Talk:Killing of Mark Duggan

Basic Story

They are after a bloke in a taxi that they think might have a gun. Then the police manage to shoot themselves and kill the suspect, and then they cannot find the gun until `some time later'. But managing to shoot one of their own? Makes you wonder about their training. Do they do cooperative live fire exercises ? Or is it simply individual operant training? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.130.228.135 (talk) 09:46, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Bias

The article seems highly bias against the Met and attempts to build a sympathatic rather than neutral picture of the deceased. Needs extensive work to remove bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.103.31 (talk) 20:49, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Can you point to any specific examples? Biased or weasel wording, misrepresentation of sources, undue weight to particular aspects, use of unreliable sources, et cetera? MPS1992 (talk) 18:17, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Inserting weasel words and shifting towards editorial bias

I've removed the recent addition of the WP:WEASEL word "claimed," used to described statements by witnesses, when "said" or "stated" is the appropriate and neutral term. The conclusion of a report by the IPCC is not scripture: it should be reported on, not used to replace content here. If witnesses contradict statements made by the IPCC, it is highly partisan to cast editorial doubt upon witness statements, while editorially endorsing IPCC findings. -Darouet (talk) 01:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Especially since the IPCC seems to have been abolished (or replaced by the Independent Office for Police Conduct) partly based on the fallout and aftermath of its poor performance in the Mark Duggan case (among other things)... AnonMoos (talk) 16:34, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Hanley's suicide

.. is described in the article twice, once at the end of this section and one right at the end of the article. Maproom (talk) 06:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

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)

"Lawfully"

@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)

@Arms & Hearts:1) Lawfully Your reaction to the addition of the word ‘lawfully’ in the lead is a demonstration of the need for the word. Although you declare on your User page that you are from the UK, and your editing history demonstrates an interest in politics, you referred in your edit summary to ‘potentially controversial information’. This gives the impression that you are not aware of the legal position on this death, because the fact of the verdict is not controversial. Many readers who have not kept up to date with the legal position will come to this page for information, and one of the main points they will want to know is – was this murder, or manslaughter, or was the killing lawful? Do you have an alternative wording which would refer to the legal verdict, rather than just saying ‘lawfully’?

2) Short Description I have read the link you have provided. I do not see anything which would prevent the word ‘lawfully’ from being used in the Short Description. But, to answer your unasked question: No, I don’t know how the Short Description works. I was not the editor who originally added the word to the Short Description, and I have no objection to it being deleted from that.

3) BRD I assume that you have read this, and so you will be aware that it starts: ‘The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD) is an optional method of reaching consensus.’ It also says: ‘When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed.’ Your editing on this article today did not give the impression of someone who was trying to reach consensus. I am pleased that you are now engaging in discussion. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Ignoring the majority of the tendentious rubbish above and getting to the point: the alternative wording I'm proposing is the previous wording, in which the first sentence deals with the facts of the case and the legal status is explained in the following paragraph. The idea that readers who arrive at this page in search of that information can't find their way to that paragraph, and must have it provided devoid of context in the first sentence, is ridiculous. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:40, 14 September 2020 (UTC)