Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, such as the one you made to History of terrorism. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.
Here are some links to pages you may find useful:
You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but if you wish to acquire additional privileges, you can simply create an account. It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:
If you edit without an account, your IP address (80.192.103.31) is used to identify you instead.
We hope that you choose to become a Wikipedian and create an account. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, or you can to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. We also have an intuitive guide on editing if you're interested. By the way, please make sure to sign and date your talk page comments with four tildes (~~~~).
Happy editing! Amccann421 (talk) 19:49, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Hey bro, hope you're good. You've just added a Neutrality template to Death of Mark Duggan, with the rationale "Article seems highly biased against the Met, despite the facts of the case". I disagree with some of your edits, but I understand where you're coming from. I would ask you to consider this. Given that many of the "theories" about the death come from those who think that Duggan was wrongfully killed, adding a large and very visible "Neutrality disputed" template at the top of the article results in those who have conspiracy theories -- or whatever -- about the death and supposed cover-ups, will see the large template and assume it is about that. They will assume the template means that there was a police cover-up. The talk page -- which the template directs people to -- doesn't do much to dispell such ideas.
We can have discussions about how to represent things fairly, but having a huge template that encourages conspiracy theorists to go down the "maybe it was aliens! maybe the aliens were working with the police!" madness, does not help. What do you think? MPS1992 ( talk) 21:11, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello. I don't think its an encyclopedia place to dispell ideas. The article has flaws throughout, attention needs to be drawn to that both in case of someone relying on it or more importantly to flag to experienced editors the issue so they can work on fixing it. It relys far to much on newspaper articles, which are high bias in the UK, compared to the BBC or ITN which are legal required to be unbiased.
For example the line i fact tagged, as evidence emerges our understanding of events change Whereas "changed their story" is a loaded term, which isn't reflected in the main board of the article. New evidence appeared like the bullet in the police officer's radio being a ricochet whereas changed their story inplies a police conspiracy, which from the summary skim of sources I saw no suggestion of.
I do think the template should stay, I've long term ones on lots of articles, like history of the Quran or History of Terrorism and I don't think it means anything but this article needs further work to clean it of bias and that should be taken into account by anyone reading it.
Happy to discuss.
I think this is a fair and equitable resolution but on point I must draw your attention;
Chap I think you have been misinformed of British media, but the BBC is seen not just in the UK but recognised around the world as one of the best producers of journalism, it is frequently held up as the gold standard. If Wikipedia for some reason rates sources like the Times or Guardian over the BBC then they are severely mistaken, the BBC is far from simplistic, and newspaper frequently complain that the quality of the BBC's website is effectively putting them out of business (they lobbied extensively to hobble the BBC website during the recent Charter review). Also the quality of journalism in the Mirror and indeed the Sun can be considered higher than the Daily Mail.
You should look up WP:LEADCITE which makes it clear that citations in the lede are determined on a case by case basis. The two sentences you flagged in Somerset v Stewart are fully documented in Somerset v Stewart#Significance and Somerset v Stewart#Judgment. Make your case on the discussion page on why you feel these cites are necessary. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 23:43, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Then you should have no problem providing those sources as I couldn't find them in the main body
![]() | This is the
discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's
IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may
create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users.
Registering also hides your IP address. |
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, such as the one you made to History of terrorism. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.
Here are some links to pages you may find useful:
You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but if you wish to acquire additional privileges, you can simply create an account. It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:
If you edit without an account, your IP address (80.192.103.31) is used to identify you instead.
We hope that you choose to become a Wikipedian and create an account. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, or you can to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. We also have an intuitive guide on editing if you're interested. By the way, please make sure to sign and date your talk page comments with four tildes (~~~~).
Happy editing! Amccann421 (talk) 19:49, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Hey bro, hope you're good. You've just added a Neutrality template to Death of Mark Duggan, with the rationale "Article seems highly biased against the Met, despite the facts of the case". I disagree with some of your edits, but I understand where you're coming from. I would ask you to consider this. Given that many of the "theories" about the death come from those who think that Duggan was wrongfully killed, adding a large and very visible "Neutrality disputed" template at the top of the article results in those who have conspiracy theories -- or whatever -- about the death and supposed cover-ups, will see the large template and assume it is about that. They will assume the template means that there was a police cover-up. The talk page -- which the template directs people to -- doesn't do much to dispell such ideas.
We can have discussions about how to represent things fairly, but having a huge template that encourages conspiracy theorists to go down the "maybe it was aliens! maybe the aliens were working with the police!" madness, does not help. What do you think? MPS1992 ( talk) 21:11, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello. I don't think its an encyclopedia place to dispell ideas. The article has flaws throughout, attention needs to be drawn to that both in case of someone relying on it or more importantly to flag to experienced editors the issue so they can work on fixing it. It relys far to much on newspaper articles, which are high bias in the UK, compared to the BBC or ITN which are legal required to be unbiased.
For example the line i fact tagged, as evidence emerges our understanding of events change Whereas "changed their story" is a loaded term, which isn't reflected in the main board of the article. New evidence appeared like the bullet in the police officer's radio being a ricochet whereas changed their story inplies a police conspiracy, which from the summary skim of sources I saw no suggestion of.
I do think the template should stay, I've long term ones on lots of articles, like history of the Quran or History of Terrorism and I don't think it means anything but this article needs further work to clean it of bias and that should be taken into account by anyone reading it.
Happy to discuss.
I think this is a fair and equitable resolution but on point I must draw your attention;
Chap I think you have been misinformed of British media, but the BBC is seen not just in the UK but recognised around the world as one of the best producers of journalism, it is frequently held up as the gold standard. If Wikipedia for some reason rates sources like the Times or Guardian over the BBC then they are severely mistaken, the BBC is far from simplistic, and newspaper frequently complain that the quality of the BBC's website is effectively putting them out of business (they lobbied extensively to hobble the BBC website during the recent Charter review). Also the quality of journalism in the Mirror and indeed the Sun can be considered higher than the Daily Mail.
You should look up WP:LEADCITE which makes it clear that citations in the lede are determined on a case by case basis. The two sentences you flagged in Somerset v Stewart are fully documented in Somerset v Stewart#Significance and Somerset v Stewart#Judgment. Make your case on the discussion page on why you feel these cites are necessary. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 23:43, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Then you should have no problem providing those sources as I couldn't find them in the main body
![]() | This is the
discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's
IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may
create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users.
Registering also hides your IP address. |