Talk:Sean Hoare/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Top

I think that Sean Hoare, at the time of writing this is known enough to have his own page. The death of this man has been widely spread, especially over in the states.

His death doesn't make him worthy of an article, although he might well deserve one based on his journalistic career.

David Kelly

I think the link to Dr David Kelly should be removed. No doubt anyone with a mind to conspiracy theories can see the possible connection, but I don't think merely being two guys who died whilst involved in scandals is strong enough to link between the two. EJBH (talk) 23:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

"flurry of online activity - mostly intended to divert and confuse" Bias much? 99.240.36.63 (talk) 01:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Recent death tag removed

For dubious reasons - "death is repoted as uncontroversial - noting much is gonna change." [1] As the person recently died, there is no "controversy" requirement for a recent death tag anywhere. This needs to be restored.--Oakshade (talk) 23:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

He has been dead three days, the template is unnecessary and of no benefit to the article or to the reader at all. Everyone coming here knows he is dead, the guy didn't even have an article while he was alive.Off2riorob (talk) 23:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I'd think the information may change - nonetheless, the template itself says "it should only be used in cases where many editors (perhaps a hundred or more) are editing the article on the same day". So I'll say keep it out and be happy the two of us agree on something for a change. Wnt (talk) 04:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Hello everyone. I'm glad to see a polite calm discussion here and would love to put some points. I think the concept is already explained here, but I'm just adding some comments.
    The death tag that is/was in dispute is mostly used for an incident that the actual-incidence of a death is controversial. There's another tag related to speedy-updated topics, informing editors that this will be continually changed. However, I don't see this article needing one either, as the current mentioned details are pretty clear. Let me know if you need further details, and I'll be removing the 3O for now. I'm watching the page for a-couple days, so any concerns or comments are highly welcomed. ~ AdvertAdam talk 10:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
This article is about a controversial person who died very recently. It has been edited many times by many people during each day of its existence. The cause of death is not yet known. A great deal of editing to this article will take place during the near future. There is no requirement for the article to have been created prior to the subject's death in order for the RDT to be present. This is exactly the kind of article that the RDT was created for. If it is not appropriate here, on which articles is it appropriate? Jim Michael (talk) 17:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
He is not a controversial person at all. His death is not suspicious at all, the police say it will take a few weeks to do the tests to find the exact cause of death. The traffic on the article is far from excessive - we never even had an article about him when he was alive - all the people coming here know he is dead already, neither the reader or the editor or the article benefit at all from the placing of a flashing light on the top announcing loudly his death three days ago. If you want to contribute to improving the article - add some content, improve the current content, don't come along and stick worthless unnecessary flashing lights on the top of it. Off2riorob (talk) 17:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 17:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I think the existence of the recent death template is controversial - that's why it's best to go by the criterion written in the template itself, so this topic, already at risk to become contentious, doesn't get tied up with some unrelated disagreement. Going back 100 edits takes me back a day and a half, so there aren't "perhaps a hundred" editors. Besides, by the time people finish arguing here the tag will be obsolete anyway. Wnt (talk) 18:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Can everyone stop edit-warring till consensus is found! And the template's talkpage has nothing to do with this article. If disagreements continue, other dispute resolutions can take place. Non-constructive edits should stop immediately. Yes, this article had over 34,700 visitors (yesterday alone), but there is less than 30 editors. Good job guys, I like the article.
  • Jim, to answer your question, a simple example of the usage of the tag is Osama bin Laden! The cause-of-death section here only has two sentences, and I haven't seen any changes made to them for awhile. If you consider the article well cited, then the following is already contradicting your reasoning: "...death is not suspicious, and that it could take weeks to establish a cause of death." So, what is the tag for if there haven't been many changes till now, and might not have for some time? ~ AdvertAdam talk 21:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Year of birth

Citation needed? - the source is personal knowledge of this writer, as a long-term friend of the subject. I notice no source is given or requested for the (approximate) date of death. Let's not be too defensive, hmm...? I'm actually testing the water with a minor contribution before deciding whether I will work on the article. If you check the other examples of my conts to Wiki you'll see that I am not a fly-by or a vandal. reineke (talk) 09:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

"personal knowledge" can be useful for research, but information in articles needs to be verifiable from reliable sources. The death date doesn't have a solid reference but there are at least sources in the article, covering his death, which suggest it is correct. Rd232 talk 10:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed; thank you. I am also aware of the criteria of 'verifiability' from previous participation. This article, like so much of Wiki, risks being basically a series of links to websites (newspapers, in this case!). Could you make a helpful suggestion as to how a person with direct knowledge can usefully contribute here? I ask you the question. 194.176.105.153 (talk) 10:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The best thing is to use that direct knowledge to find sources. For instance, if you know his birthdate, it may be easier to search for a source online. Or you might know that his birthdate is published in some reliable offline source which most people wouldn't know about. Rd232 talk 10:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Good - thanks. 194.176.105.153 (talk) 11:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

What sources have we got for his date of birth/year of birth? Off2riorob (talk) 19:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I've added a 'circa' to the DoD as given at the text top; the article cited (Daily Mail, 20.07.11) does not give anything for a date of death. Until the inquest is concluded etc. DoD will remain speculative, but as soon as there is an authoritative source I will add. reineke (talk) 16:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I've corrected year of birth and age at death; birth, death and marriage records can be consulted on microfiche at main libraries. reineke (talk) 01:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The strange circumstances surrounding his death

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7xdEjmIb-M

-G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.149.252 (talk) 08:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The sentence in the death section: "In the weeks leading up to his death he was said to have become a recluse and had grown paranoid that somebody was going to come and kill him." is not sourced or backed up by the sources listed both before and after it. For that reason, I am removing it.

I have watched this page get written by someone who wants to explain away his death as a drug and alcohol related event. It smells fishy and it is entirely possible that he was murdered for his actions. Please keep this page up.Paradise coyote (talk) 16:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Police say they want two weeks to determine 'cause-of-death' and looking at the calendar from July 17th, they should have answers by Monday, August 1st. Set your iPhone to notify and remind you. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

My iphone has yet to make a beep. 24.225.23.147 (talk) 23:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Cause of death

It's been more than two months since his death - way beyond the "several weeks" it was said it might take for the results - and yet I see nothing about his specific cause of death or why it hasn't been released. It would be great if someone could address this issue in the article. Willyfreddy (talk) 16:23, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Where's the cause of death, where's the autopsy. Where is any mention of this man anywhere. I call white wash. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.23.147 (talk) 07:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

  • - Cause of death has not yet been released. Off2riorob (talk) 17:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
    • - Yes, but the question is why not? Willyfreddy (talk) 06:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
That is not a question for here - WP:NOTFORUM - Off2riorob (talk) 07:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
We have to be careful not to actively pursue an editorial position that declares "there is no connection" between NOTW and his death; while anyone may feel very strongly that there is none, they should not delete, from the lede, notice of his death during the ongoing scandal, of which Hoare found himself in the center. In fact it may be because of his death that this article exists in the first place (see previous discussion on this page deleted by Off2riorob (talk). Deletion becomes an editorial position; we don't need to write that Hoare was killed because he exposed Murdoch and the police, nor to we need to write that he drank himself to death, as some may be happy to guess. This is Wikipedia: we don't need to guess anything, and just write that he died of unknown causes. The details can be written into the later section on his death. -Darouet (talk) 19:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Furthermore I think that editors should be very cautious not to hold positions as if they themselves were parties in the NOTW scandal; the police for instance were central to this scandal and so the position of a neutral editor on wikipedia should not, a priori, be that of the British authories. -Darouet (talk) 19:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Off2riorob (talk); sorry for the error. -Darouet (talk) 20:00, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Beginning to look far more professional now. I'll make a few more edits on the "death" section when I have time. -Darouet (talk) 22:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately a number of critical and well sourced improvements have been reverted without discussion. Let's move all work regarding "fear of conspiracy" into discussion here to encourage dialogue and maintain professionalism; Off2riorob (talk) has maintained good faith, and their edits would benefit from discussion here. All users can agree on this out of respect for Wikipedia's encyclopedic project, editorial process, and the subject of this encylopedic entry itself, Sean Hoare, whose critical achievements include acting as a source for police collusion with NOTW in July 2011. As I had included in this article (now removed), the publication of Hoare's remarks led to the immediate resignation of 2 of Britain's highest police officers.[2][3][4] -Darouet (talk) 16:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Just because something sounds conspiratorial to you, Off2riorob, does not make it so. The resignation of the metropolitan police commissioner was a major consequences of Sean Hoare's leak, and must be included in the article. Sean Hoare's statements shortly before his death about being under pressure and fearing that the Government was out to get him are also well known, and were reported widely. If you don't like it, go to a different reality where it didn't happen. You can't censor it here because you don't like it. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi - If the commissioner resigned because of things this person said, lets look at that - citations mentioning them both and including that assertion would help. As for the you don't like it claims - I don't care at all about this issue -if citations and weight is presented we can add detail - but this is not a conspiracy article and we need to keep that redtop titillation out of the article completely. Off2riorob (talk) 22:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Sean Hoare's own statements shortly before his death are relevant, and were reported widely at the time of his death. What grounds do you have to censor them? -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
They are not censored - they are just not being asserted to have been responsible for things that are uncited. Off2riorob (talk) 22:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
You clearly did not read the citations included in the material you removed. Two of the three make the the explicit connection between Sean Hoare's death and the phone hacking scandal, and the resignation of public officials, in particular. The third doesn't make this connection because it was written before Hoare's death. Your reverts have consistently been made within minutes of changes. You must have barely had time to skim over the edits before hitting revert. This isn't evidence of good faith. You could change this and show some good faith by undoing your reverts, then reading over the cited material, and only then coming back here to explain your objections to what's been written. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I had a look at the citations - please present them here for another look, thanks - Please be aware this is the life story of a notable journalist - not the News International phone hacking scandal - bloat about that issue does not belong here, only specific detail related to this subjects life. - Off2riorob (talk) 22:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
To the extent that Sean Hoare is unrelated to News of the World, and News of the World is unrelated to Sean Hoare, you are correct. And because Hoare is the reason the scandal broke in the first place, and because the scandal was central to the last year of his life, this assertion on your part is unbelievable. I can no longer believe that your interest in this article are merely encyclopedic or related to improving Wikipedia. You don't want any mention of Hoare's effect on the Metropolitan police department through the NOTW scandal. You don't want any mention of his own, well covered fears of death before he did, in fact, die. Why? If all this is "bloat," perhaps information about the Pentagon Papers on the Ellsberg page is also bloat? -Darouet (talk) 13:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
You should know that Hoare is very relevant to NOTW - as you argued very strenuously in July that this is perhaps the only reason why he is notable. -Darouet (talk) 17:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sean_Hoare/Archive_1&oldid=1137177804"