Talk:Death of Ian Tomlinson/Archive 3

Any article issues present?
This topic is controversial. Someone tried to rewrite a lead as if a police officer deliberately killed a man. Fortunately, I reverted it. (See below) I could not find fault thoroughly in the article. I am worried, though, about its quality, BLP concerns, and all that. --George Ho (talk) 18:37, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Somehow, another user recovered what I reverted and then added sources. --George Ho (talk) 21:46, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, by all means lay out your concerns and we can try to deal with them. Sarah (talk) 02:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Section headings must be renamed, like "Tomlinson" section. If renamed, would layout change be necessary? Also, "Early reaction and analysis" section is... kinda too detailed. Speaking of "Tomlinson" section, even if there are no conspiracy theories, does the section accurately describe what happened during the event? "How the story emerged" section shouldn't have dates parenthesized; reformatting is needed. I'll slowly look for more issues if I can. It looks well written, so I hope I can be wrong about issues. Otherwise, it puts FA certification into question. --George Ho (talk) 02:30, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree about the section that someone called Tomlinson, now changed back. As for the rest, you would need to be more specific about which details are unnecessary. Not sure what you mean about conspiracy theories, and yes, that section describes what happened as reported. Re: spelling, the article uses Oxford spelling (realizes, not realises). Sarah (talk) 16:36, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ... Never mind. I could not find fault. George Ho (talk) 19:05, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, I don't know why dates are parenthesized in subheadings of "How the story emerged". I'll change to colons. Would dashes be used alternatively? --George Ho (talk) 20:58, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, your edit was fine. Sarah (talk) 01:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

First paragraph
Re: this edit. That sentence is lower in the lead, in chronological order, where its relevance is explained. There's no need to repeat it in the first paragraph. The current first paragraph is a "lead within a lead," which is best avoided. Sarah (talk) 17:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That's no less true of the third sentence. One could perhaps make the case that the lead has too much detail in general. But in my view the sentence I've restored is a crucial detail and merits prominence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomoskedasticity (talk • contribs)


 * Hi Sarah, I made an edit - the most important and notable detail about this person is that he - was a newspaper vendor who was judged at inquest to have been unlawfully killed by a police officer and so that s first to be stated in the opening - Ian Tomlinson (7 February 1962 – 1 April 2009) was a newspaper vendor who was judged at inquest to have been unlawfully killed by a police officer.[2] Tomlinson collapsed and died in the City of London after being struck by Simon Harwood, a constable with London's Metropolitan Police Service during the 2009 G-20 London summit protests[2] Harwood was found not guilty of manslaughter, but was dismissed from the police service for gross misconduct. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi sorry, I reverted that, Govinda. The first point is that he was a newspaper vendor who was killed during the G20 protests after being hit by a police officer. From there, in my view, we should move into the first autopsy so that the narrative in the lead is chronological. But if people want to have what happened to the officer in the first paragraph too, okay.


 * But to add the inquest verdict is packing too much into the first para, making it a lead within a lead. It means we have repetition because we're forced to explain lower down what role the inquest played in the decision to prosecute. Sarah (talk) 19:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Problem
This is an article that I brought to featured-article status. This means that I'm expected to maintain it, which involves from time to time copy-editing, removing repetition and old sources, perhaps adding new ones, removing anything that smacks of recentism.

The lead how says:

"An inquest found that he had been unlawfully killed by the police officer, known to be Simon Harwood, a constable with London's Metropolitan Police Service. Harwood, a constable with London's Metropolitan Police Service ..."

When I fix it, I'm reverted and get this note. I can either take it off my watchlist and let it deteriorate, or I can be allowed to look after it. But it isn't reasonable to expect me to have to argue that the kind of writing above is not okay. Sarah (talk) 19:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "This is an article that I brought to featured-article status. This means that I'm expected to maintain it" - please link to that guideline, thanks I don't get that, users here don't own anything they create and you don't own this article and as I understand it you have no requirement to care for it just because you got a featured article status for it Govindaharihari (talk) 20:03, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I've restored the SV language, it is unnecessary to repeat it. Second, any content creator is going to look after an article that they took to featured status, and that does not raise ownership issues. GregJackP   Boomer!   20:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I've just seen this. I'm confused by Sarah's attitude. She appears to be falsely equating "looking after the article" with "getting my own way all the time with no-one challenging me."

Put simply, yes you do have to explain yourself. The lead as you quoted above (which I have been trying to insert) is accurate and and supported by the sources. The wording you seem to prefer is incomplete and misleading. It falsely implies the inquest made no finding as to who killed Tomlinson. It did make such a finding. The finding was that the police officer killed him. This is important information and should be included.

That is my reasoning. If I'm wrong, I'm happy to be told why. And I'm willing to change my mind. But I rather resent someone saying that I am obviously wrong and that my arguments can be automatically ignored without them presenting a rational argument demonstrating WHY I am wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.147.94.92 (talk) 20:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * How about if I explain it. It is not ownership to revert sloppy prose in order to replace it with good writing. What was inserted into the article was repetitive, poorly written, and in the American vernacular, stunk. It did not belong in a featured article, but I'm sure that Sarah was much too polite to tell you the writing was nowhere close to being acceptable. I'm already an ass, so I don't have that limitation. Regards, GregJackP   Boomer!   22:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Having reviewed what I did, you are right about repetition. Obviously, the phrase "a constable..." was repeated unnecessarily.  That was a mistake on my part.  I am surprised, however, that the whole thing had to be removed.  Surely a more constructive approach would have been to suitably amend the repeated part.  I note that you don't seem to disagree with the core principle of what I was clearly trying to do: namely, have the article accurately reflect the fact the inquest found that the police officer had unlawfully killed Tomlinson.


 * I too am surprised by the notion that someone thinks they should "be allowed to look after it", i.e., expect others to defer. Of course, taking it off one's watch list is an option...  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:45, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


 * FA writers are expected to maintain the articles they write. See here, for example, about ownership versus stewardship. Several editors were asked recently to identify articles we had brought to FA that we're maintaining so that any not being maintained might be taken to featured-article review. I added this article to the "maintained" list, so I'd like to be allowed to do the work. I accept that major issues will need discussion, but minor copy-editing of the kind above shouldn't trigger reverting and notes on my talk page, etc. Sarah (talk) 20:51, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm learning a lot about how Wikipedia works lately!


 * In my opinion, by threatening to stop editing, you are in breach of Wikipedia's ownership policy. The unstated implication underlying your threat is that you are so indispensable to the page, that you can't be allowed to leave.  Now that is plainly at odds with the ownership policy.  I gather from what's been said that you've put a huge amount of work into this article.  I acknowledge and respect that.  And clearly your opinions are of considerable weight.  But the policy couldn't be clearer.  No matter your status, no matter your previous work, everyone can contribute, and no-one is indispensable.


 * That said, you acknowledge major issues will need discussion. I think the problem here is that my work contained a copy-edit issue (mistaken repetition of one phrase) and a major issue (whether we should state the full factual finding of the inquest: that the police officer unlawfully killed Tomlinson.)  You effectively conflated these two separate issues by reverting everything, instead of just removing the actual repetition, which obviously I cannot and do not object to.95.147.94.92 (talk) 10:46, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I've taken a look at the ownership link provided above. I was particularly struck by the following sentence:

"Provided that contributions and input from fellow editors are not ignored or immediately disregarded, being the primary or sole editor of an article does not constitute ownership."

Well I certainly feel completely ignored and disregarded at the moment. Sarah, your last post completely ignored my substantive argument so I'll put it to you again. The lead as you quoted above (which I have been trying to insert) is accurate and and supported by the sources. The wording you seem to prefer is incomplete and misleading. It falsely implies the inquest made no finding as to who killed Tomlinson. It did make such a finding. The finding was that the police officer killed him. This is important information and should be included.

Please stop ignoring me. Please present a rational argument as to why you think I am wrong. This is not an unreasonable request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.147.94.92 (talk) 20:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As I noted above, the writing you inserted was sloppy. Regards, GregJackP   Boomer!   22:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. And replied to you above.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.147.94.92 (talk) 22:47, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Sarah's prose in the lede was well-crafted; the alterations to the phrasing by Govindaharihari and 95.147.94.92 were, in contrast, quite tortuous. And more than a little, an unbiased observer might conclude, motivated by a desire to slam the copper responsible as early as possible in the article. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not the front page of the Daily Express. Keri (talk) 23:19, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I resent your accusation that I am just trying to slam Harwood and I ask you withdraw it at once. I just want things to be accurate. When I first saw the article, I noted that the reporting of the unlawful killing appeared inaccurate and I tried to correct it. First I got it wrong and said Harwood himself had been found to have unlawfully killed Tomlinson. I then realised my mistake and corrected it. And I would firmly criticise that inaccuracy just as I am criticisng this one. I do feel very frustrated that, having tried to engage with people and explain clearly what I'm doing and why, certain people seem more interested in flinging mud and making nasty insinuations rather than actually engage with my substantive points. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.147.94.92 (talk) 23:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I couldn't give a flying fuck about what you do or do not resent. The article was accurate. "When I first saw the article, I noted that the reporting of the unlawful killing appeared inaccurate and I tried to correct it. First I got it wrong and said Harwood himself had been found to have unlawfully killed Tomlinson..." So, you read the article and decided that because it didn't say what you wanted it to say, it must be "inaccurate" and you changed it. Except it transpired that what you wanted it to say wasn't correct. I rest my case. Keri (talk) 00:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You're twisting what I said.


 * The article was not wrong because "it didn't say what I wanted it to say." It was wrong because it falsely implied the inquest made no finding as to who killed Tomlinson.  It did make such a finding.  The finding was that the police officer killed him.  I merely made the initial mistake of thinking that implied the finding was that Harwood killed him.  Which is not correct.  And I corrected that myself once I realised my mistake.


 * Now please stop swearing at me and insulting me, and address the substantive point. If you disagree with my argument above, all you need to is present a rational argument, pointing out where I have gone wrong.  It's that simple.95.147.94.92 (talk) 09:57, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

family, really??
why no mention of his "loving family" for all the years they had nothing to do with him at all? That he was a homeless drunk for a long time with no contact or support from any family member at all. But once there was a chance of compo money they all came out of the woodwork? Do they think we are all stupid, they didnt give a damn about the victim until money was involved — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.229.88 (talk) 11:09, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The article is about the death of a man who was unlawfully killed by a police officer. His family are irrelevant to that. Keri (talk) 11:17, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Death of Ian Tomlinson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100412074621/http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=45224&c=1 to http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=45224&c=1
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090406063438/http://london.indymedia.org.uk/videos/1023 to https://london.indymedia.org.uk/videos/1023

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Death of Ian Tomlinson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/5hjV3fxk0?url=http://cms.met.police.uk/news/updates/operation_glencoe_policing_and_security_for_the_g20_london_summit to http://cms.met.police.uk/news/updates/operation_glencoe_policing_and_security_for_the_g20_london_summit
 * Added tag to http://www.met.police.uk/news/docs/g20_final_report.pdf
 * Added tag to http://www.met.police.uk/news/docs/g20_final_report.pdf
 * Added tag to http://www.met.police.uk/news/docs/g20_final_report.pdf
 * Added tag to http://www.met.police.uk/news/docs/g20_final_report.pdf
 * Added tag to http://www.met.police.uk/news/docs/g20_final_report.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:03, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Death of Ian Tomlinson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090426060917/http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/society/law_order/exclusive+new+g20+video+evidence/3103837 to http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/society/law_order/exclusive+new+g20+video+evidence/3103837
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090415142830/http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/domestic_politics/truth+behind+tomlinson+footage/3086007 to http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/domestic_politics/truth+behind+tomlinson+footage/3086007

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:16, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Death of Ian Tomlinson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170208034702/https://www.ipcc.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Documents/investigation_commissioner_reports/inv_rep_independent_investigation_into_the_death_of_ian_tomlinson_1.pdf to https://www.ipcc.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Documents/investigation_commissioner_reports/inv_rep_independent_investigation_into_the_death_of_ian_tomlinson_1.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170208034702/https://www.ipcc.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Documents/investigation_commissioner_reports/inv_rep_independent_investigation_into_the_death_of_ian_tomlinson_1.pdf to https://www.ipcc.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Documents/investigation_commissioner_reports/inv_rep_independent_investigation_into_the_death_of_ian_tomlinson_1.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110807131557/http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/en/Documents/pathologists_090511.pdf to http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/en/Documents/pathologists_090511.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:58, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Death of Ian Tomlinson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120130173055/http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/press_statements/cps_statement_following_conclusion_of_inquest_into_death_of_ian_tomlinson_/ to http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/press_statements/cps_statement_following_conclusion_of_inquest_into_death_of_ian_tomlinson_/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:11, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Featured article review
This article no longer meets Featured article criteria and attempts to address problems are reverted. If editors here do not want the article improved, it should be listed at Featured article review for demotion. DrKay (talk) 08:49, 21 November 2020 (UTC)


 * , it seems like the problem you identified has been resolved. I'm seeing one reference to IndyMedia, but no other ref flags here. Still needing review? FemkeMilene (talk) 21:37, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , can you say what the problems are? SarahSV (talk) 20:42, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi have the problems in this article been resolved? Would you like to mark this as "Satisfactory" on WP:URFA/2020B and remove it from WP:FARGIVEN, or should the notice stand and the article be fixed up or brought to FAR? Z1720 (talk) 21:16, 5 February 2022 (UTC)