedia policy. Given that pretty much everybody (me included) agrees that this officer's act was despicable and deserves to be punished, haven't we got a situation where all reliable sources are of one opinion, and policy therefore says we should present that opinion as fact? – Smyth\^talk 14:30, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

We ought never to begin an article with one contentious aspect of a person or situation, no matter how accurate it is, or how many sources agree. For example, we've had people over the years who want to start articles about animal rights activists with "John Smith is an arsonist" (where there has been a conviction for arson), or "John Smith is a terrorist," where Smith is a member of a group designated by one country as a terrorist threat. If we allow that, we'd be starting articles with "X is a rapist," or "Y is a victim of rape." Here we could start with, "Ian Tomlinson was a homeless alcoholic who was unlawfully killed ..." Each of these things is true, but it would be clumsy and aggressive writing.

The way to begin this article is to state what happened in the most basic of terms that no one can dispute, as it first appeared on the radar: he collapsed and died on his way home during the protests. Then we carry the reader carefully through the chronology of how other views of the death emerged, and how we learned about them. This is how I've written the article throughout, including in the lead, because the timeline of how the issues and perspectives were uncovered is a major part of the story. Starting the article with the latest legal perspective would violate that entirely. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 00:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm in favour of including it in the lead, myself, but not as has been tried recently. I think that somewhere in the first few sentences, we should include that he was found by a jury to have been unlawfully killed. The qulaification, "found by a jury" is necessary to avoid it sounding as if the article is taking one side voer the other. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

It's already in the lead, end of second paragraph: "In May 2011 an inquest jury returned a verdict of unlawful killing, ruling that the push and baton strike had involved excessive and unreasonable force. The CPS announced a review of its decision not to prosecute."

The problem here is that Philogo and Elvellian want to state it up front as fact in Wikipedia's voice: "Ian Tomlinson was an English newspaper vendor who was unlawfully killed ..." SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 00:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I shall start by addressing the points put to me by Smyth. Firstly, regarding your rather barbed comment - 'by a legal system which meets your standards' - I would reply by asking you not to unecessarily muddle the issue. This matter concerns the UK justice system only, and although that system can, and does, make mistakes, I don't think that it is in dispute that the said system is as fair, independent and neutral as it is reasonably possible to be.

But on to your main point: you ask me

Are you saying that when someone is convicted of murder ... we can, indeed must, write "X is a murderer"

My answer is: Is that not what we do already? Let's take three examples: Peter Sutcliffe, Harold Shipman and Peter Tobin. All three of these men denied murder at trial. All three were nevertheless convicted of multiple murder offences. And all three are described as serial killers right at the beginning of their respective Wikipedia articles.

As for you, I'm rather baffled by your point, SlimVirgin. I quite agree that we should not open the article by saying that Ian Tomlinson was an alcoholic, homeless man, but that is because those facts, although true, are not relevant (or at least, not relevant enough to merit inclusion right at the start.) The fact however that an inquest found Ian Tomlinson to have been unlawfully killed, is extremely relevant, and if that fact doesn't merit inclusion at the start of the article, then I don't know what does!

It seems to me furthermore, SlimVirgin, that you are so keen for this article to be neutral (a perfectly reasonable and laudable desire in itself) that you have gone too far the other way, and are failing to appreciate the true significance of this recent verdict. Smyth was spot on earlier when he warned you of the dangers of "presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion". You say that we should start the article by saying that Tomlinson died, and then guide the reader through the different views of the death, etc. Now, in the absence of any kind of legal verdict, I would have agreed with you completely about this approach. However, now that we have one, and given that the said verdict is not facing any kind of legal challenge, it would be utter lunacy not to record it right at the very beginning.

In short, this article is called 'Death of Ian Tomlinson.' And as it stands now, the first sentence only states that Tomlinson 'collapsed and died' giving a false impression to readers that the reasons for this have yet to be established, and the said readers have to wait until the end of the second paragraph to find out that the said death was in fact an unlawful killing. This is a nonsense.

In conclusion, I would fully support Nick Cooper's suggestion. Ie:

"Ian Tomlinson (7 February 1962 – 1 April 2009) was an English newspaper vendor who was unlawfully killed during the 2009 G-20 summit protests. He was not part of the protests, and was attempting to go home, when a police officer struck him on the leg with a baton, then pushed his back forcefully, causing him to collapse and subsequently die minutes later."

It is not bad writing at all, merely an accurate account of the facts as we currently understand them. Elvellian (talk) 19:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

This is a featured article—one of 3,270 featured articles out of over 3.6 million—so if you want to make comparisons with how other articles are written, please compare it to other FAs. I've received e-mails from people who've written about this issue professionally, commenting on the quality of it, because it's not an easy article to get right, and I'd like to keep the standard high. The FA status requires among other things:

• FA criterion 1(a): "well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard" (emphasis added)."
• 1(d): "neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias."

So that's what the article is aiming for. The recent edits reduced the quality—of the writing, the flow, the neutrality, and the coherence. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 23:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I see the unlawfully killed has disappeared yet again. I note that both The Guardian and The Telegraph not only use 'unlawfully killed' (legal terminology) in opening paragraphs and even opening sentences, they use the term in headlines, for example here. Even The Times managed to headline such a title on 6 May, which can't be referenced since bloody Murdoch charges a quid to peruse it.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 14:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. SlimVirgin, you are making less and less sense each time you post. Are you seriously suggesting Wikipedia's policies of neutrality apply differently to different articles? Are you seriously claiming that articles which are not featured are allowed to be 'less neutral' than articles which are featured? This is a nonsense. Wikipedia policies concerning neutrality apply uniformly to all articles. The fact is that I provided you three articles which demonstrated the truth of everything I have been saying up to now, and you can't brush them aside that easily.

The simple fact of the matter is that it does not violate neutrality in any way whatsoever to say that Ian Tomlinson was unlawfully killed, in the manners that editors such as Nick and I have suggested. You have disputed this, but to my mind, you have completely failed to substantiate this view with any kind of reasoned argument that holds water whatsoever. Your latest attempt is to say that this is somehow 'unprofessional' writing, but how can it be 'unprofessionable' if, as UnicornTapestry pointed out, that is exactly how other mainstream news organisations are reporting the matter!

And besides, this whole issue of 'bad writing' is a complete red herring anyway, since it is completely separate to the main issue - which is whether we should be reporting crucially relevant facts at the very start of the article. If the writing isn't great, then phrasing can be rearranged and re-edited as appropriate, but that doesn't alter the fact that we should be describing Ian Tomlinson as having been unlawfully killed (with appropriate sources of course) right at the start of the article. Elvellian (talk) 21:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The writing matters a great deal in a featured article, and there's no point in comparing how newspaper articles are written, because this isn't a newspaper, and we don't want this to read as though it's a newspaper article.

The first sentence is: "Ian Tomlinson was an English newspaper vendor who collapsed and died in the City of London on his way home from work during the 2009 G-20 summit protests." This will always be true. But instead of adapting that historical perspective, you want to insert whatever the latest decision is. See WP:RECENTISM.

• After the first autopsy it would have been: "Ian Tomlinson was an English newspaper vendor who collapsed and died of a heart attack in the City of London ..."

• After the second autopsy: "Ian Tomlinson was an English newspaper vendor who collapsed and died of internal bleeding in the City of London ..."

• After the inquest: "Ian Tomlinson was an English newspaper vendor who was unlawfully killed in the City of London ..."

• If anyone is ever convicted of assault: "Ian Tomlinson was an English newspaper vendor who was criminally assaulted and unlawfully killed in the City of London ..."

And so on, through the English legal system's twists and turns. Wikipedia has nothing to do with that legal system. We maintain a distance from it, and describe what happened neutrally, timelessly wherever possible, attributing opinions and rulings, not announcing them in Wikipedia's voice. This isn't just a question of neutrality, but of common sense and good writing. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 02:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, I would categorically not have supported writing, "Ian Tomlinson...died of internal bleeding" after the results of the second autopsy (or indeed that "Ian Tomlinson...died of heart failure" after the results of the first), and your suggestion that I would have done further demonstrates the truth of what I said before - that you are failing to appreciate the true significance of a legal verdict. An autopsy is not such a verdict, but a professional opinion only, unless and until its findings are accepted in a legal verdict - ie, an inquest!

Recentism is a matter of balance. On the one hand, we do not need or want articles bogged down with events which are relatively trivial in nature, such as the latest public statement made by the family, or what celebrity x said to magazine y about the matter. But this does not mean that articles should not grow and evolve over time as the situation develops and more facts become known. The key issue is balance, as said on the recentism page itself:

Allegations of recentism should prompt consideration of proportion, balance, and due weight

So the question we have to ask ourselves is, given that this article is about the death of Ian Tomlinson, is it proportionate and balanced to report the results of an inquest, whose very purpose is to establish, as a matter of fact, how Ian Tomlinson died. The trivial answer must be yes! And as I said before uninformed readers would be given the impression by the article (as it stands now) that it has not been established why Tomlinson collapsed and died. This was the case before the inquest's verdict, but it is not now, and we should be rectifying it. Elvellian (talk) 06:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

First, nobody is suggesting that we should not "report the results of an inquest", so be more careful with your language. The question is whether we should present the results of the inquest as fact or as opinion.

Second, would you please explain which Wikipedia principles tell us that a "professional opinion only" is somehow worth less respect than the unprofessional opinion of 12 randomly-selected members of the public.

Third, would you accept an opening sentence along the lines of "Ian Tomlinson died after being struck by a police officer", which presents the undisputed facts without making any judgement of blame, followed by a second sentence saying "an inquest found that he was unlawfully killed", which gives the verdict the highest possible prominence? – Smyth\^talk 09:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

That this is an example of POV recentism can be deduced from the fact that, had the inquest jury ruled the death an accident, Elvellian would not now be asking that we say: "Ian Tomlinson was an English newspaper vendor who collapsed and died accidentally in the City of London ..." SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 09:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Unless you have access to a gateway to a parallel universe in which a jury did rule the death an accident, SlimVirgin, I don't think you have any idea how I would have acted, so your deductions don't really mean much. As I am sure you have probably said to other people, Wikipedia is a place for facts, not speculation. And the fact is that the jury did rule the death to be an unlawful killing.

I think it's perfectly obvious that the start of this page must be changed in some way, since out of all the editors that have posted here, only one has advocated the status quo. So that brings me neatly on to you Smyth. I do accept that you have reservations with the arguments I have made, so for the sake of actually making progress here, let's run with your suggestion. You will find below a proposed draft of what the introduction to this article, which incorporates your suggestions. I won't say anything about it, but instead just let it speak for itself. I'd be very interested to see if you find it acceptable.

Ian Tomlinson (7 February 1962 – 1 April 2009) was an English newspaper vendor who collapsed and died after being struck by a police officer in the City of London, while on his way home from work during the 2009 G-20 summit protests. Although a first postmortem examination indicated he had suffered a heart attack and had died of natural causes, an inquest subsequently found that Tomlinson had been unlawfully killed and that the force used by the police officer was excessive and unreasonable.

Tomlinson’s death became controversial four days after the initial postmortem, when The Guardian obtained video footage showing him being struck on the leg from behind by a police officer wielding a baton, then pushed to the ground by the same officer. The video appeared to show no provocation on Tomlinson's part—he was not a protester, and at the time he was struck was walking along with his hands in his pockets. He walked away after the incident, but collapsed and died moments later.

After The Guardian published the video, the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) began a criminal inquiry. A second postmortem indicated that Tomlinson had died from internal bleeding caused by blunt force trauma to the abdomen, in association with cirrhosis of the liver, as did a third postmortem arranged by the accused officer's defence team. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) announced in July 2010 that no charges would be brought against the officer, PC Simon Harwood, because the disagreement between the pathologists meant prosecutors could not demonstrate a clear causal link between the death and the alleged assault. However, after the inquest jury returned its verdict in May 2011, the CPS announced a review of its decision not to prosecute

Tomlinson's death sparked an intense debate in the UK...(rest of paragraph unchanged.) Elvellian (talk) 20:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Why are you so keen to have the unlawful aspect in the first or second sentence, as a matter of interest? You've made 22 edits, all about this issue. Are you involved in it in some way? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 23:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I have to say that that's not a particularly fair question. For a start, that 22 includes all the posts I have made on this discussion page. Furthermore, you yourself have made more than 50 edits to the article within recent days (and that's not including posts on the discussion page) so I could just as easily ask you if you have any connection to this issue at all!

Nevertheless, I'm perfectly happy to give you an answer: I have no connection to this issue or to anyone involved in this issue whatsoever. I am merely an ordinary UK citizen, who likes to see facts properly recorded.

Now, instead of focussing on irrelevent personal questions, I do invite you to comment on my suggested draft above. Elvellian (talk) 06:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I am quite happy with this draft. – Smyth\^talk 11:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I object to changing the flow of the lead for the reasons explained above, and no one has offered a a reason to change it, apart from personal preference.

Asking if you're involved, Elvellian, isn't irrelevant. You're a single-purpose account with few edits and strong views—c. 22 edits overall, and all about this issue—edit warring over the first sentence of a featured article about a contentious current event. It's reasonable to wonder why. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 12:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Does any of that have any effect whatsoever on the strength of the arguments I have been making, or on the suitability of the suggested draft that I posted above? I think not, so please refrain from clogging up this discussion page with it. I have already categorically denied any connection with this issue and I again categorically deny having any conflict of interest in this matter. If you have anything more to say with regard to that subject, I suggest that you take it to my talk page.

So on to the actual matter in hand. Firstly, clear reasons have already been articulated ad infinitum for change. I will refrain from repeating them yet again, since I don't want this discussion to become unnecessarily longer than it already is! You are of course free to disagree with them and to articulate why, but you can't seriously claim that they don't exist.

Furthermore, it isn't good enough for you to dismiss my suggested draft 'for the reasons expressed above' since those reasons were directed against my original suggestion, where I was advocating writing 'Ian Tomlinson was unlawfully killed.' Incidentally, I still see nothing wrong with doing things this way, but I have now compromised on this point, as you will have seen from my suggested draft. Thus, those previous reasons no longer apply.

All that leaves you with is your previously used claim that this somehow constitutes 'bad writing.' Needless to say, I fail to see how in the slightest, and if you're going to claim otherwise, then you're going to have to pick out specific parts and phrases that you object to and explain yourself more clearly. Elvellian (talk) 19:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Seeing as no-one has given any reasons against my suggested draft, it has been placed in the article. Elvellian (talk) 21:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The inquest court has found that he was unlawfully killed (it is not just the opinion of a jury). In these circumstances it is accurate and neutral to begin the article with Ian Tomlinson (7 February 1962 – 1 April 2009) was an English newspaper vendor who was unlawfully killed" rather than Ian Tomlinson (7 February 1962 – 1 April 2009) was an English newspaper vendor who collapsed and died". I think that argument that the latter is better style tyan the former seem disingenuous. If the inquast verdict is overturned on an appeal, (or if another court finds somebody guilty of assualt manslaughter of murder) we should then adjust.— Philogos (talk) 22:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course it was the opinion of the jury; that was their verdict. You would not begin Death of Jeremiah Duggan with "died in a state of terror," though that was the inquest's narrative verdict, or Death of Diana, Princess of Wales with "was unlawfully killed": again, the inquest verdict. Phil, I can understand new editors not getting this point, but you've been around long enough to know that Wikipedia doesn't repeat legal decisions from around the world in its own voice as though we are simply an extension of those courts. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 10:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not, for the moment, going to get sucked back into the debate over whether it is appropriate to write, in Wikipedia voice, 'Ian Tomlinson was unlawfully killed.' I have already given my views on that subject.

However, I am going to talk about my suggested draft above. You SlimVirgin, have removed this draft from the article and have thus reverted to the status quo, despite the fact that there is absolutely no consensus for the status quo. I accept that there is disagreement over whether it is appropriate to write 'X was unlawfully killed' - that is why I compromised for the sake of a constructive conscensus. However, there is absolutely no consensus for the status quo; as I said before, you are currently in a minority of one on this matter.

Your reasons for reverting my draft are as follows: 'writing better before, and less POV.'

However, I'm not going to let you get away with that without properly explaining yourself. As I said above, you cannot rely on the POV argument, because my draft says 'an inquest found that Tomlinson was unlawfully killed' which is undeniably factual and true. Furthermore, I invited you before to give specific reasons as to why you think the above constitutes bad writing. You have not done so.

For this reason, I have reinserted my draft. As I said to you before on your talk page, I am more than happy to discuss this matter constructively with you, and compromise where compromise is appropriate. And I would remind you that I have already compromised on this matter. But I do not accept that you, and you only, have a sole divine right to decide what is 'appropriate' for this page and what is not. This community operates on consensus, and as things stand right now, you don't have one. Elvellian (talk) 21:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I suggest certain other editors desist from the ad hominem fallacy: it's the strength of the argument that counts not who puts it forward or for what purpose. As another editor suggested we be "focussing on irrelevent personal questions". In addition the us of the ad hominem fallacy agaisnt editors is getting very close to a perosonal attack. Editors would be more convincing morvover if they did not "accidiently" misconstrue other editor's points - eg I said "it is not just the opinion of a jury" (emphasis added) - "not it was not the opinion of the jury." and therefore the response "Of course it was the opinion of the jury; that was their verdict." is not appropriate. Articles should not aim at writing the truth but what is reliably sourced. The reliable sources for a very large part of this article are newspapers reports, which are duly cited. It was pointed out above that both The Guardian and The Telegraph not only use 'unlawfully killed' (legal terminology) in opening paragraphs and even opening sentences, they use the term in headlines, for example here. Even The Times managed to headline such a title on 6 May, which can't be referenced since bloody Murdoch charges a quid to peruse it. Therefore the statement "Ian tomlinson was unlawfully killed.." is as reliably sourced as "Ian Tomlinson was an English newspaper vendor". — Philogos (talk) 22:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I propose that the article should begin "Ian Tomlinson (7 February 1962 – 1 April 2009) was an English newspaper vendor who was unlawfully killed during the 2009 G-20 summit protests. .." as previously proposed above — Philogos (talk) 22:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Request for comment

Should the introduction of this article be edited to further emphasise the recent inquest verdict that Ian Tomlinson was unlawfully killed, and if so, how? Elvellian (talk) 19:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes: see below— Philogos (talk) 23:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The dispute

This issue has been discussed at length on the article's talk page for the past few days. Despite having proposed what I believed, based on the discussion, to be a mutually acceptable solution to the dispute, my suggested compromise has been completely rejected by another editor involved in the discussion, who has reverted all attempts to insert this compromise into the article, without providing any reasons on the talk page as to why she considers it unacceptable.

Seeing as we therefore seem to have hit a deadlock, I am requesting comment from other editors to see what other people think about the matter.

Now, the previous discussion is encompassed entirely by the preceding 'Unlawfully killed' and 'The Issue' sections. It is rather long and convoluted, and matters are made more difficult by the fact that there are two issues that need to be resolved, not just one, and it is important not to confuse them. Therefore, I shall set out, as clearly and succinctly as I can, the two issues as I understand them and my case why I believe that this article's introduction needs to be changed.

Firstly: Should the introduction of this article be edited to further emphasise the recent inquest verdict that Ian Tomlinson was unlawfully killed?

In my view, the introduction of this article, as it currently stands, is inadequate. The article itself is about a person's death, yet the reader has to wait until the end of the second of two long paragraphs to find out that this death, according to an inquest, was an unlawful killing. Indeed, the first paragraph as it stands, gives in my view a misleading and false impression that we have no clear understanding of why Tomlinson collapsed and died. Therefore, it is my view that the introduction should be suitably rewritten in order to properly highlight the fact that an inquest (whose verdict is not currently facing legal challenge) found that Ian Tomlinson had been unlawfully killed by a police officer.

That brings me on to the second issue: If so, how.

This issue is far more contentious, and obviously it only needs to be considered if you agree with me (which of course you might not!) that the introduction is in need of change. Now, as you will see from the preceding discussion, I had originally advocated writing "Ian Tomlinson was unlawfully killed" instead of the less direct "an inquest found that Ian Tomlinson was unlawfully killed." Much of the preceding discussion is taken up with the issue of whether or not it is appropriate to write the former. Now, I myself have no problem with the former, but I do understand the objections that other editors have raised against it. Because of these objections, I compromised my view and proposed a draft introduction (which you will see near the end of 'The Issue' section) which incorporates the latter phrasing rather than the former. Some editors involved in the discussion still prefer the former however, and I shall let them argue their case should they wish to do so. However, as far as I am concerned, I am happy with my suggested draft. I believe it to be fair, balanced and reasonable, and I would suggest to the community that it should replace the introduction as it currently stands. Elvellian (talk) 19:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you've hit the nail on the head there. ;) I don't think you'd find much opposition to mentioning the inquest verdict nearer the start. The objections being raised are the manner in which it's being added. To an extent, I agree with Slim, and can see why she's not keen on your modifications (it does intoroduce issues like undue weight and it does break the flow of the prose). I'm happy to work with you and Slim and naybody elxse to try and find a middle ground, but can we we have a moratorium on the reverting until we can come up with wording that we can all live with? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I support a moratorium on reverting and propose that the article begins "Ian Tomlinson (7 February 1962 – 1 April 2009) was an English newspaper vendor who was unlawfully killed during the 2009 G-20 summit protests. He was not part of the protests, and was attempting to go home, when a police officer struck him on the leg with a baton, then pushed his back forcefully, causing him to collapse and subsequently die minutes later." as proposed by Nick Cooper and supported by Elvellian. (The disussion which followed this proposal was so long and full of personal attacks that it is difficult to see whether or not the proposal had mojority support.) — Philogos (talk) 22:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

My biggest problem with that is that is that "unlawfully killed" needs some qualification. We can't just bung the phrase in anywhere, because it's not for Wikipedia to decide whether the inquest jury was right. The phrase needs to be clearly attributed to the jury. Of secondary importance is that the writing in the current opening sentences is much better than that in the proposed new version. I fully agree that the term "unlawful killing" (or a version of it) needs to be in those first few sentences, because it's of great significance that a jury has found somebody legally (though not criminally) responsible.

That said, I don't think this change has to so radically alter the lead as the version being proposed does. My suggestion is to find an appropriate place in the first paragraph and insert either a phrase to the extent of "was, according to an inquest jury, unlawfully killed" or the sentence "Tomlinson was found by an inquest jury to have been unlawfully killed" without changing the rest of the lead (except to eliminate alter redundancy). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I take it that your opposed. But I am puzzled why you think we need to add "according to the jury" of "according to the court" regaring his being unlawfully killed, but not "a newspaper vendor (according to The Times" or "collapsed and died (according to witnesses)" or "ht by a baton (As admimmited in court by an MPC). Surley we only need to quote a RS for the statement "was unlawfuly killed" for which we can cite Coroner and/or The Times and/or The Guardian and/or The Telegraph in the usual way. — Philogos (talk) 23:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

PS By way of comparison The Aricle Blair Peach begins Clement Blair Peach (25 March 1946 – 23 April 1979) was a New Zealand-born teacher who was fatally assaulted by a police officer during an anti-racism demonstration in London, England. and later notes An inquest jury returned a verdict of death by misadventure in May 1980.— Philogos (talk) 23:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to the principle, I just think there are problems with the proposed draft. I fully support including the inquest verdict in the opening paragraph.

To answer your question, it's a matter of fact, rather than one of opinion, that he was a newspaper vendor, that he died (the article wouldn't exist if he didn't!) or that a copper whacked him with his baton. Nobody disputes those facts (not even the copper who hit him) so there's no problem with ann ouncing those facts in Wikipedias' voice. However, the inquest verdict is an opinion. It's an opinion with a lot of legal weight and one made by 12 people who have been given all the evidence to weigh up and so we give it a lot more weight than other opinions. Without attributing that judgement/verdict/opinion to its owner, it sounds like "unlawfully killed" is Wikipedia's statement rather than the jury's, and it's not Wikipedia's place to be making statements like that.

As for your example, it's that article which is wrong, not this one. That article is not an FA or even a GA and it shouldn't be bandying about terms like "assualt", which have a very specific, legal meaning, when nobody has ever been charged. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". The Courts is surey A RS. Lets wait and see what other editors say about the proposal.— Philogos (talk) 00:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

But it's just one RS. Please tell me: would you start Death of Jeremiah Duggan with: "Jeremiah Duggan was a British-Jewish student who died in a "state of terror"? That was the inquest narrative verdict. Would you start Death of Princess Diana with: "On 31 August 1997, Diana, Princess of Wales, was unlawfully killed, dying as a result of injuries sustained in a car collision ..."? "Unlawfully killed" was the inquest verdict. Please do response to this, Phil. When I've asked about other inconsistencies, you've just ignored the question. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 07:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, for the benefit of other editors, when I asked Phil about his edits earlier, he replied: "We can now shcne the lede to say he was unlawfully killed (conce that has been determined in court) We may say "by a PC" by not name home - follwoing the cautaly jury ruling (whihc I have out on the talk page)." [18]

It isn't reasonable to ask that the lead of a featured article be written via negotiations of this kind. If you want to know why some experienced FA writers don't want to submit them anymore, look no further than this. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 07:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean, 'it isn't reasonable'? What do you suggest we do instead when disputes arise? That it should be up to one person to decide how the article should be written, and that the opinions of all others are irrelevant? That isn't how Wikipedia operates!

Anyway, I don't have time for a big response, so I would just like to thank you, HJ Mitchell, for your comments, and to say that I am happy to agree to a moratorium on editing until we can reach a mutually acceptable agreement on what the wording should be. I have no objection to working constructively with other editors to make sure that we get things right. My only objection is to an editor who refuses to comment on wording when it is suggested and then repeatedly reverts that wording without leaving any explanation on the talk page whatsoever. Elvellian (talk) 07:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Support Nick Cooper proposal. The verdict of an inquest jury should be good enough to make the statement that he was unlawfully killed. It is the jury that makes the legal decision and as the term is 'lawfully' their verdict is pretty well correct by definition. I do not think there has been much criticism or objection to their decision. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

There is a more recent proposal, see under the Lede below. Would you indicate you view there of that proposal? I am attempting to obtain a consensus view. Cheers. PS I have not seen and objections to the courts findings in any relaible soource; if there are any we whould no doubt have to record that. I think all aprtiesre are agreed that the article should be neutral and balanced, but if there have been no objections to the court's ruling it is diffuclt see what neautrality would consists of, other than saying that the unlawfull killing as the finding of the court, regaring which see the newer proposal below.— Philogos (talk) 00:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC) — Philogos (talk) 00:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Elvellian and 77.102.254.186

Further information: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive726 § User:4567treminater

• Elvellian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 77.102.254.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Elvellian, you've made it clear that you're this IP address, by claiming the edit when editing logged out. But this is an IP address that has a history of vandalism, and looking back at some of its previous edits, it sounds very much like your voice, including one of your spelling mistakes, and the serial reverting. Did you write this post, for example?

I'm asking this because I'm not happy about someone with a history of vandalizing the project arriving to change the first sentence of a featured article about a contentious issue. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 07:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

This is nothing more than an ad hominem attack, which has nothing to do with the issues raised here. Unless you have reason to believe that I have been vandalising this article (which I haven't) or been using that IP address to make malicious sock puppet edits to this article (which I again haven't) then this matter is a complete red herring. Please spend a little less time attacking me, and more time addressing the legitimate arguments that I have raised.

Elvellian (talk) 07:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

That IP address repeatedly vandalized the project, reverted against other editors, removed warnings from his talk page, and was blocked six times between November last year and January this year, including the last time for three months with talk-page access revoked. If the same person suddenly arrives at a featured article to add POV to the first sentence, then repeatedly reverts to his changes—that's clearly something that it's reasonable to take into account. Editors don't normally behave this like at featured articles.

You use the same IP address. Your posts have the same "voice," you make at least one of the same (not very common) spelling mistakes, and you've engaged in the same serial reverting, and removal of a warning from an admin on your talk page. So please answer the question. Are you the same person? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 08:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

By his refusal to answer the question he's already tacitly admitted he is, as if it wasn't obvious enough already.

Elvellian: your reputation is attached to you, and cannot be restricted to your behaviour on one particular article. If you had performed all of your edits under a user account, that account would have been blocked permanently. I have no interest in trying to have a good-faith debate with someone who has recently been responsible for this kind of childish crap which plagues all of our work on this site. If you want to earn your reputation back, go and do some productive editing in a less controversial area. – Smyth\^talk 09:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I made two responses this morning. You, SlimVirgin, have so far answered one. I find it very regrettable that you show no interest whatsoever in actually addressing the legitimate arguments I have made against your own position. What do you hope to achieve by attempting to drive me out of the discussion? The points raised against your position remain exactly the same, regardless of whether they are written by me or another.

I did invite you before to raise this matter with me on my talk page. And had you done so politely, in a manner that displayed genuine concern about what you suspected – ie, not with the vicious aggression that you have in fact displayed, by which you have made it obvious that you are out to destroy the person, rather than to refute the argument - then I would have given you as open and honest a response as possible. But since I can understand how my past history would very reasonably cause great concern to others, I shall say the following:

I do have a past that I am not proud of. Or to be more accurate, that I am ashamed of. I do not condone or defend what I did in any way at all. However, the very reason I created this account was because I was so disgusted by what I was doing that I was resolved to start again, make a fresh and clean start, and to start contributing constructively instead of tearing down destructively. While I have had this account, I have not used it to vandalise, and neither have I used my ‘IP identity’ for any malicious purpose whatsoever. The only time I have used it since then is by mistake, when I posted, forgetting that I had not logged in. Very silly I’ll admit, but hardly malicious or deceitful.

So I shall admit that which you are so clearly desperate to hear – I and the aforementioned IP address are one and the same. But so what? What does that acknowledgement of what was already blindingly obvious give you? I have committed no crime against the community that I have not already been duly punished for. You may be revolted by my past – that’s fine, so am I – but that doesn’t affect, in any way whatsoever, the arguments I have set out on this discussion page, in which I have demonstrated that this article’s introduction is obsolete and in need of rewriting. So continue to direct as much bile and venom against me as you like, but the soundness of an argument is independent of the reputation of its maker, as you should already well know. Elvellian (talk) 19:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

But you're not behaving differently. You're behaving with the same aggressive attitude, telling people who've worked a lot on a featured article that you—with almost no editing experience who has just arrived at it—know better, in long-winded posts about how wrong they are; reverting them constantly; and blanking a warning from an admin on your talk page. It was because the behavior was the same that I knew you were the same person. I'd have otherwise assumed the IP address was a dynamic one.

It's because of behavior like yours that increasing numbers of FA writers don't want to submit their articles for FA status anymore. Because no matter how much thought you put into the research, the writing, and the structure, there's always going to be a Randy in Boise who arrives and thinks he knows better, and who will cry "ownership" if he's not allowed to do whatever he wants. It's a form of vandalism, just a less obvious form. It makes the project look silly for allowing it; it makes serious writers not want to join the project; and it makes FA writers look foolish, because why would any reasonable person subject themselves to this? So you're being just as destructive as you were when actively vandalizing.

If you want to turn over a new leaf, please create an article and bring it up to FA standard. You'll see how hard it is, and it may help you appreciate other people's work. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 10:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Is this talk page the best place for this dialogue between SlimVirgin and Elvellian?— Philogos (talk) 19:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Clearly not, and it is very regrettable that SlimVirgin is continuing to renew this very nasty ad hominem attack upon me. my response to this latest onslaught can be summed up very simply by the following quote from the page on Wikipedia itself:

No article is owned by its creator or any other editor, or is vetted by any recognized authority; rather, the articles are agreed on by consensus

Just because this article is featured, that does not mean that only one editor is allowed to decide what it says. It also does not mean that any other editor who attempts to improve it is automatically guilty of showing disrespect to other contributing editors. I have attempted to proceed through consensus building, by suggesting a compromise and then inviting comment from other editors, in which (even if I say so myself) I highlighted the difficult issues facing this article in a fair and reasonable way. Furthermore, every editor who has posted here (apart from you) agrees with me at least to the extent that the current state of this article is inadequate, although of course there is clear disagreement over the best way to resolve it. But yet, according to you, all of that somehow constitutes vandalism on my part? How utterly ridiculous! Elvellian (talk) 07:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

As you're keen on quoting policy, perhaps you could take this into account, from WP:OAS:

• "Do not confuse stewardship with ownership. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that "anyone can edit", but not all edits bring improvement. In many cases, a core of editors will have worked to build the article up to its present state, and will revert inappropriate edits in order to preserve the quality of the encyclopedia."
• "Editors are asked to take particular care when editing a Featured article; it is considerate to discuss significant changes of text or images on the talk page first. Explaining civilly why sources and policies support a particular version of a featured article does not constitute ownership."

SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 11:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I quite agree that it is appropriate to revert inappropriate edits. The issue here is whether developing the article in the way I suggested is actually inappropriate. You evidently think so, but you are the only one to do so. And what is the point of the second bullet point - we're discussing the changes aren't we! It was I who requested comment after all!

But that was a very interesting page, so thank you for linking me to it. By way of thanking you, let me now bring the following points to your attention, all under the 'Examples of Ownership behaviour':

Actions

Justified article changes by different editors are reverted by the same editor repeatedly over an extended period to protect a certain version, stable or not.

An editor comments on other editors' talk pages with the purpose of discouraging them from making additional contributions. The discussion can take many forms; it may be purely negative, consisting of threats and insults, often avoiding the topic of the article altogether. At the other extreme, the owner may patronize other editors, claiming that their ideas are interesting while also claiming that they lack the deep understanding of the article necessary to edit it.

Comments

"Are you qualified to edit this article?"

On revert

Do not make such changes or comments until you have significantly edited or written work of this quality

Unless it is wrong or has errors, please do not make such changes or comments without my/his/her/our approval

I have spent hours editing this article. You are vandalizing my work

Given that you have displayed all of the above behaviour, and given that earlier you said that this kind of discussion was 'unreasonable' it seems to me that you do have an unhealthy attachment to this article, and that you have forgotten the first rule of Wikipedia - that if you do not want your writing to be edited, used and redistributed at will, do not submit it! Elvellian (talk) 20:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Problematic editing

Phil, this edit of yours: "The CPS confirmed that a review of their decision not to prosecute anyone in relation to the death of Mr Ian Tomlinson will now take place and will be thorough. "

The article already said the CPS was reviewing its decision, so there's no need to repeat it, and obviously no need to repeat that the article is about "Mr Ian Tomlinson." This is not helpful editing. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 10:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually the article had said "The CPS is expected to review its decision not to prosecute..." (see the history). My edit quoted the CPS as saying that their review would take place. For some reason you have substituted a quote from the Telegraph instead of from the CPS itself.— Philogos (talk) 19:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC) The issue is now moot since the CPS has finished its review and decided to prosecute.— Philogos (talk) 17:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The Lede

It was proposed earlier by Nick Cooper that the lede should begin

• "Ian Tomlinson (7 February 1962 – 1 April 2009) was an English newspaper vendor who was unlawfully killed during the 2009 G-20 summit protests. He was not part of the protests, and was attempting to go home, when a police officer struck him on the leg with a baton, then pushed his back forcefully, causing him to collapse and subsequently die minutes later."

This was supported by Elvellian and opposed by SlimVirgin and HJ Mitchell. The latter has suggested "The qualification, "found by a jury" is necessary to avoid it sounding as if the article is taking one side over the other." SlimVirgin has said above that "There have been objections, so the way to proceed is to try to gain consensus on talk, not to keep reverting." and it has also been suggested that there is a moritorium on reverting the lede until consensus has been reached. It appears to me that there is not a consensus agreement either to the current begining of the lede nor for Nick Cooper's proposal above. I propose we adopt HJ Mitchell's suggestion of incorporating the phrase "found by a jury" to avoid the impression of impartiality. Therefore I invite other editors to indicate whether they support or oppose the following as the first sentence:

• "Ian Tomlinson (7 February 1962 – 1 April 2009) was an English newspaper vendor who was found by the inquest jury to have been unlawfully killed during the 2009 G-20 summit protests."— Philogos (talk) 00:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Please answer these questions, and stop ignoring them:

1. Should we begin Death of Jeremiah Duggan with: "Jeremiah Duggan was a British-Jewish student who was found by a coroner to have died after being hit by two cars while he was in "a state of terror"? That was the verdict.
2. Should we begin Death of Princess Diana with: "Diana, Princess of Wales, was found by an inquest jury to have been unlawfully killed in a car crash in Paris?" That was the verdict.

If not, why not? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 10:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Editors were invited to indicate whether they support or oppose the above as opening sentence based on the suggestion of HJ Mitchell. — Philogos (talk) 19:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose because of massively undue weight. HJ Mitchell and myself both suggested mentioning the inquest in the first paragraph, not the first sentence.

And you are invited to answer her question. – Smyth\^talk 11:27, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

SlimV: The Di article begins " died as a result of injuries sustained in a car collision"; are you proposing a similar first sentence for this article e.g. "Ian Tomlinson (7 February 1962 – 1 April 2009) was an English newspaper vendor who died as a result of a baton strike from behind and a push by a police officer which caused Ian Tomlinson to fall heavily." ?

— Philogos (talk) 15:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm proposing you leave the first sentence as it is, as a generic description of what happened, without introducing the decision of an inquest jury as though it were an unshakable law of nature.

Apart from common sense and good writing, BLP applies here. No one has even been charged let alone convicted. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 17:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not altering anything in the lede - I understood that it was agreed that there would be a moritoruim on altering the first paragraph. You proposed above that "There have been objections, so the way to proceed is to try to gain consensus on talk, not to keep reverting". I support that. — Philogos (talk) 17:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Then please take the point. You wouldn't support starting other articles with the decision of a jury or a coroner. You especially wouldn't do it if you disagreed with the decision, or if you distrusted or were unfamiliar with the legal system of that country. What's happening here is that the inquest verdict got a lot of publicity in the UK, and lots of people agreed with it, so some of those people arrived here and wanted to stress that POV.

But it's recentism, and it's just one point of view. We're not taking a British point of view, or a police point of view, or a family point of view. We try to stay above it, while respecting the direction of the reliable sources, which is largely sympathetic to the Tomlinsons. So we steer a careful and balanced course, a disinterested approach that doesn't emphasize whatever the latest headlines are in England. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 17:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that a number of editors have criticised the current version and hence it does not have consensus agreement. I have put up suggested changes for discussion, based on the criticisms of others, and we will have wait to see what they have to say. — Philogos (talk) 20:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Support Nick Cooper lead. It is the decision of the inquest jury that determines whether, under English law, the killing was unlawful. That decision having been made, it is a simple matter of fact that the killing was, under the relevant law, unlawful, thus we must say that here. If there is any controversy over that decision (which seems not to be the case) we should also report that here.

In any case, it is hard to see who might be in a better position to determine the facts that the inquest jury, who have been carefully presented with all the available evidence for their careful consideration. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:25, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Moreover the seem to be no reliable sources to the effect that he was not unlawfully killed; it is therefore hard to see why saying that he was unlawfully killed would not be balanced. On the other hand the Nick Cooper version does not cite the court as the RS for the statement, hence the revised version of the first sentence. The full reised propsal would read as folloes:

• "Ian Tomlinson (7 February 1962 – 1 April 2009) was an English newspaper vendor who was found by the inquest jury to have been unlawfully killed during the 2009 G-20 summit protests. He was not part of the protests, and was attempting to go home, when a police officer struck him on the leg with a baton, then pushed his back forcefully, causing him to collapse and subsequently die minutes later."

— Philogos (talk) 19:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I still support Nick Cooper's version. The section, 'who was found by the inquest jury to have been', is redundant. He was unlawfully killed. We should, of course, cite a reliable source on the inquest verdict. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

There's a failure here to understand the structure of the lead.

The first paragraph deals with the raw facts: a death, an autopsy saying natural causes, a video showing an apparent assault. The second paragraph deals with the legal response: the setting up of a criminal inquiry, the naming of the officer, the decision not to prosecute, the opening of an inquest, the change of mind about prosecution. The third paragraph deals with the meta issues: the press and public reaction, the police response to that reaction.

It was written that way deliberately, so that the opening of the article—the first paragraph—remains historically accurate and relevant no matter what happens next, and leads the reader through an understanding of how perspectives changed over time. And these will continue to change as the legal process advances. Please take WP:RECENTISM seriously. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 18:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that people do understand WP:RECENTISM, SlimVirgin. They just don't agree with the way you're applying it. It is now a fact, established by a legal verdict that Ian Tomlinson was unlawfully killed. That fact is not being challenged, and it is therefore extremely unlikely ever to change. And given, as I said before, this article is about a man's death, it remains a nonsense to bury that legal verdict towards the end of the introduction, regardless of whether or not it is qualified with the phrase 'An inquest found that...'

Your approach was perfectly valid when it had not been established how Tomlinson had died. Now that it has however, the article must develop to reflect that fact. The concept of recentism is meant to guard against the frivolous inclusion of excessive detail that has no historical merit beyond the immediate few days; it is not meant to ensure that an article must stay set in stone for all eternity.

Furthermore, your argument concerning the Death of Diana, Princess of Wales and Death of Jeremiah Duggan articles are inconsistent. Earlier, you dismissed the three articles that I brought up, which stated at their respective starts 'X is a murderer/serial killer' - on the grounds that the articles were not featured. However, the two articles you've brought to our attention are not featured either, so by what objective criteria do you advocate these non-featured articles, but yet reject the non-featured ones I referenced?

Indeed, your position on the Diana article is baffling. According to you, that article can be used to support your view that we are not allowed to state legal verdicts as given fact, but yet it cannot be used to support the view that verdicts of inquests can be reported immediately in the first paragraph. Make up your mind! Do you think that the Diana article is an example of a good article whose structure we should imititate, or do you not? You can't have it both ways.

I myself do believe that the Diana article has an excellent structure, and one that we should imitate. I do think, Philogos, that the article should still start by saying that Tomlinson collapsed and died after being pushed by a police officer, in the same way that the Diana article starts by saying that Diana died in a car crash. I don't think that we can jump right in by saying in the very first clause that Tomlinson was unlawfully killed/found to have been unlawfully killed, since that fails to establish the context of the situation. Nevertheless, in the same way that the Diana article goes on to report immediately in the first paragraph the results of the judicial proceedings, we should then immediately report that Tomlinson was found to be unlawfully killed.

Finally, if I'm honest, I am no longer particularly bothered about whether we say 'Tomlinson was unlawfully killed' or 'Tomlinson was found to have been unlawfully killed' (or words to those effects.) As I've said before, I've no problem with the former, but I'm happy to accept the latter if that will make more people more comfortable. For me, having the information appropriately situated in the article is more important than the exact phrasing. Elvellian (talk) 20:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I think we also need a moratorium on repsonses longer than 1000 characters. At this rate, this dispute will very quickly overtake the article itself in length and, Elvellian, your latest response is probably longer than the whole lead!

If you're not bothered by the wording, why are we stil discussing this? I think we all agree, to a greater or lesser extent, that the inquest jury verdict belongs in the first paragraph, especially now it's led to a new significant development (that the police officer will face manslaughter charges). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Alas I have the impression that we are not ALL in agreement that "the inquest jury verdict belongs in the first paragraph"; it is not there at the moment and it appears to me that SlimVirgin does not believe it should be (he or she may correct me if I am wrong. SlimVirgin's says that "the first paragraph deals with the raw facts"; we should concern ourselves less with what us true than what is reliably sourced, and the term "raw" is a bit cloudly. The first paragraph should summarise the most important and pertinant reliably sourced matters for the benefit of the reader. I suggest that these most important and pertinant issues are and will remain as follows. (a) Ian Tomlinson was in the City of London at the same time as a G-20 summit protest (b) he was struck and pushed over by a police officer (c) he collapsed and died minutes later (d) his inquest determined that the beating was unreasonably forceful, caused his death by internal injuries and he was unlawfully killed (e) the police officer has been charged with manslaughter. In my opinion the first paragraph should begin by laying out these issues in the first one or two sentences. In my opinion it is is of lesser interest, of lesser importance and less reliably sourced that he was or was not taking part in the demonstration and he was or was not on his way home. — Philogos (talk) 00:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Well I hope Slim won't take offence to my saying that she's written the lead in quite an idiosynchratic style. Part of the reason for that, I'm sure, is to avoid issues with NPOV and undue weight, which was probably wise given that, until a few weeks ago, Tomlinson's death was merely controversial. Now the facts have materially changed from a legal point of view, with the inquest verdict and the manslaughter charge, additions need to be made to the opening paragraph. However, there's no need to completely re-write the whole lead section while we're at it, because we'll only have to do it again when the mansluaghter charges are disposed of. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:45, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I explained above why I wrote the lead as I did. I'll post it here again in case it was overlooked:

1. The first paragraph deals with the raw facts: a death, an autopsy saying natural causes, a video showing an apparent assault. These issues will never change. These are what WP:RECENTISM calls the "timeless facets" of the subject.

2. The second paragraph deals with the legal response to the above: the setting up of a criminal inquiry, the naming of the officer, the decision not to prosecute, the opening of an inquest, the inquest verdict, the change of mind about prosecution. This paragraph will continue to change as the legal and disciplinary processes develop, and they have only just begun. There will be a trial, perhaps an appeal, further disciplinary proceedings, and perhaps a civil case. This paragraph is likely to continue changing for years.

3. The third paragraph deals with the meta issues: the press and public reaction, the police response to that reaction. This paragraph is unlikely to change, unless there is a further notable meta-response.

No one has explained why this is not a good way to write the lead. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 00:57, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Although I am not entirely against your analysis and proposal I do not completely agree either. The death is undoubtedly a timeless fact but the video, the autopsy results, and the inquest verdict are all much the same. The video itself may not change but it could at some time in the future be reinterpreted differently. The various postmortem examinations have come to different conclusions and these could also change. The inquest verdict could also be overturned although this looks to be very unlikely. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The video will not be reinterpreted; there isn't enough material to allow that. The first paragraph as currently written will not have to change, no matter who is charged with what, or convicted or not, because it describes the early basic facts of the case—not the value judgments that were later formed about it.

Ask yourself this: if the inquest jury had said "accidental death," there would not have been a rush of editors to this page to add that to the first sentence: "Ian Tomlinson was a newspaper vendor who died accidentally ..."

No, there was a rush to change the first sentence because the editors wanting to change it approved of the verdict. It was a POV and it was an example of WP:RECENTISM. The verdict itself was meaningless, except politically, just one more step in the legal and political responses. Look at the "unlawful killing" verdict regarding Diana: it changed nothing. The only thing the inquest changed in this case was that it presented new evidence, which made the CPR review its prosecution decision, and we deal with that in the lead chronologically.

It's even more important now that someone has been charged that we make sure the lead doesn't simply reflect whatever the latest legal announcement is. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 23:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The inquest verdict is not going to be changed either so we can put it in the first sentence if we wish. The verdict is not a POV it is 'the official POV' that determines in law whether the killing was unlawful or not. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Could be spend LESS time on a history of how the article was written and the motives of those suggestng improvements (we should assume good faith), and MORE time on improving the article? I have suggested that the most important and pertinant issues are and will remain as follows, and that these should be in the first one or two sentences. Do other editors agree or not agree? (a) Ian Tomlinson was in the City of London at the same time as a G-20 summit protest (b) he was struck and pushed over by a police officer (c) he collapsed and died minutes later (d) his inquest determined that the beating was unreasonably forceful, caused his death by internal injuries and he was unlawfully killed (e) the police officer has been charged with manslaughter.— Philogos (talk) 13:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm perfectly happy with all those points being in the first paragraph in that order. They are all factual, can be sourced, and are of the greatest importance with regard to the subject of this article. And the claim to the contrary with regard to the verdict is bizarre to say the least!Elvellian (talk) 19:23, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

To acheive a consensus we need to agree the wording of an edit setting out the those points in the first paragraph in that order. — Philogos (talk) 18:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree with all the above, the question is simply whether we say 'unlawfully killed' in the first sentence or later. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The question is whether the unlawfull killing is the most important fact in this article. I think that many would say that it is. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

If we express points (a) through (e) above, in that order, in the first one or two sentences then the ralative importance of the last four words of point (d) is of little consequence. Do you have a proposal for the first one or two sentences? — Philogos (talk) 14:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, in the absence of any other suggestions, I propose the following, which seems to me to incorporate pretty much everything above:

Ian Tomlinson (7 February 1962 – 1 April 2009) was an English newspaper vendor who collapsed and died after being struck by a police officer in the City of London, while on his way home from work during the 2009 G-20 summit protests. Although the initial postmortem examination indicated that Tomlinson had died of natural causes, an inquest jury in May 2011 returned a verdict of unlawful killing, ruling that the police officer had used excessive and unreasonable force.

Tomlinson’s death became controversial four days after the initial postmortem, when The Guardian obtained video footage showing him being struck on the leg from behind by a police officer wielding a baton, then pushed to the ground by the same officer. The video appeared to show no provocation on Tomlinson's part—he was not a protester, and at the time he was struck was walking along with his hands in his pockets. He walked away after the incident, but collapsed and died moments later.

After The Guardian published the video, the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) began a criminal inquiry. A second postmortem indicated that Tomlinson had died from internal bleeding caused by blunt force trauma to the abdomen, in association with cirrhosis of the liver, as did a third postmortem arranged by the accused officer's defence team. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) announced in July 2010 that no charges would be brought against the officer, PC Simon Harwood, because the disagreement between the pathologists meant prosecutors could not demonstrate a clear causal link between the death and the alleged assault. However, after the verdict of the inquest in May 2011, the CPS reviewed this decision and announced that Harwood would appear in court in June to answer a summons charging him with manslaughter.

I've altered as little of the text in the article as possible, instead moving it around in order to comply as best as possible with the agreement above, and actually changing text only to maintain the flow. Now, The one thing I haven't done is incorporate the fact that Harwood will be facing manslaughter charges in the very first paragraph, because on reflection that does seem a little too much like recentism to me. I think it can remain housed quite nicely at the end of my suggested third paragraph. Of course, if this model is accepted, then there is easily room at the end of the first paragraph for the verdict of the upcoming trial, whatever it may turn out to be. Elvellian (talk) 21:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd concur although I would ommit "while on his way home from work" as (a) not known (b) not important— Philogos (talk) 01:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I know what you mean about that phrase. However, I'd argue for keeping it in, because it tells us the very important fact that Tomlinson was not actually part of the protests, but merely an innocent bystander caught up in the melee.

Also, having read through my text again, I'd actually suggest a further change: swapping 'returned a verdict of unlawful killing, ruling' in the first paragraph with 'ruled that he had been unlawfully killed, stating' and adding an 'against him' at the end of the same paragraph. It's a matter of subjective opinion, but I think the second flows better. Elvellian (talk) 19:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

OK; there seems no dissenting voices so go ahead.— Philogos (talk) 22:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure thing; it's now been added.Elvellian (talk) 11:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

"unlawfully killed" ?

I think that if the article is going to use the phrase "unlawfully killed", then it ought to define exactly what that means, otherwise it appears the article is tip-toeing around the word "murder". A fast read of the article indicates that is a more appropriate word, as the reasons why violence was used against Tomlinson (if any) are not spelled out, and they should be. Or it should be stated clearly and unambiguously that there was no reason for Tomlinson to be struck. That his hands were in his pockets is only an oblique reference to the notion that he was struck for no particular reason, but that article does not say so clearly, at least as far I could tell, and that's the point.

Readers want to know WHY in an article like this. Bandying about with the finer points of language and wikipedia policy may be relevant to those that know about and care about such things. I do not. I am a wiki User, and I want simple facts presented early in the article and in a straightforward manner. Cumbersome wordsmithing can happen sometime later in the article, if the first part was interesting enough to warrant further reading. This article makes me want to call it's author's on the phone, and ask them about what it's saying. Jonny Quick (talk) 02:54, 10 August 2011 (UTC)Jonny Quick

Someone changed the lead recently, so I've restored the previous version. Please let me know if you feel it's still problematic. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 21:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the version of July 26th was better: what had you against it?— Philogos (talk) 01:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I have restored the version of the 26 June since that was the version agreed upon by consensus as a result of the discussion above. If people think that that version needs to be changed then that is absolutely fine - Wikipedia is always developing and improving - but this should not happen without a clear consensus.

Now, Jonny raises a fair point about the term 'unlawful killing.' Now, this phrase is actually a precise legal term with a precise meaning, and most certainly not a way of tip-toeing around the word 'murder'. The following page should hopefully explain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_killing

in summary, 'Unlawful killing' is a result returned by an inquest when it is satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt, that a person was killed in a way that breached criminal law. It is not another term for murder or manslaughter, both of which are verdicts that can only be given by a court, not an inquest.

So, I would suggest that the problems raised by Jonny could be solved quite simply by linking the term 'unlawful killing' to the Wikipedia page on unlawful killing, quoted above. That way, if people don't know what it means, they could easily follow that link and find out. Elvellian (talk) 07:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Unexplained reversions

I have for the second time, restored the version of this page as agreed on a couple of months below. Could I once again request that SlimVirgin explain why she feels the issues raised by Jonny Quick warrant a return to the previous version, instead of simply reverting without explanation.

I would just reiterate that Jonny's position rested on the false (but understandable) assumption that the phrase 'unlawfully killed' was a vague wishy-washy euphemism for murder. Once you realise that this is not the case, and that the phrase actually has a precise legal meaning (as I articulated above), the need for dramatic change, in my view, evaporates. And I suggested above what I consider to be a perfectly sensible solution to the problem.

If SlimVirgin (or other editors) still consider this reasoning to be erroneous, then I would invite them to explain why they disagree with it and to gain a consensus for their position.Elvellian (talk) 09:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Unexplained reversions

I have for the second time, restored the version of this page as agreed on a couple of months below. Could I once again request that SlimVirgin explain why she feels the issues raised by Jonny Quick warrant a return to the previous version, instead of simply reverting without explanation.

I would just reiterate that Jonny's position rested on the false (but understandable) assumption that the phrase 'unlawfully killed' was a vague wishy-washy euphemism for murder. Once you realise that this is not the case, and that the phrase actually has a precise legal meaning (as I articulated above), the need for dramatic change, in my view, evaporates. And I suggested above what I consider to be a perfectly sensible solution to the problem.

If SlimVirgin (or other editors) still consider this reasoning to be erroneous, then I would invite them to explain why they disagree with it and to gain a consensus for their position.Elvellian (talk) 09:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Category for Renaming

Cottonshirtτ 09:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Unlawfully Killed Redux

"Ian Tomlinson (7 February 1962 – 1 April 2009) was an English newspaper vendor who collapsed and died in the City of London on his way home from work during the 2009 G-20 summit protests."

"Ian Tomlinson (7 February 1962 – 1 April 2009) was an English newspaper vendor who was unlawfully killed on his way home from work during the 2009 G-20 summit protests."

I'd like to return to the wording of the first sentence, which was previously discussed here. The first time I read the article, and that sentence, I thought to myself: that's like saying JFK collapsed and died while out for a ride with his wife. Really. It just struck me as a very odd way to describe the incident. I appreciate what SlimVirgin says about writing with a delicate touch, but the title of article is Death of Ian Tomlinson, so it is entirely appropriate to address the manner of his death in the first sentence. I agree that "unlawfully killed" does make for a rather blunt opening, but almost everyone reading the article is doing so because they are interested in the way he died, and a blunt opening is better than one which goes out of its way to avoid calling a spade a spade. With the greatest of respect to Mr.Tomlinson, the only notable thing about his life, in Wikipedia's terms, is the way in which it ended. His death is notable not because he collapsed and died while walking home from work, but because he collapsed and died after being hit by a police truncheon, and because he was unlawfully killed.

SlimVirgin mentions on my talk page that she feels my edit contravenes the BLP policy. I honestly can't see that. The edit includes no reference to any living person. Aside from the verdict itself, this source, and any number of others, say exactly the same thing as my edit does.

SV's principal objection seems to be that it is not good writing to open by saying that Mr Tomlinson was unlawfully killed. In my view, to say anything other than that is to put style over substance, and doing that does not make for good writing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.118.169 (talk) 23:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that Slimvirgin's edit was not an improvement: use of the term "unlawfully killed" is supported by a wide array of high-quality sources. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree and have reverted the change for which there was no consensus or justification. The inquest verdict was 'unlawfully killed' and this has been widely reported in reliable sources. This article is not a BLP. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Please join the discussion here rather than duplicating it. – Smyth\^talk 14:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, this is where the discussion should be taking place. This article is not a BLP. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Its recent enough and there are living people related to this. The BLP board is fine and lots of "uninvolved" people watch it and can join in. The more eyes and comments the better it seems. --Mollskman (talk) 00:36, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

There should be no living people related to this for reasons that I will explain below.

Why we must not change the article in response to a criminal trial

The jury verdict of the inquest refers only to the cause and circumstances of the death of Ian Tomlinson it does not accuse any person of wrongdoing. To change our wording because there is an ongoing criminal trial would suggest that we somehow know that that verdict was aimed at the accused in the trial; this is not the case.

There is a due legal process underway in the UK and it is not our job to interfere with it by suppressing the public and widely reported verdict of the coroner's court. Whether we perceive the inquest verdict to be prejudicial or otherwise to any person subsequently accused of a crime is irrelevant. We must give the facts, as reported in reliable sources, and the facts concerning the lawfulness of Ian Tomlinson's death are decided by the due process of law in the jurisdiction in which the events took place. In this case that process concluded with the verdict of the coroner's court, a verdict which is already well known to all concerned. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:18, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

It says in our article already "an inquest jury returned a verdict of unlawful killing, ruling that the push and baton strike had involved unreasonable force" we are not suppressing anything at all - its just a layout issue - you want it to be more prominent and others want it as it is covered now - I don't like the way you want it portrayed, it seems undue framing imo - Youreallycan 08:33, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to separate the second sentence in the lead from the first as the current layout does give the impression that the inquest verdict directly relates to the following criminal prosecution. Perhaps the second sentence should be moved to its chronological position. Would you be happy with that? Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I have moved the second sentence to give less connection between the jury verdict of unlawful killing, to which we should properly give prominence within this article, and the current criminal trial which should not be connected too strongly with the inquest verdict. I hope this will settle the 'BLP' issue. If anyone thinks otherwise I would be interested to hear their argument about how this article infringes WP policy on BLPs or is unfair in any other way. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:49, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

You have just replaced your desired imo undue framing of the inquests decision - a position you know there is no consensus for and one that multiple good faith editors are objecting to, - Youreallycan 13:40, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I do not understand what you mean when you say that the inquest verdict was 'badly framed'. The article is entitled, 'Death of Peter Tomlinson'. Peter Tomlinson was unlawfully killed, that is not in dispute. Why then should we not say this at the start of the article? Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I made a small edit to adress my framing concerns - an addition to explain the detail, it needs it imo - I prefer it if until the trial is over if we revert back to SlimV's cautious position. Youreallycan 16:50, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

What exactly are your 'framing concerns'? You have not made them clear. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Are there any reliable sources that say that Ian Tomlinson was not unlawfully killed? Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Attribution is my framing concern - I have not suggested there are any sources to that effect. Youreallycan 18:00, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Attribution of what to what? Why are you being so cryptic? Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

diff - I am not sure what is cryptic, it seems clear enough to me. - Youreallycan 18:07, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, I see what you are getting at. I do not see why we need to attibute the description 'unlawful killing' to anyone since no person or body other than an inquest is empowered to make this decision. I have made a change that keeps the attribution though but misses our 'fell to the ground'. I think we should not say either 'fell' or 'was pushed' at the start of the lead. Would you be OK with this? Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:55, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't agree that SV's version is more cautious. She said something in the BLP discussion about being careful not jeopardise the defence case. I think we need to be careful not to jeopardise either case; we need to play it straight down the middle. Editing in a way which is careful not to jeopardise one particular side is not being cautious; it's abandoning NPOV. We need to edit in line with WP policy, nothing more, nothing less. 87.113.118.169 (talk) 18:38, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think either version goes anywhere near to jeopardising the trial. We have not approached anywhere near the detailed level of coverage provided by the BBC News for example, on day 1 of the trial. Leaky Caldron 18:41, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with both of you. We need to follow WP policy and there is nothing in that preventing us from prominently stating the inquest verdict. This will not prejudice the trial in any way since it it will be known to all concerned already. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Its just the way you are framing it without attribution in Wiki voice. I see you have reverted to your desired position again without consensus Martin - is it really worth me bothering to discuss if you are going to keep doing that. Youreallycan 19:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I do not understand your objection now. You wanted 'unlawfully killed' to be attributed to the inquest jury and I retained that attribution. Was this not your real objection? Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:21, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Martin's latest change, and the question of attribution in general, I don't feel that we need to include attribution because the link to Unlawful killing explains that it is by definition attributable to the inquest and the jury. If the consensus is that we really do need to attribute it, then I prefer

Ian Tomlinson (7 February 1962 – 1 April 2009) was an English newspaper vendor who collapsed and died in the City of London on his way home from work during the 2009 G-20 summit protests. An inquest into his death, held in May 2011, found that he had been unlawfully killed.

My preference would be to have the manslaughter trial as the third sentence. Having it like that, we'd have all of the facts: he died, the inquest determined that he had been unlawfully killed, a PC has been accused of his manslaughter. That version is very similar to the one that Nick suggested, but it leaves out mention of the baton strike.87.113.118.169 (talk) 19:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I prefer it/my interpretation of policy/weight after your edit - diff - Youreallycan 19:54, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Cool. Looks like we've found a compromise that we can all live with. 87.113.118.169 (talk) 19:57, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I thought that there was an objection from some editors to the unlawful killing verdict being linked too closely with the manslaughter trial in a way that might suggest that the inquest verdict somehow directed the criminal trial. Have I got this wrong? Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't remember hearing that particular objection, but it could be that some objected on those grounds. It's not a valid objection because the inquest verdict did indeed lead directly to the trial. The CPS initially said there would be no criminal prosecution, then the inquest returned unlawful killing, and the CPS changed its mind, citing the inquest. The last sentences in para 3 touch on this. 87.113.118.169 (talk) 21:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I know but, regardless of that, the inquest verdict does not in any way transfer to subsequent criminal prosecutions. The juxtaposition of the two cases might lead some readers to believe that that is the case.

Youreallycan, you wrote in the BLP page that someone had cited the WP article as a potential reason for an appeal. Can you give more details of that please. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:45, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

As per the Sub judice issues - it is really a topic to avoid talkpage discussion of - the overall concern is not difficult to address - in five weeks we will have an outcome - until then as WP;BLP instructs us, we can and should take great care how we report this sensitive and contentious issue - not to effect any possible outcome or create grounds for any possible appeal if there is a conviction. - Youreallycan 22:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

You wrote, '...the en wikipedia article has been mentioned as one location that could provide a reason for an appeal to any outcome and we would not want that to happen'.

Where was it mentioned?

More importantly, your statement, '...and we would not want that to happen', is most improper. It is not our job to attempt to manipulate the English judicial system. Whether a person is convicted or not of any offence, whether they appeal or not, and whether the appeal succeeds are not our concern. We must not interfere in any way with the due process of law, including the imposition of our own standards of justice or fairness.

I we stick to WP core policy of stating facts that are verifiable by the best quality sources and in particular those which have intentionally been made public by the legitimate legal authorities we will be are doing exactly what we should. Jurors in any criminal trials will be directed by the trial judge as to how they must treat inquest verdicts and we must not interfere with that due process.

There is no WP:BLP issue because this is not a BLP and there is no WP:NPOV issue because there are no reliable sources expressing differing POVs regarding the inquest. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:35, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLP applies to any content about any living person - As I said above, as a UK resident I prefer not to discuss the Sub judice issues - Is there still some content issue you are interested in, there seems to have been a small consensus on the current wording? Youreallycan 11:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

As you are conscious that some aspects of this article may be sub judice I am surprised that you considered it acceptable to write '...and we would not want that to happen'. That we are sub judice means exactly what I have said above, that we must not interfere in any way with the due process of law, it does not prevent you from answering my question. It may also mean that we should not immediately follow a statement about the inquest verdict with a statement about a criminal trial, which was one reason that I moved it.

The current first two sentences may be an acceptable compromise; we will have to see what others think. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't feel that a reader would be confused or misled by having the unlawful killing and manslaughter sentences next to each other. If there is any confusion, following the links to inquest, manslaughter and unlawful killing will clear it up, and of course the following paragraphs add further detail. The MoS says that the first paragraph should establish the context of the topic, and cover the facts and circumstances surrounding it. So in an article about the death of Ian Tomlinson, we must surely include in the first paragraph that someone is accused of his manslaughter. I don't feel that the first paragraph, as it stands, is in any way inaccurate or prejudicial, and it doesn't say anything which isn't already published in many RS. 87.113.118.169 (talk) 18:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, I am not going to argue this one further, it is just that in my opinion, if there is anything at all wrong with the facts stated it is the relative positioning of the two facts. Maybe we have the start of a consensus. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:46, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

move it on

There's an indication on BLPN that discussion here has identified a version acceptable to those discussing here. I gather from a quick read above that it involves having the first paragraph contain only the first two sentences (I assume any needed material about Harwood would be moved to a later point). If that is indeed the emerging view here, then I'm happy to support it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't support that - If you assert any consensus please link to it - thanks - Youreallycan 20:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

What on earth would I link to? A participant at BLPN (I think it was the IP) indicated it was a matter of the discussion right here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:29, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

So - You don't assert a consensus - you are supporting the IP's claim of consensus ? - Youreallycan 20:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

If you read my initial post in this section closely, you'll see that I don't use the word consensus. What I assert is sufficiently evident in that post. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - add detail - So - You don't assert a consensus - you are supporting the User:87.113.118.16's claim of consensus ? -Contribution history User:87.113.118.169 - a user who I note is a wp:spa - I see you are not asserting any consensus - only claiming "an emerging view" - as noted - one which I disagree with- Youreallycan 20:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The version I was referring to as acceptable is the version as it stands now, with three sentences in the first paragraph. This is very similar to the version that Nick proposed, which was widely supported, but it leaves out the sentence referring to the baton strike. It was my understanding that, though we would each prefer a slightly different version, we can all live with this one. 87.113.118.169 (talk) 20:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Nomoskedasticity asserts , "I gather from a quick read above that it involves having the first paragraph contain only the first two sentences (I assume any needed material about Harwood would be moved to a later point)." - is that your position? - As per your comment above - it's clearly not - no need to reply - your position is clear - thank you - Youreallycan 20:59, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

No, my position is that we have the lead at is now. As I understood it, your major concern was to have attribution included, and so we all agreed to include it. Martin was initially concerned about the third sentence, but said he can live with it. I didn't really feel that attribution was necessary, but said I could live with that. (I posted this before I realised that you'd added there was no need to reply) 87.113.118.169 (talk) 21:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - Yes - I thought that was your position and that Martin had accepted / to live with it - Regards for all the input under difficult discussion conditions - Youreallycan 21:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Previous banned user

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• - User:Elvellian - Special:Contributions/Elvellian - this user had a similar content focus and was blocked by User:Elen of the Roads Elen - I will ask her for further input - Accounts and IP addresses editing from a similar content position are, User:Martin Hogbin and User:87.113.118.169Youreallycan 21:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Can I get this right. Youreallycan, are you suggesting that 87.113.118.169 is my sock puppet? Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:01, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

No - I was not suggesting that - only that there is a related edit focus - contributors at the time that were focused on the unlawfully killed issue - the IP moved away from the position through discussion so I would not support its inclusion in any investigation - I also note - this was not my suggestion but the connection to your edit patterns and the blocked user was brought up by an experienced user to the topic - I Youreallycan 21:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Where was that brought up and by what 'experienced user'? Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Its above - is this your previous account - User:Elvellian ? -Youreallycan 21:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Can you give me the diff please. To answer your question, it should be quite obvious on just a cursory investigation that I am not User:Elvellian. I post here under my real name and have never used any other accounts. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I will look for the diff from yesterday - do you object to a checkuser of your account and the User:Elvellian account ? Look at the accounts contribution history, Special:Contributions/Elvellian you have to agree their focus and yours in relation to this article is completely comparable? Youreallycan 21:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Can I expect your apology when the check user shows no connection? And the diff?Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Sure you can - if you are not the blocked user , and a checkuser shows that - considering your content focus was my good faith reason for request and on the result I fully accept the outcome - As for the diff - I will look later , as I am a uninvolved neutral on this article it really doesn't matter who raised concerns about you - just that they did and I looked at the claim and saw an issue myself - Look at the similarity in content focus regarding Tomlinson and unlawfully killed - you - him - Youreallycan 21:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Go ahead then and start an SPI if it makes you happy. Uninvolved neutral?

Finished with your denials then - yes - totally uninvolved neutral - Youreallycan 22:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Whatever you claim to be there is no reason that you should not show me the diff of an allegation against me that you repeated. I have searched the talk page and found no such comment. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:01, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I support the claim as I have said - that is it - I got an email that linked you to this account - and I had a look and as I stated there is imo a apparent contribution focus - you - him - Youreallycan 22:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Split Patel?

Hearing Patel all over the news this morning I searched Wikipedia for him and found no article, but the substantial section within this one. I've made a redirect to it, to help other readers find this information, but I wonder whether it would be better split out into a separate article, as by no means all of the content is directly about (although provides background for) his involvement with Tomlinson. PamD 07:29, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the primnary consideration would be how much of the material currently on this page would not be included here if there was a separate page for Patel himself, and objectively I would say that that's "most of it." Given that Patel being struck up was due to a number of other cases, rather than this one in particular, and there are continuing developments relating to them in in their own right (i.e. this call for a public inquiry), the case for a specific page is strong. Nick Cooper (talk) 08:29, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

English

The intro calls him "an English newspaper vendor". He clearly was not English by nationality as there is no such thing. Would it make sense to include his nationality in the lead too? And in what sense was he English? Is this a reference to his ethnicity? Did he identify particularly as English, and if so do we have a source for this? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.196.231.29 (talk) 11:47, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Update?

Is the Sub judice notice on this article still needed? Reading the article gives me the impression this is no longer in the court system. -- 78.144.215.69 (talk) 01:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the notice. --Mdann52talk to me! 08:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC)