Talk:RAF Croughton

Fatal Road Accident

I have removed the recent fatal road accident (again) that was on a public road and outside the base as it has nothing to do with the station. Suggest it really needs to gain a consensus here if other users really think it is noteworthy to the base. MilborneOne (talk) 15:11, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@MilborneOne: - The accident involves the wife of a someone who worked on the station. She got diplomatic immunity by virtue of her links with the station. The station has been widely mentioned by RS's covering the accident. Frankly, this info clearly meets the standard for WP:V. I think a single sentence is probably WP:DUE. NickCT (talk) 15:14, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

The person involved in the RTA didnt work at the base, the accident wasnt at the base. We dont normally mention fatal accidents and certainly dont mention them in articles realted to where the husband works. There may be a diplomatic angle to this but this is not the right article for that and something like United Kingdom–United States relations may be a better place. As a challenged edit it really needs to gain a consensus here, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 15:19, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@MilborneOne: - re " We dont normally mention fatal accidents and certainly dont mention them in articles realted to where the husband works" - Sure. But this situation is unusual, b/c where the husband works played into the aftermath of the accident. Look, I appreciate your point and I'd agree that we don't want to a large section of text (like the first edit you reverted), but again, I think a single sentence is WP:DUE. As verifiable information, the onus is on you to explain why this information should not be included. NickCT (talk) 15:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry you have it the wrong way around - if the addition is challenged then those that want it added need to gain a consensus. MilborneOne (talk) 15:58, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@MilborneOne: - Way to avoid the point. Consensus does not mean that you disagree with something so it can't be included. You agree this information is verifiable? You agree that verifiability is the standard for inclusion here on WP? Clearly there are a lot of folks who feel this info belongs here as evidenced by all the edits. NickCT (talk) 16:02, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

There may be some argument for the inclusion of reliably sourced mentions of the controversy insofar as it refers to the diplomatic status of people associated with the base, but what is wholly unacceptable is the repeated addition of unsourced text, so I propose to request protection of the page. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:40, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@David Biddulph: - Re "so I propose to request protection of the page" - Seems reasonable. Does seem as though there's been some dubious editing by IP's. NickCT (talk) 15:58, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Just to support what David Biddulph has said that a mention of the diplomatic status issue which directly related to the base. The additions that were challenged related to the accident not the diplomatic status issue. Just needs some reliable sourcing and a form of words that is acceptable to us all. MilborneOne (talk) 16:03, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@MilborneOne: - re "a form of words" - Perhaps. You have a proposal? Let's see some form of words. NickCT (talk) 16:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree this incident should be mentioned, properly sourced. It is international news involving 2 heads of state now. This article is currently the right place for such a reference. I view some of the edit war to be suspicious, bordering on censorship, so propose that a suitable addition is made ASAP. I do not think it normal to agree a 'form of words' before a valid change is made to an article. welsh (talk) 15:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

No we dont need to agree a form of words but the addition does need a consensus in this disccussion, and this is an encyclopedia not a news feed we are not in a rush. You perhaps also need to assume good faith on others. MilborneOne (talk) 15:59, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@MilborneOne: - Bud, I told you I appreciated your point, and I agreed with your revision of the lengthier additions. That would seem to indicate an assumption of good faith, no? You've done little to address my points. NickCT (talk) 01:17, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

The latest story from the BBC https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49984737 discusses diplomatic immunity and makes no mention of RAF Croughton. It just says that Sacoolas had diplomatic immunity along with 23,000 other individuals. "Sacoolas has this legal protection because she is the wife of an American diplomat working in the UK". MilborneOne (talk) 18:16, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@MilborneOne: - So you've found one source that mentions the immunity and accident without mentioning Croughton. You want a dozen references that do mention Croughton in relation to the accident? Stop cherry-picking. NickCT (talk) 01:17, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Plus, you've got to grant that describing this guy as a "diplomat" is a little far fetched. NickCT (talk) 01:18, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Your original words are not that far of what is needed as all the detail can go in the Death of Harry Dunn article, it was just infering that Croughton was the site of a diplomatic incident. Just a suggestion - "In August, 2019 the wife of an American diplomat hit and killed a local teen while driving on the wrong side of the road after leaving the base. This later caused a diplomat incident when diplomatic immunity was invoked to stop her returning from the United States for questioning. " MilborneOne (talk) 08:18, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

That seems a sensible summary assuming the detail remains in the linked article. welsh (talk) 21:46, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I have made some changes that seem to reflect what you folks agreed on. MPS1992 (talk) 00:20, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

@MPS1992: Your addition needs a source. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:35, 12 October 2019 (UTC)