User talk:80.192.103.31

Welcome!
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, such as the one you made to History of terrorism. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

Here are some links to pages you may find useful:
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but if you wish to acquire additional privileges, you can simply create an account. It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:
 * Create new pages and rename pages
 * Edit semi-protected pages
 * Upload images
 * Have your own watchlist, which shows when articles you are interested in have changed

If you edit without an account, your IP address (80.192.103.31) is used to identify you instead.

We hope that you choose to become a Wikipedian and  [ create an account] . If you need help, check out Questions, or you can  to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. We also have an intuitive guide on editing if you're interested. By the way, please make sure to sign and date your talk page comments with four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;).

Happy editing! Amccann421 &#160; (talk) 19:49, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Mark Duggan
Hey bro, hope you're good. You've just added a Neutrality template to Death of Mark Duggan, with the rationale "Article seems highly biased against the Met, despite the facts of the case". I disagree with some of your edits, but I understand where you're coming from. I would ask you to consider this. Given that many of the "theories" about the death come from those who think that Duggan was wrongfully killed, adding a large and very visible "Neutrality disputed" template at the top of the article results in those who have conspiracy theories -- or whatever -- about the death and supposed cover-ups, will see the large template and assume it is about that. They will assume the template means that there was a police cover-up. The talk page -- which the template directs people to -- doesn't do much to dispell such ideas.

We can have discussions about how to represent things fairly, but having a huge template that encourages conspiracy theorists to go down the "maybe it was aliens! maybe the aliens were working with the police!" madness, does not help. What do you think? MPS1992 (talk) 21:11, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello. I don't think its an encyclopedia place to dispell ideas. The article has flaws throughout, attention needs to be drawn to that both in case of someone relying on it or more importantly to flag to experienced editors the issue so they can work on fixing it. It relys far to much on newspaper articles, which are high bias in the UK, compared to the BBC or ITN which are legal required to be unbiased.

For example the line i fact tagged, as evidence emerges our understanding of events change Whereas "changed their story" is a loaded term, which isn't reflected in the main board of the article. New evidence appeared like the bullet in the police officer's radio being a ricochet whereas changed their story inplies a police conspiracy, which from the summary skim of sources I saw no suggestion of.

I do think the template should stay, I've long term ones on lots of articles, like history of the Quran or History of Terrorism and I don't think it means anything but this article needs further work to clean it of bias and that should be taken into account by anyone reading it.

Happy to discuss.


 * Well, this is quite interesting. One thing at a time:


 * I don't think its an encyclopedia place to dispell ideas. That wasn't my intent. I was merely hoping to point out that your presumed intent -- to draw attention to questionable article content possibly being anti-police conspiracy bullshit -- might have had the opposite effect to what you intended. viz, to encourage conspiracy enthusiasts to think that not-questionable article content was wrong too.


 * The article has flaws throughout. You are right there, and I have just downgraded it from B-class to C-class -- whatever that is worth -- with the rationale "Article seems to have declined(?) since it was B class. Basic factual inconsistencies e.g. 8-2 or 8-1 verdict, neutrality challenged, some less than top tier sources for important facts". After a little more reading, I remembered that my previous edits to this article were partly to remove some blatantly anti-police bias (or just hopeless writing), for example it turns out that this edit in August 2016, and a few more were by me.


 * It relys far to much on newspaper articles, which are high bias in the UK, compared to the BBC or ITN which are legal required to be unbiased. Sorry but that is a simplistic view which Wikipedia does not and will not support. Quality newspaper sources (Times, Guardian, New York Times), and parts of their websites, are rated above simplistic news shows and news websites including BBC and ITN. Both are rated above the London Evening Standard, which in turn is rated above, in my opinion, the Daily Mail and then the true gutter press, Mirror and Sun in that order. Having said that, as my edit cited above shows, the supposed quality press are happy to publish viewpoints from individuals, and then anonymous Wikipedia editors are happy to misrepresent those personal viewpoints as being statements of fact about what happened.


 * The article still also has plenty of gutter press or otherwise unreliable sources in it.


 * As for the template about neutrality, I really don't mind, I just recently added one myself to a different article. But that article was largely, as my British friends like to say, "complete unredeemed bullshit". This one is not. In my experience, the template will not bring significant numbers of experienced editors to fix the article -- experienced editors are mostly busy. It might bring people with strong views, who are not experienced editors, to the talk page. Maybe their comments there will be useful? Maybe some of them will become constructive editors? Not sure. MPS1992 (talk) 19:52, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I think this is a fair and equitable resolution but on point I must draw your attention;

Chap I think you have been misinformed of British media, but the BBC is seen not just in the UK but recognised around the world as one of the best producers of journalism, it is frequently held up as the gold standard. If Wikipedia for some reason rates sources like the Times or Guardian over the BBC then they are severely mistaken, the BBC is far from simplistic, and newspaper frequently complain that the quality of the BBC's website is effectively putting them out of business (they lobbied extensively to hobble the BBC website during the recent Charter review). Also the quality of journalism in the Mirror and indeed the Sun can be considered higher than the Daily Mail.

Lead sections
You should look up WP:LEADCITE which makes it clear that citations in the lede are determined on a case by case basis. The two sentences you flagged in Somerset v Stewart are fully documented in Somerset v Stewart and Somerset v Stewart. Make your case on the discussion page on why you feel these cites are necessary. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:43, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Then you should have no problem providing those sources as I couldn't find them in the main body