Talk:Brazilian shot by police on London Underground was not acting suspiciously
- 1 Needs more sources
- 2 Merge needed
- 3 Weasel Statements?
- 4 Headline correction
- 5 Serious! One admin. changed the headline to refer to the victim as a "suspicious character"
- 6 Please stop the POV of protecting the government
- 7 Nice article, but...
- 8 Disappointed in British Police
- 9 History & the media line
Needs more sources
A story like this needs more then just one source, please add a few more and remove that tag. --Cspurrier 18:43, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
I have searched for additional sources, but this story was broken on ITV news this evening. I expect other news services are struggling because ITN will be holding on to their documents until they have milked it as far as they can, should see some addiitonal reports with this released content soon though.
Is there a way of referenceing a TV news report (can't find any video feeds for it on the internet, it was broadcast on ITN news in the UK as the main story on the six thirty news.
This story and Leaked documents detail suspicious character's death in London should be merged --Cspurrier 19:30, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Editorial for spelling and structure is just fine. But Weasel statments ("some say") this report content s *facts* as reported by the mainstream press (although the same information has been available in the underground press for a long time). I've heard reports of problems wiht this kind of story on WikiNews, I hope it is not true.
Anyway, I've given you plenty of sources now. I'll wait to see what the editorial does with the story (and yes Leaked documents detail suspicious character's death in London contains more information from someone who appears to have a video of the original news broadcast as it contains what (to my addled memory) are accurate quotations from the report.
OK, you've published this now and I'm happy with the "editorial control" - given that it only consisted of spelling corrections. Seems the reports I refer to ae unfounded. Rgardler 20:43, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Clarified what the leak documents reveal. He was not suspicious according to the documents; there is no "may not" according to the leaked documents. Neutralizer 21:49, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
- So, you've verified the authenticity of these documents, then? --Mrmiscellanious 21:51, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Serious! One admin. changed the headline to refer to the victim as a "suspicious character"
see below;not avialable in the article's history
There is absolutely NOTHING in this story to justify that terminology. Neutralizer 21:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
cur) (last) 19:14, 16 August 2005 Mrmiscellanious m (Leaked Documents Show Major Errors In Killing Of Brazilian By Police In Londom moved to Leaked documents detail suspicious character's death in London) _____________
- I guess the guy was suspicious to the police officers otherwise they wouldn't have shot him. Obviously that suspicion was dead wrong but it was nevertheless a suspicion. --Deprifry 22:07, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
- They thought he was one of the bombers, so there was obviously suspicion. Now please, can we do without the finger pointing? As of now, "Neutralizer" you are very heavily stepping on the boundaries of the NPOV policy. Igniting a fire to cover it up won't help. --Mrmiscellanious 22:11, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
- Let's not be coy; the label you put on the victim was "suspicious character"; and it did not come from this story. You know that's a negative slur and so does everybody else. Neutralizer 22:52, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
- Mr.M I don't respond well to intimidation; especially public; even realizing you are just trying to deflect attention away from what you did with that outrageous POV insert "suspicious character". Shouldn't you be saying things like that(above) on my talk page? You can block me; I can't block you..but you already know that, don't you; but you forget one thing..this is a WIKI ; so, intimidation may work sometimes, but will ultimately fail. Please try to work collaboratively and please do not use unfounded terms like "suspicious character" against innocent dead people who aren't around to fight back.Neutralizer 22:44, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
The discussion point below was put in after the "merge" suggestion but somehow disappeared during headline changes. It is still relevant imo Neutralizer 22:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Please stop the POV of protecting the government
Here come the phalanx of administrators again to protect the Crown. Do not bury this story! This is a new story and the poor man was not acting like a "suspicious character" as the previous changed headline(by another admin.) claimed. Please get back to editing and writing. Neutralizer 19:44, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Nice article, but...
This has turned out to be a fairly well written article, but.... We state in this article that the documents definitively reveal certain truths about the killing -- should we say that these documents reportedly reveal these truths instead? After all, none of us have seen the complete documents (or scans or transcriptions) and none of us know what the final report will indicate. I'll echo Mark Oaten's quote from the times, "It is in the best interests of the police and the community for the full report and any recommendations, to be published as quickly as possible." --Chiacomo (talk) 05:45, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
All quotes are taken directly from the leaked documents (as reported in the mainstream press). It true that there is no proof that the documents are not forged, but I would not like to say "reported reveal" it diminishes the importance of this story. The IPCC have not claimed that the documents are false, in fact I notice the BBC report no longer carries the IPCC quote denying any knowledge of the source fo these documents. The mainstream press carry a copy of one of the photographs of the scene, sure it could be faked, but the original TV reported stated that many of the photographs were too disturbing to be shown. They also interviewed an independant forensic examiner who believed they were genuine.
I've added "reportedly leaked" to the intro paragraph to add a little balance, I don't think this reduces the importance of the message in this story. Just in case, I added a new quote from the solictor and a new expert interviewed by the BBC. Rgardler 12:15, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Disappointed in British Police
I have had good things to say about government agencies in Britain before. I've always thought their levels of honesty and integrity were much higher than those of America's government agencies. This story truly disappoints me and reminds me of one of those old Georgia sayings; "ya lie down with dogs...and ya'll get up with fleas". Paulrevere2005 00:34, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
You clearly don't live in the UK. We just have laws that allow information to be kept from the public, it may *appear* that our agencies have high levels of "honesty and integrity", but I'm not at all convinced that they are any higher than any other countries. Power corrupts, sometimes in ways that even the individuals involved do not recognise. Rgardler 09:44, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
History & the media line
I have to say, I haven't really been following this story but it is possible that we need to be very careful of following what the rest of the media come out with.
I think it would be good if we could try and establish more facts and answers about what was originally said by who:
- Did the police really lie through their teeth when this first happened? I have been looking through some original reports and most of the information came from the witness Mark Whitby, not the police. Mark Whitby's account now looks very false indeed. The report that he was carrying a bomb belt also came from a witness, not the police.
- The police definitely said that they thought Menezes was a suspect and they may have said they had agreed to shoot him if he ran, I haven't got specific confirmation.
- Did they actually say anything else themselves? If they did not, then it cannot necessarily be said that they lied/covered anything up, more that the media's willingness to report anything led them to go for the most hysterical reports.
I'm not in any way trying to justify what was done by the police, but we must be very careful about following the media's line of 'cover-up' when it may have been the media that spread a very different story (justifying what the police had done) and are now turning on the police, while maintaining a faux-sympathy for Mendezes' family who will be quite justifiably concerned that the police may have lied.
This story also shows the importance of Wikinews's source policies and a neutral point of view. Also of creating new stories so that there is a back-history. Many of the original source stories in other places have been deleted or amended.
It would be interesting to see how much we can uncover here. ClareWhite 10:39, 19 August 2005 (UTC)