Talk:Killing of Mark Duggan/Archive 1

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)
 * A miscarriage is the delivery of a non-viable fetus. A "stillborn" delivery is a type of late-term miscarriage.  In utero death of fetus results in either expulsion or resorption of products of conception (including fetus).  Expulsion of the fetus and other products of conception is one cause of spontaneous abortion / "miscarriage," and if this occurs late during the pregnancy it is known as stillbirth. Jeffhall318 (talk) 13:47, 10 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)

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)

"There will be inquiries etc. Mark Duggan may not be noteworthy as a person." That'S exactly why it should be under the death of name. -Koppapa (talk) 18:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Cckkab -- Duggan isn't really "notable" except for the manner of his death and its consequences; see also the existing articles Death of Jean Charles de Menezes and Death of Ian Tomlinson. It's much better to leave the article name as it is... AnonMoos (talk) 00:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

This article should not be renamed, and it should DEFINITELY not be deleted. Preposterous! Tim Riches, Brampton, Ontario (talk) 17:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

IPCC article
http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/news/Pages/pr_090811_dugganupdate.aspx

This is an excellent source of information and should be used/quoted, but not copy/pasted into the article violet/riga [talk] 13:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

No mention of...
The fact no prints have been found on the casings of the inner chamber or that bullet does not match his gun and instead matches a police firearm? How odd. 203.59.15.85 (talk) 13:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC) Harlequin

Image of scene
I just removed this image: File:Ferry Lane, Tottenham Hale - geograph.org.uk - 1767129.jpg

It is a useful image to include, showing where the incident happened, its placement in the Aftermath section is not really appropriate. Hopefully as this article expands it can be put back. violet/riga [talk] 20:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Merge it with 2011 England riots
Changed 2011 London riots to 2011 England riots Suggest merge Mark Duggan, no notable historical person, into 2011 England riots. Merge it into that article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.165.132 (talk • contribs)
 * The place to comment is Articles for deletion/Mark Duggan (2011 London riots). WWGB (talk) 01:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree: Merge with 2011 UK Riots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.87.177 (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Mark Duggan's only "claim to fame" (no offense intended) was his role in the riots. We have virtually nothing in regards to his biography, at least nothing that makes him Wiki-relevant. A section in the Riots page detailing the circumstances of his death will suffice. Bundito (talk) 18:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This vote has to be done at Articles for deletion/Death of Mark Duggan. violet/riga [talk] 18:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes include this on the riots page, it does not need its own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.236.124 (talk) 19:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

It reads like a news article and would be better as a re-direct to the London Riots 2011. Plus this could in the future become a major battle ground between groups debating what happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.105.96 (talk) 21:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Page should be a re-direct only. Not notable except for his death as a catalyst for violence.Pär Larsson (talk) 22:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, then according to 78.151.105.96 we should delete all controversial articles! This death and the investigation that will follow, extending for months or years, will have its own development and pace, different from the one of the riots. What's interesting here is that (as proven amply) lies were told to the press by the police in an attempt to make the victim seem responsible for his own death. To erase this article takes us away from NPOV: it can be interpreted as some kind of coverage or indulgence towards the police actions. The riots will be over in a matter of days, the investigation into Mr. Duggan death will carry on for a longer time. I suggest to change the title of this article to "Death of Mark Duggan". The consequences and contributions that surely will be made to this article are very different and have a different theme and pace that the ones about the riots. This article is about a possible disciplinary action towards policemen, the riots are about a public disturbance. I say let it stand. The fact that both articles are sad (riots and lies by police officers about a death are to be lamented) does not mean we should try to cover one and display the other. The argument by Parjlarsson is irrelevant. This death will be notable for the investigation it will cause, not only "as a catalyst for violence". If that were true, then erase the article on the Death of Marat and redirect it to The Terror. Ciroa (talk) 02:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposed 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)


 * I can't see why this article should be deleted. It served my purposes when I looked for information and it indeed has a number of evaluators who, in general, gave it good ratings. Ictlogist (talk) 18:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I can't see any reason to delete this article either. No idea why it's been suggested for deletion. It's a notable part of an impacting event. It seems pretty unbiased and well cited based on the information available about the event so far. 82.152.164.44 (talk) 10:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * What? Why would somebody propose this article for deletion? The current riots are one of the most interesting situations of the year so far. And after all, isn't Wikipedia self-labelled as The Free Encyclopedia? Wouldn't make much sense if an encyclopedia purposely left out information pertaining to a potentially large event. Granted the information could be moved to an equally appropriate article, but for now it's perfectly fine.  mÆniac  Ask! 03:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose deletion. Why is this person's death so important? We'd all like to learn about it! Keep it. -  Niri M / ನಿರಿ  19:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose deletion. Alleged cause of 2011 England riots. Bender2k14 (talk) 22:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Expressing your opinion here won't do much good at the moment; the place to do so is Articles for deletion/Death of Mark Duggan... AnonMoos (talk) 12:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose deletion. And frankly, even the suggestion of deleting such a high-profile article borders on vandalism.  Deterence  Talk 14:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

1992 Los Angeles riots
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)


 * Innocent men don't carry guns? that's such a stupid comment. Police carry guns. Soldiers carry guns. Law-abiding citizens who live in rough places and want to protect themselves carry guns. As you can see, so far there is no evidence that he fired at police, according to the IPCC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.14.244.217 (talk) 18:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "Law-abiding citizens who live in rough places and want to protect themselves carry guns." I see your ISP places you in the USA. Enough said. WWGB (talk) 00:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Police and soldiers are sworn in to their profession and face the same repercussions as criminals if they miss use their firearms. "Law-abiding citizens who live in rough places and want to protect themselves carry guns" ALL hand guns are illegal in the UK, so your comment is one of ignorance. IF the police did shoot first, it’s still ok. Mark Duggan did have an illegal handgun with a bullet in the chamber, according to the IPCC. So if the police felt that they were going to get shot at, they are in their right to defend themselves from criminals. Dont carry illegal hand guns, sell drugs, or do anything illegal and you won’t have anything to worry about from the police. That is why this isn’t similar to the riots in '92, where Rodney King wasn't doing anything illegal. Hurleyman (talk) 20:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * So, in the UK the penalty for carrying a gun is immediate death by Police officers, no matter what you do with the gun? I guess the same penalty applies to "sell drugs, or do anything illegal", the argument being: "well, Police officers killed him, but he was selling drugs". I would say that is very important for Police to establish that he was an actual menace to them. Police lied to the press when they said he shot them! Is that normal in the UK? Doesn't that deserve an article? If that's the Police policy and that is the callous reaction of the UK public to patent lies by police officers when they kill a criminal, no wonder we had the riots. Ciroa (talk) 02:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Rodney King was driving at over the speed limit whilst drunk. He didn't stop for the police, which is why he was being pursued by the LAPD. Jim Michael (talk) 23:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * So, again, if you drive under the influence and do not stop, police can beat you? That's a new Penal Code, Jim Michael, as far as I know.

That's the very reason why Mr. King has an article in this encyclopedia on the beating itself, the subsequent disciplinary action and trial of the officers and about what Mr. King did after the investigation was over, when he became a celebrity. That's a separated article from the one on L.A. riots. Ciroa (talk) 02:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * If he shot the police, why was the bullet recovered shown to be from a police-issued gun? Adelson Velsky Landis (talk) 15:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It appears that the bullet in the police radio was from an officer's gun, fired at the incident. Duggan's gun was loaded. It has not been revealed whether or not Duggan shot at police, and if so, whether any bullet from him hit anyone at the scene (he could have shot and missed). When such info is reported by reliable sources, it should be added to this article. Jim Michael (talk) 16:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I disagree. It has been proven and accepted by the Police itself that Mr. Duggan did not shoot his weapon. This means we DO know that the Police lied when they said he shot them. Then, why the lying? I quote: "investigative journalist Tony Gosling, ... said: It’s not the only death of an ethnic minority that the police have been responsible for. We have had something like 340 deaths, mostly of ethnic minorities in police custody over the last 12 years. That’s around one a month without a single conviction of a police officer.” This is a different issue from the one of riots: it's an article about an investigation of a death, the circumstances surrounding this death and the consequences that might or might not happen to those officers involved in the incident, not about the rioters or the riots. Ciroa (talk) 02:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Stating how many people have died in police custody, or the ethnic distribution of them is irrelevant to this case. This probably is not classified as a death in custody, because he was not likely under arrest. Suspects / criminals dying of natural causes, self-administered drug overdoses, suicides in police cells are not homicides, so why would any police be prosecuted for their deaths? Of course blacks are overrepresented in the statistics, as they are arrested, charged etc at a much higher rate than whites, Asians etc. Whites are shot by the police too, eg, Death of Harry Stanley, who was not armed. Even if it is proved that Duggan didn't shoot at police on 4 August, it doesn't tell us that he didn't pull his gun on them and threaten to shoot them. Jim Michael (talk) 16:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear, early reports that Mark Duggan shot at the police have been entirely discredited. The police have (belatedly) announced that the gun found with (near?) Mark Duggan had NOT been fired and ballistics testing of the bullet that hit a police officer's radio have shown that it was fired from a police officer's firearm - in other words, Mark Duggan didn't fire a single shot and a police officer shot another police officer's radio.  Deterence  Talk 15:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

David Lammy further comments
David Lammy: 'There is a history in Tottenham that involves deaths in police custody' may contain further useful material. --Trevj (talk) 09:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Background section could do with some non-biographical material regarding the police and their community relations, especially. Some of this can be sourced from the 2011 England riots article. ARK (talk) 11:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Injured police officer
Why is it not mentioned anywhere what the nature and extent of the police officer's injuries were? Obviously this is relevant as it will determine whether the police were correct in firing on Duggan. Exclusion of this creates a very clear bias in the overall tone of the article. I note that this aspect is also not covered in any of the related articles. 196.216.16.10 (talk) 12:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * All that's appeared so far in solid news reports (as opposed to vague early rumors) is that a police-issued bullet ended up lodged in a police-officer's radio. AnonMoos (talk) 12:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * That is exactly my point. Why the secrecy / lack of investigation on this aspect by the press?


 * Surely Duggan was no more important than the wounded officer? Everything else surrounding Duggan's death has been published as fact although nothing has been proven.

Why not this? 196.216.16.10 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC).


 * Dude, there's no indication at this point that there ever was any "wounded officer"... AnonMoos (talk) 16:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

""The IPCC said police fired two shots. One killed Duggan, the other lodged in the radio of another police officer.""
 * Like AnonMoos, I have read nothing about an injured officer; if the bullet in the radio resulted in injury, (bruising?) it seems not to have been fired by Mark Duggan. Laurel L. Russwurm (talk) 10:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

"A police officer was also injured after a bullet – presumably from a ricochet – lodged in his radio. ... an officer was taken to hospital after the incident." WWGB (talk) 12:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "A CO19 officer was taken to hospital as a precautionary measure but has since been discharged" (The Independent, 5 August 2011). ARK (talk) 12:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I suggest that the injuries sustained by the police officer are moot given the recent reports that Mark Duggan's gun had NOT been fired and the bullet lodged in the "wounded" police officer's radio was of police issue and was in all likelihood fired by a police officer.  Deterence  Talk 12:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Deterence gives the best reasoning as always ... thank you. This is indeed a moot point taking all current reports into consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.216.16.10 (talk) 11:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

This talk page appears to have been corrupted
Many sections and comments have suddenly disappeared and some comments have been moved around, making for some rather ridiculous threads. Does anyone know what has happened and how to fix it?  Deterence  Talk 10:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Tomlinson
The impression is given that Ian Tomlinson was "Afro-Carribean". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.127.7 (talk) 17:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * How? Nick Cooper (talk) 22:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Why were they trying to arrest him?
The current article says only that the police were trying to arrest him "as part of a police operation". That's sort of meaningless, isn't it? –174.24.187.86 (talk) 04:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's currently known, other than that they thought he had something to do with illegal guns... AnonMoos (talk) 04:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe it means he was not arrested on the street in flagrancy, nor was he charged with something and then arrested. He wasn't the subject of a warrant or court order. He was being followed because the police presumed he was going to take revenge by a previous murder of a relative and because he was part of a "gun violence gang" (whatever that means). At some point into the operation the officers tried to put him in custody. Hence the "police operation" mentioned. I think it also implies, subtly, that the police sting operation was the detonator of this incident, but that's only my opinion, of course. --Ciroa (talk) 00:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * "Police operation" means little more than the fact that police officers were involved. It's a "police operation" when a uniformed police officer tickets motorists for speeding.  Deterence  Talk 04:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Armed officers had planned to arrest Duggan and were following the minicab that he was a passenger in. I don't believe it has been revealed why, only that it was part of Operation Trident, hence they knew or suspected he was carrying a gun. It seems to only be speculation that Duggan was on his way to shoot his cousin's killer. Jim Michael (talk) 16:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Wasnt it connected to the fact one of his many girlfriends is also due in court, charged with possessing a large amount of cocaine ?? Y'know, the one the riots were about, because the Police had 'disrespected' her by failing to visit to offer condolences after the illegal and non peaceful protests outside Tottenham Police Station, just before a few of them started committing acts of trespass, criminal damage, threatening behaviour, etc etc.?? Pretty sure that is why they didnt go round to see her - the cocaine and guns were the reason they were trying to arrest him.80.42.228.245 (talk) 21:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)twl80.42.228.245 (talk) 21:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Essential information
This article just lacks any sort of credibility if it fails to mention why the police tried to arrest him. It's a vital part of the story, and providing the information is essential (or at least, as much of it as is known). Failure to mention that is almost hinting that the police just happened to be following him by accident, and that they tried to arrest him for littering or something. All of these have more than adequate sources. The reverting by some seems as though they disagree just because they don't like the color of the logo on the front page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.22.28 (talk) 20:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Indisputable fact: He was being followed as part of Operation Trident.
 * Indisputable fact: He was suspected of carrying a gun.
 * Indisputable fact: He was carrying a gun at the time the arrest was attempted.
 * Indisputable fact: He was linked with a gang known for carrying guns
 * Indisputable fact: He was suspected of planning a revenge attack following a family murder (whether he did plan one is besides the point, it's 100% true that he is suspected of such)


 * While the assertion that the police were attempting to arrest Duggan to prevent a revenge killing sounds broadly plausible, the claim, at this stage, could be dismissed as unpublished synthesis under Original_research except for two published sources that appear to support it, depending on your reading of "amid fears": The Sun article of 6 August and the Daily Mail piece of 8 August that borrowed the "amid fears" line from the Sun.


 * Neither the Met nor the IPCC have stated any reason for the attempted arrest, and the (purported) link to the (allegedly) planned revenge killing, however plausible, is as tenuous as the initial claim that Duggan shot at the police: it's speculation.


 * I believe that the Sun and the Daily Mail reports need to stay in the Background section. To include their claim as established fact in the lead, however, is premature. ARK (talk) 09:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * They don't need to state a reason. Last time I checked, carrying a gun IS reason enough in itself for somebody to be arrested... Believe it or not, the police do sometimes try to get guns of the streets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.22.28 (talk) 23:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC) <!--Autosigned by SineBot
 * This is entirely beside the point. The issue is that the article's lead currently claims as established fact that the police were attempting to arrest Duggan to prevent a revenge killing. The only basis of this assertion is the single phrase in the Sun, repeated by another newspaper or two, that he was arrested "amid fears" of him planning to commit a revenge killing. That basis is very thin. ~

Jacketed round
Jacketed round should not link to full-metal jacket bullet, as hollow-point, frangible, ballistic tip, and bonded bullets are all jacketed bullets, yet are not FMJ bullets. The only thing clear about the bullet is that the authorities believe that it was fired by CO19. If someone can provide evidence that CO19 exclusively uses FMJ bullets, which is quite possible, then it is verifiable.VmZH88AZQnCjhT40 (talk) 19:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Semi-automatic
BBM Bruni produces, almost exclusively, fully automatic blank-firing pistols. A fully automatic pistol is self-loading. Why is semi-automatic linked? This appears to be synthesis in the absence of verifiable information from the UK authorities.VmZH88AZQnCjhT40 (talk) 19:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, looking at the Bruni website, of the products modelled on semi-automatic pistols, the vast majority have the same mode of operation. Nick Cooper (talk) 21:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Image
Interesting that the image chosen for the article infobox is a rarely-seen one. How about the most commonly broadcast/published one, of him posing with his fingers in the shape of a gun? Hmmm... --TBM10 (talk) 20:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I refer you to WP:NPOV. With some urgency. Further more, it is a bit of a stretch of the imagination to suggest that Mark Duggan is "posing with his fingers in the shape of a gun" in the picture you have linked - to my eyes, it looks like he's giving the fingers to the cameraman. Just to be clear, I support a Revert to File:Mark-duggan.jpg. Deterence  Talk 03:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Revert to File:Mark-duggan.jpg. I also think that WP:NPOV concerns may be an issue with File:Mark-duggan-pic-rex-features-552429854.jpg (particularly with the stated reason for inclusion, which may also be inferred by other readers). The previous image, File:Mark-duggan.jpg, shows the subject's full face (as noted in this revert). Just because the media have picked a certain photo doesn't mean it's the best one to be used on Wikipedia. MOS:BIO doesn't seem to include guidelines on images. Therefore, I support a revert to File:Mark-duggan.jpg. --Trevj (talk) 05:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Revert to File:Mark-duggan.jpg, essentially for same reasons as others above. News organisations probably have their own reasons for using File:Mark-duggan-pic-rex-features-552429854.jpg (at the least it's more dramatic, but it would also support an agenda to imply something about Duggan, hence my NPOV concerns). Also, File:Mark-duggan.jpg is a much clearer image of Duggan's face. (PS: I now see that File:Mark-duggan.jpg is now being used anyway.) --A bit iffy (talk) 07:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Newspaper editors clearly select pictures on the basis of attracting readers to buy their papers. An image which implies someone is mimicking holding a gun (or e.g. looking mean in a mugshot, etc. - as often seen in other cases) meets this criterion. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, so the image should be chosen according to encyclopedic criteria. --Trevj (talk) 11:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Revert to File:Mark-duggan.jpg for reasons stated by others above. ARK (talk) 11:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Revert to File:Mark-duggan.jpg for reasons stated by others above. Adelson Velsky Landis (talk) 18:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Rolleyes yeah, let's erase all connections between violence and this gangster. It should all be sanitized, and we should make it look like he's a sympathetic family man who never touched a gun in his life. Furthermore, there's mileage in the fact that the other image is more widely used and more well known... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.22.28 (talk) 23:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I refer you to WP:NPOV. Mark Duggan might have been a complete douche-bag, and most editors probably think he got what was coming to him, but this is an encyclopaedia and we're trying to maintain some degree of credibility by not taking sides.
 * There may be a place for provocative photographs where they paint an accurate picture of the subject. But, the danger with such photographs is that we do not know how accurate they portray the character of the people in them. For all we know, the "fingers in the shape of a gun" picture might have been a chanced photo of Duggan scratching his chin or he might have been posing as a "gangsta" for a joke at a party - the point is, we do not know. Let's pretend we're professionals and stick with the neutral picture.  Deterence  Talk 01:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Plenty of room in the article for both images. WWGB (talk) 00:29, 16 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) Did he have a licence? Or did he just do illegal minicab driving too? I'd like to know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.228.245 (talk) 21:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Jeremiah Duggan
Is there any connection to the english Student Jeremiah Duggan from London who was killed in 2003 in Germany? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jeremiah_Duggan 92.73.91.179 (talk) 17:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Other than having the same surname, obviously not. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * How is obviously not? It is a fair question to ask.  Deterence  Talk 14:50, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well for a start, one is white and one is black. WWGB (talk) 15:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You are somewhat ignorant of genetics - its perfectly possible for a black woman to give birth to a white baby (and yes indeed, vice versa). But I dont know if Jeremiah Duggan was related. Mark Duggan was related to 'Noonan' a yardie gangster from Manchester, who boasted of being involved in 25 murders in a C5 documentary though.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.228.245 (talk) 21:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Duggan may not be a common name, but it's not particularly rare. It's just a coincidence. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Poor sources
I am dismayed that we still have material here that is only referenced to the Daily Mail and The Sun. I would suggest that unless better sources can be found, such material be removed. --John (talk) 04:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That's rather harsh, you are basically proposing a blacklist of those sources where no argument has been made that their content is inappropriate. I would only agree that the material be removed if other sources cite contrary facts. WWGB (talk) 05:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * In User:John's defence, The Daily mail and The Sun are infamous for "reporting" blatant lies and sensationalised rhetoric. They are so utterly unreliable that discerning readers would be noticeably surprised to discover that any of their articles contain more fact than fiction. Especially with regards to emotive issues like the England riots. I would be perfectly content to see that material removed until those claims have are supported by WP:RS.  Deterence  Talk 06:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that large tabloid newspapers inherently fall outside the definition of "respected mainstream publications", and any presumption of their limited reliability, or guidelines based on such a presumption, would need to be established before they can be applied to this article. I'd also hazard the guess that every assertion currently attributed only to the Daily Mail or The Sun could be found in publications of lesser circulation if one put one's mind to it. The point of the exercise wouldn't be self-evident to me, however, as I don't particularly suspect the assertions of being false. ARK (talk) 07:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Truth is not the issue here. Verifiability is. --John (talk) 07:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * ARK, you are the first person I have EVER seen claim that The Sun and The Daily Mail are "respected mainstream publications". Seriously, how much credibility do you think you have after saying that? As for throwing the burden of proving that they are not "respected mainstream publications" upon us ... the mind boggles.  Deterence  Talk 08:05, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Re: "how much credibility do you think you have"? Probably a lot more than an editor who only contributes to talk pages. WWGB (talk) 08:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The day I feel the need to troll through another editor's contributions history is the day you can shoot me.  Deterence  Talk 08:58, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And deny Wikipedia the benefit of a remarkable insight? Nfw ..... WWGB (talk) 09:04, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Is that it? If there is nothing else to be said here I will take down these claims in 24 hours if no better sources can be found. --John (talk) 21:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Take them down now if you like. There has been ample time for discussion about this issue. Only a total fool believes that The Sun and the Daily Mail are up to the standards of WP:RS.  Deterence  Talk 00:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Done, though it took me longer than I said. On such a high-profile case it should be easy to find better sources than the Sun or the Mail. We are not a tabloid and do not repeat claims only found in tabloids. --John (talk) 23:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)