Talk:Killing of Mark Duggan
Merge it with 2011 London riots
Merge it into that article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.165.132 (talk • contribs)
- The place to comment is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Duggan (2011 London riots). WWGB (talk) 01:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Doesn't this seem very familiar to the Rodney King Riot in 1992? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jks22835 (talk • contribs) 11:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- Not at all. Mark Duggan was NOT just some random guy the police saw. The police went to arrest him because they had very good reason he had illegal drugs and weapons. Obviously he did since he shot at the police and tried to get away. Innocent men don’t carry guns. Hurleyman (talk) 15:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Children
Statement that he had four children, one stillborn, is politically tainted. Including a stillborn among a deceased's survivors is not standard parlance; just say he was survived by his wife and 4 chlildren (this figure including the one from another relationship). PoemsAndNinjaStars (talk) 03:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)PoemsAndNinjaStars
- "Politically tainted"? How so? It is a statement of fact. What politics are involved? WWGB (talk) 03:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'd actually say that it should read survived by 3 children, counting a miscarriage is somewhat ludicrous. 186.2.136.142 (talk) 09:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- A stillborn child is not a miscarriage. WWGB (talk) 11:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
How can you be survived by a stillborn child? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.117.209.167 (talk) 10:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- It does not say that. Read the article. WWGB (talk) 11:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
He isn't survived by his wife - he never married. He is survived by his four children - three by his partner whom he had been in a relationship from when he was 16 until he died (although he didn't live with her) and a child he fathered by someone else. 188.28.100.6 (talk) 14:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Deletion
I don't think this is the moment to delete it - my guess it it will receive a lot of hits. At most redirect to London Riots 2011 page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.176.169.189 (talk) 10:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- This is a very important article in the context of the London riots. There is not reason to delete it. Absolutely transcendental. --Albeiror24 - English - Español - Italiano - ខ្មែរ 10:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Taxi driver
hey, where's the line stating that Mark Duggan is taxi driver? I just saw it few hours ago, and then it dissappeared. you can still see it on google search http://www.google.ru/#sclient=psy&hl=ru&newwindow=1&source=hp&q=Mark+Duggan+driver+&pbx=1&oq=Mark+Duggan+driver+&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=64l1045l4l1507l7l6l0l0l0l0l318l1102l0.2.2.1l5l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=51a73e2f17cd4d33&biw=1382&bih=927 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.19.129.213 (talk) 12:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Duggan's gun
Pretty sure that BBC news24 reported earlier that the Gun was (contrary to earlier reports) a 'real gun' not a replica gun that was converted. Thought I'd mention it though I've not got a proper source. EdwardLane (talk) 15:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep the article but rename it
This should be "Mark Duggan" not the "Death of Mark Duggan" Much more news will come out over the next year or two. There will be inquiries etc. Mark Duggan may not be noteworthy as a person. The incident though is noteworthy. And it was not the first nor will it be the last. Merging it into the riots article will make the riots article too long. cckkab (talk) 15:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- Duggan isn't notable, he was an ordinary criminal. His death is notable as it receives a great deal of media coverage. Jim Michael (talk) 15:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
"Duggan isn't notable, he was an ordinary criminal" that is so blatantly offensive to be repugnant, if I knew him, this attitude would make me want to riot too. 67.188.202.139 (talk) 17:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)