Talk:Bob Woolmer murder investigation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Bob Woolmer was murdered in Jamaica. The tear gas incident was at the Hilton Hotel in Trinidad and Tobago. See Security beefed up at T'dad Hilton after tear gas incident Dave Smith 02:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Why does this page exist?[edit]

This info is already in the Bob Woolmer article. In fact, judging by the way the article starts out the same as the section in the original article, and includes the same hidden comment, it started as a copypaste from that article. Flyguy649talkcontribs 02:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Purportedly, because it's a news article. Not saying it's right - but bold words/phrases on the front page tend to do that. I expect a speedy merge after it drops off that radar. 60.226.133.172 02:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Is it really necessary to make a "Death of [INSERT PERSON HERE]" for every person that dies? I suggest a deletion and placed back into the original album article.
Blindman shady 03:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to start the deletion debate once the article is off the main page. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge Proposal - on hold[edit]

Consensus has been reached to wait until this article has reached stability until the merger discussion is continued. Please do not add to this discussion until it is re-established in the future

Vote here on the idea of merging or keeping the articles like as is

Absolutely --Monotonehell 15:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Dont merge, its very rare that an internationally renowned sportsperson gets murdered. Why does OJ Simpson get a HUGE separate page for his murder? Why not Woolmer? because he's not American? There is more information on Woolmer's death page. Tri400 16:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I think you're confused. Sadly, OJ Simpson wasn't murdered. -128.101.53.196 13:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
He was still a prominent sportsperson related to a high profile murder case, difference being, OJ was charged with murder rather than being murdered. Tri400 04:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
There's no US conspiracy here. The way it works is details need to be added to a parent article. If in the future there is enough interest in the subject that warrants a separate high quality article then and only then should it be created. Right now it's too early. Also it's best while there's so much interest in a subject, to NOT have editors efforts split in two places. Let's concentrate on making a quality encyclopedia article first. --Monotonehell 16:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose merge as his murder is highly notable, more so than the man himself was in life (because it transcends sport). Also the article was of a reasonable length and well referenced. Really if you want a resdirect the proper procedure is an Afd. This is out of process, SqueakBox 16:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No, this isn't out of procedure. This is a discussion. If people agree to a merge, then a redirect is a logical part of the merger process. Flyguy649talkcontribs 17:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose, and please do use AFD in future. As has been noted, this is currently one of the top news stories across the globe, and to merge it now would be wrong. The suggestion that 'we don't want articles on every death' is an odd one, as most people's death don't involve violent murders during major international sorting events. It's possible this will be deletable in due course. Nssdfdsfds 17:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Why AFD? We are discussing a potential merge; a redirect would be a logical consequence if the merge were supported. We all have opinions; let's articulate them and build a consensus. Please. Flyguy649talkcontribs 17:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge - article content is already covered under the main Bob Woolmer article, making this one superfluous. SixBellsChime 17:55, 24 March 2007
  • Oppose, but I think it may need re-naming at some future date, eg. "Bob Woolmer murder case", or however the media starts referring to it. It may well blow up into an international scandal, of which the murder is only the tip of the iceberg. Deb 17:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect as suggested by Flyguy649 above. April Is Really Fooled 18:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge In a year all the facts will be out and we will know exactly what happened. At that point all the speculation becomes moot and gets reduced to a footnote. Until that time the Woolmer article will be bloated but that's no reason to have a fork. Especially as it was created against the then consensus of the main talk page. --Spartaz Humbug! 18:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge I completely agree with Spartaz. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 122.167.39.30 (talkcontribs) 13:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose, I'm not a great cricket fan, but I created this page, seeing as it has gained worldwide media attention. I am trying to find any other sportsmen with their own death page. Ayrton Senna is one of probably many. Davnel03 18:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
    Good point. And Ayrton Senna is more notable than Bob Woolmer is, and the death of Bob Woolmer is more notable than Ayrton Senna's, so the case is even stronger for this article than for the one on Ayrton Senna's death. Nssdfdsfds 19:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
    Actually just because other pages exist doesn't mean we need one, too. Incidently the Ayrton Senna death page probably needs a major revision, as it consists of huge quote blocks. Flyguy649talkcontribs 19:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
    Yes, this isn't about notability or not. If Woolmer wasn't noteable then both articles would be up for AfD. This is about the best way to create a quality article. But anyway, people's actions have lead us down this path so there's no need to change tack again, see below. --Monotonehell 19:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge, as suggested above, the circumstances surrounding a man's death, even murder, should be on his biography page. Especially for someone like Woolmer, a new page is not nessecary. TrafficBenBoy 19:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Don't merge, I fear too much relevant content would be lost. This article is pretty much as long as the main Bob Woolmer article right now, and while not much more will be added to the sections on his life, his murder and its investigation are likely to be publicised and even more notable information will emerge. Ashanthalas 20:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge later - see my comments below. Dave Smith 20:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Don't Merge We should have a section in the original article but keep this article here. This is an important event and should be covered in detail in a seperate article. --- SAndTLets Talk 22:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Don't merge - Once this has died down, then depending on the level of detail that is necessary we can't look at it again. I'm not going to comment on whether it was wise to make this article in the first place since I'm not sure but now that it has been made, there is no point creating further confusion by merging it Nil Einne 23:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge a person's death deserves to be part of their page. To the average person, Woolmer was largely unknown until he died, and was found to be murdered. He's not such a big celebrity and as yet, there's not a huge amount of information (such as Marilyn Monroe's death) that can be included in a separate article. The Woolmer article isn't overly long either, and can easily accomodate a section to his death. Naysie 07:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Don't merge - Certainly not yet. While the information regarding his death is so fluid trying to merge the articles would just swamp his page. There is a lot to come on this yet... while it in the news keep seperate, maybe merge when its all done and dusted. --LiamE 10:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • strong merge support like users above --TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge later - Merge after the media attention dies down and the issue isn't so popular. At that point it would be senseless to have a death page that shouldn't be part of their biographical information. James B. 19:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose merge This is one of the world's biggest stories right now- an extremely notable event which deserves its own page. I don't even see why this is being discussed. Isn't their a policy somewhere that concretes this page's right to exist? Rothery 22:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
This isn't a deletion proposal, why should the death of Bob Woolmer not be covered on Bob Woolmer's article with the rest of his life? --Monotonehell 23:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge later. Merge when all of the details on his death have been added in. There is no reason why they shouldn't be merged, because neither of them are huge pages. But still, wait until the news stops coming out of it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.71.118.47 (talkcontribs) 06:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge later per all who agree above. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cream147 (talkcontribs) 06:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge later. Already a lot of information in the death article is becoming redundant. We can wait and see how much relevant info is left in the end (once the murderer is caught and convicted maybe). Then decide on the merge. Jay 09:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge later PaddyBriggs 10:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge Hotpanda 01:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Don't merge yet. While this is a current event, let this page get the bulk of edits & re-edits. After some time, we may consider merging the two. But this is a current event that exists as its own subject, & the record of edits is here; those are reality. Keep them separate for the next year or so. Ventifax 04:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge later Once the media attention has died down, this should be merged with the main article, with a link to that section from 2007 Cricket World Cup and Pakistan team. Cricketgirl 10:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose merge We have articles on Death of Diana, Princess of Wales and Death of Anna Nicole Smith. So why not on Bob Woolmer considering the fact that his death is of equal importance. --Incman|वार्ता 10:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I would also like to add that in my opinion, Wikipedians are becoming increasingly argumentative in nature. I mean, c'mon, it is not a big deal.. is it? --Incman|वार्ता 10:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Another fact to support my claim. --Incman|वार्ता 10:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Defer merge discussion for a month or longer. If the perps are not caught shortly, then discuss the merge in a month. If they are caught and there's a trial, discuss the merge after that. Anchoress 00:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Never Merge I dont see why we should ever merge these 2 pages. Is Wikipedia starving for space? Eventually there should be a small section on the Bob Woolmer page about his murder, and and this page with extensive details about his murder. Tri400 02:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Merge later agree with Ventifax above Sorcha niri 09:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • don't merge this article has grown considerably and will undoubtedly grow further still. A merge into the main article will leave us with one giant article that would be 65-75% about his death. SGGH 12:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Don't Merge as the inquiry process is lengthy and ongoing. A summary on Bob's main article should suffice. If we merge now, I am sure there would be discussions later to seperate the section due to its length! --IslesCapeTalk 15:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge Later Once the criminals are caught (or not) and the situation has stabilized to the point where not much more new information is expected, merge it. Qwertyca 23:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Don't Merge While it would not be wise to have an article on the death of every person, in some circumstances this could be justified. If it was natural causes, car accident or such a uneventful passing, then a couple of paragraphs in the article would suffice. If the event is significant such is the case with Woolmer, then there often is the need for an extended article on the death, particually since the inclusion of the content would make the article significantly long. I cite the Three Mile Island accident article as an example of my point. thewinchester 00:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Don't Merge Arguments that this page shouldn't exist because 'we don't need a page for everyone's death' isn't a valid argument. If the page, as of now, were to be merged into the Bob Woolmer article, content would be lost and/or the death section would take up a disproportionate amount of space on the Woolmer article. Nathanalex 00:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Don't merge - it's standard practice to have more specialised articles in addition to the main article (for example, there's not just a "demographics" section in the Germany article, but also a Demographics of Germany article), and this makes sense whenever the relative size of one section would unbalance the main article. In the case of Bob Woolmer, this article (Death of Bob Woolmer) seems to be larger than the entire main article (Bob Woolmer), so it makes sense to keep it as a separate article in order to not unbalance the main article too much. The only other option would be to trim this article down to a smaller size and then merge, but I don't see why valuable information should be thrown away. Wikipedia is not paper, anyway; there is no limit on either the amount of information *or* the number of total articles we can have. -- Schneelocke 22:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Don't Merge This is without doubt the most shocking incident ever to have occurred in the history of cricket. It has to be kept as an independent article considering the popularity of the sport, the importance of coaches and string of events that have happened before Bob's death. Its even rubbish to think of merging it.

Too late & too soon[edit]

We're getting ahead of ourselves. It's best to have a section in the main article first. Then once the article has stabilised the decision can be made whether there need be a sub article for reasons of size, instead of ending up with a stub article. But the horse has bolted, there's no need for this merger proposal now. We should have either kept the section in the original article and then in the future decide to move that to a new article OR decide to start a second article now and in the future decide if it needs to be merged. I tried to get the former happening, but it was reverted. So we need to go the second route. In which case this merger discussion is premature. --Monotonehell 19:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Do we all agree to let this page exist (as the main location for Death related info) for the next couple of weeks, stop the merge proposal for now, and revisit it then? Flyguy649talkcontribs 20:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the idea that until the situation has settled down this page shouldn't be merged with the main article Hshiwani 21:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I've put this merge on hold until future notice. As generally agreed. --Monotonehell 02:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Article should stay while we discuss[edit]

Tri400 did what I was about to do. Until we have consensus the article shoudl stand, SqueakBox 16:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, having duplication means that edits are split over two articles. If in the future the subject warrants a separate article that is more than a stub then by all means let's make it. But right now we need to focus all the interest into one place. Quality over quantity. --Monotonehell 16:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree; both pages stay for now, unless or until there is a merge. Flyguy649talkcontribs 17:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into an edit war over this. But please consider my points above. We now (again) have two articles that are being edited to in a different manner rather than one focused effort. --Monotonehell 16:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

That's no reason to remove a lot of data, the death information is too much for the main page, plus it obviously deserves its own page. Somebody can update the main page's death section using the Death Page Tri400 16:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I have updated the main page with a 2 line summary from the death page. Jay 09:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I merged the non-duplicate and non-speculative information back into the Bob Woolmer article. I was in the process of going through the article and merging in any further information when the page was reverted. --Monotonehell 17:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I suggest people edit only one of the places; I'll go out on a limb and suggest here for now. If we decide to merge, then it'll end up in the main article (where I believe it should be) anyway. Flyguy649talkcontribs 17:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Well this is where the editing should be un til a discussion is complete. In [[Bob Woodward all we need is a summary of this article, SqueakBox 17:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll leave a hidden comment on the section of the main page directing edits here while we discuss. Flyguy649talkcontribs 17:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Either way will work. I just thought since this was a duplication of work that was already in progress in the Bob Woolmer article, and that this article was created more recently it was better to continue in the original place. The creation of this article was premature. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a newspaper. We need to write retrospective, verified and attributed articles, not reproduce all the media speculation out there. --Monotonehell 18:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
This is a very fair comment, but it would also be wrong to let the controversy over his death take over the article about his life and career. Deb 19:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
The reason I created this article is that I feared the Bob Woolmer article was going to get too overcrowded about his death, and thought it was better to split it. With things coming out every day, I think the Woolmer death would be way to long on his own page, and therefore needed it's own death page. Davnel03 20:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
That's the nature of a wiki though. When things are in the public's eye editors will add all kinds of unverified crap to an article that shouldn't be in an encyclopedia. But after a while, when the fury dies down, more rational editors will comb through an article and weed out the rash postings and refactor the thing. Depending on what comes of this, the article may be a long and complex story, or it might just end up a very simple "he fell over in the bathroom" (I doubt it but you never know). Either way, when it all comes to light it will be up to us to make a quality article of it all. --Monotonehell 20:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
The circumstances surrounding Bob Woolmer's death are clearly very fluid at the moment. Until there is more of a conclusion about what has happened the details on this page are likley to be changed at regular intervals as events unfold. I am inclined to agree with those who say keep this page separate for the time being. Once the issues surrounding his death have been settled then it should be merged into the main article as it will be a more stable contribution at that point. Dave Smith 20:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Death by bookmakers[edit]

Can some one please add (after rewritting) from following material. Source

Tennant, writing in The Times, also rubbished the speculation. "Rumours that Bob Woolmer was murdered because he was harbouring information on match-fixing or an association with corrupt bookmakers can be dismissed unequivocally," Tennant wrote. "As the co-author of his autobiography and its planned sequel, for which a publisher had still to be found, I can state that he had no intention of writing or publicising any such detail in either this or his book on coaching and sports science, which will be published in June." "He had no knowledge of Hansie Cronje's involvement in match-fixing during his time as coach of South Africa, and, if there had been any such approach to his Pakistan players, he would have told them to report it immediately to the manager or the Board of Control", Tennant wrote. "Doubtless he would then have informed the police himself. Above all, Woolmer was an honest man. He did not mix with dodgy individuals." --- SAndTLets Talk 22:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed theory[edit]

Can I remind editors there is to be no OR. Please don't add theories you came up with yourself, there is already too much speculation as it is. If you heard a theory from some reliable source, at least find that source. For example this part [1]:

There is now a theory that killers were disguised as hotel staff, entered his room in the morning, with his permission (since there was no forced entry or struggle) and killed him. [2]

The source mentions 'it's possible it didn't have anything to do with cricket, but why would he let strangers into his room?' It doesn't go on to say anything about killers disguised as hotel staff. (In itself this theory isn't actually particularly good either. It may be true that murders have happened at the hotel before but why? I doubt they were random. Perhaps robbery gone wrong or something but there was likely a motive) Nil Einne 23:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

"It doesn't go on to say anything about killers disguised as hotel staff." Yes it does, plus it says that diguised hotel-staff theory is high on the list. [3] Its obviously not a "theory that I came up with". "It may be true that murders have happened at the hotel before but why? I doubt they were random." I think the fact that Jamaica has one of the world's highest murder rates may have something to do with that. Hense im putting this thoery back into the speculation section, plus the other contributions i made with reference, which curiously dissapeared, and then the sentence later dissapeared due to "lack of references". Tri400 04:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
The link you initially provided was to page 3. I presumed therefore it was either in page 3 or perhaps page 4. While I should have read the whole article, in future if you are going to link to a specific page, link to the page that contains the theory, not some other page. (And in response to what you said, again how many of Jamaica's murders are random? I doubt it's many. While I haven't modified the sectin you're adding, the problem is you are juxtaposing theories in ways not done by the source. Yes the source mentions the murders could have been posing as staff. It also mentioned previous murders and the possibility therefore it may have nothing to do with cricket. It doesn't suggest that maybe it was a random person from the street who disguised himself or herself as staff and murdered Woolmer. By linking the two together in the way your doing, intentionally or not you're making it sound like some people are saying maybe someone from the street just decided to enter into Woolmer's room disguised as staff and murder him for no reason) Nil Einne 12:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Mind your sources[edit]

I remind editors that as well as WP:OR, reports of rumours in the news services are just as taboo in an encyclopedia. Only verifiable information derived from official sources should be added. Beware that the media is full of speculation and hearsay mostly for the purposes of sensationalist infotainment. Please try to be more discerning with your additions. --Monotonehell 16:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Bob Woolmer Murder[edit]

Shouldn't this page be called Bob Woolmer's Murder rather than Death? The police, the doctors, and the post-mortem investigation has confirmed that he was murdered due to manual strangualtion. Changing the name of the page will also drastically reduce the opposition to the existance of this page, seeing the importance, popularity and significance of this event. Tri400 04:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's leave it at death until the thing is resolved. Otherwise we may be moving this article several times as new information comes to light. What the article is called has no bearing on the proposed merge. --Monotonehell 01:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Wait a second[edit]

This page doesn't even link up to the main page, either have someone fix that or we should consider moving now.
Blindman shady 03:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course it does; once in the top section, & of course in the merge proposal box. Ventifax 03:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Read again, the main page. No link to Death of Bob Woolmer Just to Bob Woolmer. And theres no merge proposal on the main page.
Blindman shady 03:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually it does; see Bob Woolmer#Death during 2007 World Cup. Granted, it may be worth putting a link at the top. Flyguy649talkcontribs 04:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Why merge?[edit]

Can people tell the reasons for wanting to merge this murder page into Woolmer's main page? Since Woolmer was not merely just "anybody". Tri400 15:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Because 1) a person's death is a part of his biography; 2) this page was created without any consensus (although a lot of people do want it now); 3) to ensure that it follows WP:BIO and is not a place for unsourced speculation (that includes sources of speculation that are not based upon any evidence); 4) to ensure that (if in the future his death is part of some bigger gambling/whatever thing) this article is about his death, and not about the greater issue, e.g. gambling in cricket, or whatever. That said, the article will likely exist for a while until things get figured out. There seems to be consensus to defer for at least a month and reassess then. Ultimately, we all want the best article (or articles) we can have. Woolmer's death may not require much space in a couple of months, so it will make sense to merge. Or things may blow up, and we'll keep the page. Flyguy649talkcontribs 23:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
But clearly, we can have summarized paragraphs on Woolmer's main page about his murder, and detailed info on this page forever. So that people who wish to read more about the murder in the future, this page is there for that purpose. About the "need" for this page, well its there for those who want more details. Tri400 01:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
That's not at all clear at this time. Generally forking an article like this is a bad idea. Having all of a person's bio in one place is preferable; Being only one target for edits means we don't end up with two potentially conflicting articles. It makes sense to relate all the information in one article for clarity and ease of locating it (for readers). The only reason to split an article is for reasons of size or readability. The normal procedure (as I've tried to relate to people for a while now) is to start a new section in the original article, after that section has stabilised and has been copy edited to a concise and quality article, a split can then be considered if article size has become an issue.
You're basing your arguments on a lot of things that are only predictions at this time. We must wait to see if indeed this article will be large or if it will be small.
These issues have all been related before, why do you keep bringing them up when it has been agreed to wait until the article has stabilised before considering if a merge is appropriate? --Monotonehell 02:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
So basically you're not disputing my argument that this page should stay forever. Ok i understand now. And is there any doubt whatsoever about the correctness of timeline of events, which will always be too big for the Woolmer main page? Tri400 02:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Please. Really. If this page is merged, it is not an affront to Bob Woolmer, cricket, or anything else. It is as I tried to say and as Monotonehell said above. And the timeline format will change. It should be in paragraph form, and just what should be included will change as details emerge. Flyguy649talkcontribs 03:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Tri400, I've never stated that _I_ expect any particular outcome. Whether the death of Woolmer ends up as part of the Bob Woolmer article or as its own entity are the two possible outcomes here. No one has suggested any deletion of this article, a merger will not result in the loss of any information, having one or two articles makes it no more or less notable, the issue is about readability. My problem has been with the 'backwards process' that has been used to get to the point we are now. Making snap decisions about the article's name and nature is premature when we do not have all the facts.

A better process for this would have been as follows:

  1. Upon the event a section is added to the main article.
  2. As the media release verified information (not speculation) it is added to the section.
  3. The section is allowed to evolve as edits are made until the event unfolds completely.
  4. Once the section stabilises it should be copy edited and possibly rewritten for clarity and readability, all the references should be checked. Redundant and out dated references are pruned.
  5. The entire article should then be checked and sections reorganised as need be, again for clarity and chronology.
  6. At this point (and no sooner) if the refactored article, as a total, is larger than the recommended size (more than 60Kb) then a split proposal should be started. This way an appropriate article title can be selected (as all the facts are at hand) the section can be cut out of the original article, a summary to be placed as a lead paragraph written, and a short summary can be inserted into the original article with a wikilink to the new article.
  7. If however the article as a whole is not too large then, for reasons of clarity, it can stand as it is.

Things don't always go this way, as is the ad-hoc nature of a wiki, but this is an ideal and rational way to go about it. The process we have now will still result in whatever outcome is best (either one or two articles) but it will involve a lot more messing around with article moves, redirects and so on. Often when sub-articles like this are started they are left as stubs when interest dies down. They become neglected orphans and bring the overall quality of the encyclopaedia down. I'm only concerned with the overall quality of the project and promoting the processes that help us reach that target. --Monotonehell 04:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Information vs Speculation[edit]

I'm really disappointed by the low information to speculation ratio in this article. Is there any consensus to fix this? --Spartaz Humbug! 05:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that no one really knows what's going on. All this article is right now is a listing of all the conjecture, speculation and hearsay that's been in the media since Woolmer's death, with a very slight smattering of the reported facts. I'd comb through and remove all the purely speculative parts, but the last time I did that I was quickly reverted. Some editors don't seem to know the difference between verified facts (encyclopedic) and media hype (infotainment). Probably best just to wait until the official reports of the investigation are made public, and then see what fits and what doesn't. --Monotonehell 07:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
If there is agreement there is a problem why don;t we just clean house? Anyone else want to pitch in or do we have a consensus? --Spartaz Humbug! 21:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • In reality should this article exist at all? Whilst a very sad event - its a current news event, really I dont think this or any article, i.e. Iranian capture of UK sailors warrants an article until after its either settled down or resolved and more genuine/static information is available. To be honest, no one will really know more than the police at this moment in time, if they did someone would have found the killer, so all that is being reported is whats gathered from news sources etc. Really not what an encyclopedia is about is it? --PrincessBrat 11:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • See the discussion in the Merge Proposal section above. Some feel it should be part of the main article, others don't. We've agreed to wait a while and revisit the merger. Flyguy649talkcontribs 13:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Bob Woolmer murder investigation[edit]

Irrelevant to what this turns out in the end, the Jamaican police, with the help of Scotland Yard are already on a "Murder investigation" as put forward by a number of tabloids and reputable newspapers/newsmagazines. I hereby put forward that this page be moved to Bob Woolmer murder investigation, once again. Best, — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see the extensive discussion above. Until this article reaches a stable, verifiable and encyclopedic status we should hold back on any premature decisions on page moves, mergers or deletions. Until we know for sure what the outcome is, any moves would be speculative at best. --Monotonehell 01:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me. There is an active murder investigation going on in Jamaica with the aid of Scotland Yard. The Jamaican police has already submitted its report to the media that Woolmer's death occured in suspicious circumstances and that there was evidence enough to initiate a full-fledged murder investigation. In case you are not able to give a solid reason why the title of the page should remain Death of Bob Woolmer, we will have to move the page to a more appropriate title. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Agree with Sir Nick.--§hanel 11:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
You're excused. Obviously you preferred to ignore the consensus above (see the big purple section) and did what you thought best. The reason we were holding on any and all mergers, moves or similar was because wikipedia is not a newspaper, until we have a verifiable outcome and resolution, this article should be quite vague about things that are not established fact. It's quite possible that in the future this article will need to be merged, deleted or moved again - we just don't know yet. It's already at an unacceptable level of hearsay and conjecture, but because of the excitement surrounding the story and until facts become clear I'm sure that won't change. --Monotonehell 13:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia.
  • Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia - the titles of the articles can be changed.
  • There doesn't appear to be a clear consensus for a move either way, so I hope you shall excuse me for not understanding what you mean by 'consensus above'.
  • The facts are that Shields, the officer-in-charge of the investigation has categorised this investigation as a "murder investigation" – [4], regardless to the outcome, whether this turns out to be a murder or a natural death. So frankly, I cannot understand what the fuss is about. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
There's no fuss, the consensus was to wait until the official results of the investigation were released until any further page moves, mergers or similar were again considered and discussed. "In the full light of day" as it were. :) It was quite an involved discussion so it is easily missed unless you were involved at the time. --Monotonehell 14:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent) Although I disagree with the forking of this page, I do agree with the page move. The name is much better. Flyguy649talkcontribs 14:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure? The article currently includes a (admitedly small) section on tributes. I even question whether the initial speculation can be said to have much to do with the murder investigation. Nil Einne 17:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Long haul[edit]

Is there any need to mention that police have confirmed at the current time they expect to be in this for the long haul? Or is it something which should be so obvious it's not necessary? [5] Nil Einne 17:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Please update[edit]

Timeline only goes until April 1st. More news is arriving every day - http://www.thestatesman.net/page.news.php?clid=5&theme=&usrsess=1&id=153826 .--HamedogTalk|@ 08:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge and delete[edit]

Now that it's confirmed that this whole article is basically garbage, it should be deleted and only bare detail explaining the false murder claim should be given. It is wrong, given that he was not murdered, not at all, that this crap is given favour above all else about this poor man. 87.74.14.167 22:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

  • You're free to edit any unverifiable or point-of-view clamis in the article that you feel do not belong. The article is about the investigation, however, so even if the investigation turned up nothing, the investigation did still happen...Gaff ταλκ 22:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Agreed undue weight anyone? Time to move this back to the main article, substantially trim the content and rewrite it from the perspective that the police screwed up the post mortem events. This is an encyclopedia not a mirror of a newspaper's archives. Spartaz Humbug! 13:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Further discussion at Talk:Bob_Woolmer#Discussion_of_Page_Meger_.28June_07.29 Spartaz Humbug! 13:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Redirected[edit]

Seems no extant opposition. Spartaz Humbug! 18:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You (or someone with a lot of time to review and summarise it) really needs to merge before redirecting. Especially considering that the main article still has a Main article link to here. --Monotonehell 21:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I haven't got the time right now, - feel free if you want to reverse the redirect but it needs doing at some point. Spartaz Humbug! 21:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)