This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Killing of Mark Duggan article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1,
2,
3Auto-archiving period: 30 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 8 August 2011. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
Discussions:
|
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on August 6, 2015 and August 6, 2018. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Death of James Ashley which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 08:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
@ Sweet6970: Why do you think the word "lawfully" should be in the first sentence of the article and the short description? Have you read and understood WP:HOWTOSD? Do you understand WP:BRD? – Arms & Hearts ( talk) 11:37, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on Killing of Mark Duggan and cannot recall any prior interaction with the editors involved in this discussion which might bias my response. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here. |
Opinion: One particularly wise Third Opinion Wikipedian, RegentsPark, once succinctly put the purpose of Third Opinions like this, "It's sort of like if you're having an argument on the street in front of City Hall and turn to a passer-by to ask 'hey, is it true that the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale?'." This Third Opinion is like that. I do not believe the word lawful should appear in the first sentence. The point that the killing was held to be lawful by the cororner's jury is addressed in the second paragraph of the lede and is thoroughly examined in the body of the article. Since the killing is largely notable because of the question of legality, making the point of legality twice in the lede places undue weight on that side of the controversy. The word should be removed from the first line of the lede. |
What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.— TransporterMan ( TALK) 21:36, 14 September 2020 (UTC) |
Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 16:50, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Should the first sentence of the article state that Mark Duggan was "lawfully killed"? – Arms & Hearts ( talk) 11:32, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
The point that the killing was held to be lawful by the cororner's jury is addressed in the second paragraph of the lede and is thoroughly examined in the body of the article. Since the killing is largely notable because of the question of legality, making the point of legality twice in the lede places undue weight on that side of the controversy. The word should be removed from the first line of the lede.P.S. Note that that lawfully + lawful killing violates MOS:DUPLINK, hinting at the underlying problem. If the info does stay in both the first sentence and the second paragraph, the second one should be delinked. It would be dubious to do that now, as that link would have to be restored if it's deleted from the first sentence. Alsee ( talk) 18:42, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
‘therefore, we cannot state that it was a legal killing as undisputed truth in the article voice’ ‘they should not be presented as absolute truth’As far as I am aware, Wikipedia does not deal with truth, absolute or otherwise, and that’s as it should be, so I don’t understand the reference to it in User:Aquillion’s post above. But it is an undisputed fact that the killing has been held to be lawful. This does not mean that everybody approves of it. I have agreed with User:Newimpartial that the wording under dispute is not very good. I suggested as an alternative: ‘….was shot and killed in an incident which was subsequently held to be a lawful killing’. This is also not very good. I was hoping that someone would comment on this suggestion, and/or come up with a better suggestion. Sweet6970 ( talk) 10:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
...was shot and killed in an incident which an internal investigation by the Independent Police Complaints Commission subsequently stated to be a lawful killing, though later forensic investigations have cast their account into doubt. That is obviously too long for the first sentence of the lead, but it would be unacceptable to mention only part of it, and it is particularly unacceptable to introduce the Independent Police Complaints Commission conclusions via WP:WEASEL words that obscure the source of that conclusion (it scarcely needs to be said, but obviously the commission itself is biased, and is treated as such in secondary sources; its findings and opinions need to be attributed to it directly every time they are referenced.) Either way, there is no particular reason why the IPCC report in particular should be given the weight you're trying to accord it while downplaying the numerous people questioning it, which are given at least equal weight in the sources - the shooting itself is the one indisputable fact (the one no sources disagree on or contest), so it should be all the first sentence says. The back and forth over various invested parties like the IPCC, the victim's relatives, and later investigators advancing their personal accounts of what happen can be covered in more detail further down, as they are now, so we can go into depth on who is saying what and how they disagree. -- Aquillion ( talk) 18:44, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Re User:Aquillion’s edit [4]
These critics accuse police of misconduct and of failing to cooperate with those investigating Duggan's death.[10][11]
1. The edit summary refers to ‘restoring’ this material. I don’t understand what has been ‘restored’.
2. I do not see the relevance of the France 24 source.
3. Neither of the sources supports the statement that critics accuse police of ‘failing to cooperate with those investigating Duggan’s death.’
. Is some other source intended to be used?
Sweet6970 (
talk)
10:58, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
However the alleged mishandling of the Duggan case is just the latest in a string of incidents of police misconduct.-- Aquillion ( talk) 18:36, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
the alleged mishandling of the Duggan case is just the latest in a string of incidents of police misconductis, in fact, a valid example illustrating that
critics accuse police of misconductin this case. Newimpartial ( talk) 23:36, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
This edit seems unhelpful to me: while it's probably accurate to say Duggan was descended from Caribbean people (a broad category that includes White Caribbean and Indo-Caribbean people), the more specific claim that his ancestry was (British) African-Caribbean also seems uncontroversal. I haven't reverted, though, as reflecting what the cited source says is also a priority, and I don't have access to the source beyond the brief preview the Times provides. Can anyone else access it or does anyone else have thoughts on this? – Arms & Hearts ( talk) 19:01, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
@
Sweet6970: Could you clarify your edit summary
here? Are you suggesting it's no longer the case that the Hutchinson-Foster case did not resolve a number of significant unknown questions related to the Duggan killing
? What are the subsequent events you're referring to? –
Arms & Hearts (
talk)
19:44, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
According to The Guardina, the Hutchinson-Foster case did not resolve a number of significant unknown questions related to the Duggan killing., may, strictly speaking, be accurate, it no longer has any significance. If we are going to say in the article that there are still questions to be answered, we need a more relevant, recent source on which to base such a statement. Sweet6970 ( talk) 09:43, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
that there are still questions to be answeredin 2021, just that there were still unanswered questions when Hutchinson-Foster's trial concluded in 2012–13 (which may have been answered by the inquest in 2013–14). Is there a way of wording this that would definitively avoid that implication? Perhaps paraphrasing the bit in the source that says
It falls to the inquest into Duggan's death to shed some light on this? – Arms & Hearts ( talk) 20:05, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
The Hutchinson-Foster verdict did not resolve a number of central questions related to Duggan's killing, which remained open until the inquest later in 2013.Feel free to continue to revise. For what it's worth I don't see any reason, per WP:INTEXT or WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, why we'd need to cite the Guardian in text (I note that that attribution was only in the article for about 36 hours, with the sentence having been there for several years). 19:14, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Killing of Mark Duggan article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1,
2,
3Auto-archiving period: 30 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 8 August 2011. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
Discussions:
|
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on August 6, 2015 and August 6, 2018. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Death of James Ashley which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 08:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
@ Sweet6970: Why do you think the word "lawfully" should be in the first sentence of the article and the short description? Have you read and understood WP:HOWTOSD? Do you understand WP:BRD? – Arms & Hearts ( talk) 11:37, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on Killing of Mark Duggan and cannot recall any prior interaction with the editors involved in this discussion which might bias my response. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here. |
Opinion: One particularly wise Third Opinion Wikipedian, RegentsPark, once succinctly put the purpose of Third Opinions like this, "It's sort of like if you're having an argument on the street in front of City Hall and turn to a passer-by to ask 'hey, is it true that the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale?'." This Third Opinion is like that. I do not believe the word lawful should appear in the first sentence. The point that the killing was held to be lawful by the cororner's jury is addressed in the second paragraph of the lede and is thoroughly examined in the body of the article. Since the killing is largely notable because of the question of legality, making the point of legality twice in the lede places undue weight on that side of the controversy. The word should be removed from the first line of the lede. |
What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.— TransporterMan ( TALK) 21:36, 14 September 2020 (UTC) |
Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 16:50, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Should the first sentence of the article state that Mark Duggan was "lawfully killed"? – Arms & Hearts ( talk) 11:32, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
The point that the killing was held to be lawful by the cororner's jury is addressed in the second paragraph of the lede and is thoroughly examined in the body of the article. Since the killing is largely notable because of the question of legality, making the point of legality twice in the lede places undue weight on that side of the controversy. The word should be removed from the first line of the lede.P.S. Note that that lawfully + lawful killing violates MOS:DUPLINK, hinting at the underlying problem. If the info does stay in both the first sentence and the second paragraph, the second one should be delinked. It would be dubious to do that now, as that link would have to be restored if it's deleted from the first sentence. Alsee ( talk) 18:42, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
‘therefore, we cannot state that it was a legal killing as undisputed truth in the article voice’ ‘they should not be presented as absolute truth’As far as I am aware, Wikipedia does not deal with truth, absolute or otherwise, and that’s as it should be, so I don’t understand the reference to it in User:Aquillion’s post above. But it is an undisputed fact that the killing has been held to be lawful. This does not mean that everybody approves of it. I have agreed with User:Newimpartial that the wording under dispute is not very good. I suggested as an alternative: ‘….was shot and killed in an incident which was subsequently held to be a lawful killing’. This is also not very good. I was hoping that someone would comment on this suggestion, and/or come up with a better suggestion. Sweet6970 ( talk) 10:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
...was shot and killed in an incident which an internal investigation by the Independent Police Complaints Commission subsequently stated to be a lawful killing, though later forensic investigations have cast their account into doubt. That is obviously too long for the first sentence of the lead, but it would be unacceptable to mention only part of it, and it is particularly unacceptable to introduce the Independent Police Complaints Commission conclusions via WP:WEASEL words that obscure the source of that conclusion (it scarcely needs to be said, but obviously the commission itself is biased, and is treated as such in secondary sources; its findings and opinions need to be attributed to it directly every time they are referenced.) Either way, there is no particular reason why the IPCC report in particular should be given the weight you're trying to accord it while downplaying the numerous people questioning it, which are given at least equal weight in the sources - the shooting itself is the one indisputable fact (the one no sources disagree on or contest), so it should be all the first sentence says. The back and forth over various invested parties like the IPCC, the victim's relatives, and later investigators advancing their personal accounts of what happen can be covered in more detail further down, as they are now, so we can go into depth on who is saying what and how they disagree. -- Aquillion ( talk) 18:44, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Re User:Aquillion’s edit [4]
These critics accuse police of misconduct and of failing to cooperate with those investigating Duggan's death.[10][11]
1. The edit summary refers to ‘restoring’ this material. I don’t understand what has been ‘restored’.
2. I do not see the relevance of the France 24 source.
3. Neither of the sources supports the statement that critics accuse police of ‘failing to cooperate with those investigating Duggan’s death.’
. Is some other source intended to be used?
Sweet6970 (
talk)
10:58, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
However the alleged mishandling of the Duggan case is just the latest in a string of incidents of police misconduct.-- Aquillion ( talk) 18:36, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
the alleged mishandling of the Duggan case is just the latest in a string of incidents of police misconductis, in fact, a valid example illustrating that
critics accuse police of misconductin this case. Newimpartial ( talk) 23:36, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
This edit seems unhelpful to me: while it's probably accurate to say Duggan was descended from Caribbean people (a broad category that includes White Caribbean and Indo-Caribbean people), the more specific claim that his ancestry was (British) African-Caribbean also seems uncontroversal. I haven't reverted, though, as reflecting what the cited source says is also a priority, and I don't have access to the source beyond the brief preview the Times provides. Can anyone else access it or does anyone else have thoughts on this? – Arms & Hearts ( talk) 19:01, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
@
Sweet6970: Could you clarify your edit summary
here? Are you suggesting it's no longer the case that the Hutchinson-Foster case did not resolve a number of significant unknown questions related to the Duggan killing
? What are the subsequent events you're referring to? –
Arms & Hearts (
talk)
19:44, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
According to The Guardina, the Hutchinson-Foster case did not resolve a number of significant unknown questions related to the Duggan killing., may, strictly speaking, be accurate, it no longer has any significance. If we are going to say in the article that there are still questions to be answered, we need a more relevant, recent source on which to base such a statement. Sweet6970 ( talk) 09:43, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
that there are still questions to be answeredin 2021, just that there were still unanswered questions when Hutchinson-Foster's trial concluded in 2012–13 (which may have been answered by the inquest in 2013–14). Is there a way of wording this that would definitively avoid that implication? Perhaps paraphrasing the bit in the source that says
It falls to the inquest into Duggan's death to shed some light on this? – Arms & Hearts ( talk) 20:05, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
The Hutchinson-Foster verdict did not resolve a number of central questions related to Duggan's killing, which remained open until the inquest later in 2013.Feel free to continue to revise. For what it's worth I don't see any reason, per WP:INTEXT or WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, why we'd need to cite the Guardian in text (I note that that attribution was only in the article for about 36 hours, with the sentence having been there for several years). 19:14, 27 November 2021 (UTC)