Talk:R v Ingram, C., Ingram, D. and Whittock, T.

A fact from R v Ingram, C., Ingram, D. and Whittock, T. appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 1 April 2018 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the trial of the "Coughing Major" was interrupted by coughing jurors?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2018/April. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/R v Ingram, C., Ingram, D. and Whittock, T..

Wikipedia

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Television: Game shows Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Television game shows task force (assessed as Low-importance).

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by Twofingered Typist, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 9 February 2020.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors

This article was created or improved during the "The 20,000 Challenge: UK and Ireland", which started on 20 August 2016 and is still open. You can help!

Journalist doubt

The article states "Following the court case, a number of journalists have cast doubt on the original verdict". It is not clear why we would call out a specific example only of that happening. Suggest removing that callout. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:04, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The source that you question is not being used to cite that line. It is being used to cite that DM challenged it in 2004. There is nothing wrong with it being used in this context. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:06, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not my point. What I am saying is, we already say that journalists cast doubt on the verdict - why is it then necessary to specifically state that DM challenged it in 2004. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:08, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because they were one of the first to do so, especially given that nearly every media outlet at the time was saying "guilty, clearly plotted and cheated". The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:10, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reliable source to support that bit of interpretation? If no, it's OR. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:12, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arms or cash

This is a discussion as to if the infobox should display the Royal Arms used by the court or foreign currency. Template:Infobox_court_case Clearly states the image section is for a picture of the court or the court's coat of arms. Template:Infobox court case/images also indicates the majority of English courts use the royal arms. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no clarity as to what currency from such a distance and with such a blend shown and I have already stated British currency is subject to restrictions and indeed any form of icon helps navigating within the 98-strong category Category:English criminal case law. A constructive compromise might be to approach this from a new direction rather than sailing straight on ahead in an overly rigid manner. Just choose a navigation icon within which field of law, theft, to which this relates. Cheque fraud symbol if you will.- Adam37 Talk 15:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only if you are in the UK but you have to remember that Wikipedia is based in the US so that doesn't apply on here. I'm happy to go with any appropriate image as long as it is related to this (in other terms, no foreign currency). The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:40, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Whilst in full fettle, you could assist me by looking through in logged out mode any images conceivably objectionable for any cases. One is dealing with US lawyers as you say at times who will be ever so hot on WP:COPYVIO more so than the Commons which is like the House of Commons, much less orderly on that, and some fananticals may have penned odd first lines which are not encyclopedic in tone, skimming the judgement, or copying a tabloid exposé.- Adam37 Talk 16:24, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]