Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:06, 15 April 2009

This page has been cited as a source by a notable professional or academic publication: Colin Philpott, Director of the National Media Museum in Bradford, in Yorkshire Post, 14 April, 2009

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Note to Jasper Jackson

Jasper, if you see this, please e-mail me regarding the copyright status of your photograph — slimvirgin at gmail dot com. Thanks! :-) SlimVirgin 20:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Ian Tomlinson

Copied from Talk:2009 G-20 London summit protests.

In light of the video footage of Tomlinson's fall before his death, does anyone object if I create an article about him using the material here? I'm checking in case anyone feels it's inappropriate. SlimVirgin 00:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Because he was not notable aside from his tragic death, I'm not sure that it is appropriate to create an individual page. As the investigation into his death continues, there may later be reason to create a separate page. Fences and windows (talk) 00:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Fences, it wouldn't be appropriate to create an individual page for Mr. Tomlinson until the IPCC investigation is complete as that would inevitably determine the majority of the content of the page and until that is completed the full facts won't be known Lodi01 (talk) 00:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll hold off in that case. SlimVirgin 02:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad to see someone else created this. It is turning into a major incident in the UK. SlimVirgin 17:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

On wikinews, we still have the old report, where the news concern a protestor collapsing in the street, and then assisted by the police, while they struggle to keep the protestors away (http://en.wikinews.org/G20_protester_dies_after_collapsing). A very different event. I found the new source here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/7989027.stm

We have a lot of new sources, with much attention been gathered around the video (http://news.google.com/news?pz=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=g20+death). I believe this is a case for a new news entry, with an update link to the old one. Perhaps someone here could help write the story. Maziotis (talk) 18:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Would it be good enough to copy the Misplaced Pages story? I'm happy to do it, but I don't fancy having to do a rewrite, as I've just spent a lot of time on this one. SlimVirgin 20:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The articles are very short, so I guess copying only a portion would be good. You could change a few words, or someone else could do it, as some information would be added. Maziotis (talk) 21:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll take a look at Wikinews, and if I can do it quickly, I will. If not, hopefully someone else can pilfer bits and pieces from the article here. SlimVirgin 21:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Good work, this is a well written article. G-20 Meltdown needs some work. Fences and windows (talk) 21:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• British newspaper vendor dies following assault by police, inquiry begins has not been published on wikinews yet, does it need further revision?SriMesh | talk 19:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

This article on the main page

It should be on wikipadia main page, either as a news item or a did you know item.--Sum (talk) 07:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

It will not be accepted by ITN. ITN is not a news service, it posts items of international significance or unusual occurrences. Such cases as these are all too common. Unsolved criminal investigations concerning individuals certainly do not tend to be posted until a verdict is reached and even then there is no guarantee. Try DYK. --candle•wicke 22:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I tried to add it to ITN, but not having a PhD in template management, was unable to. I do think it would be appropriate for the front page, if anyone else knows how to do it, given the amount of coverage in the UK. The international significance is that here again we have an apparent police assault being exposed because members of the public shot video footage of it and released it to the media/Web. See recent cases in San Francisco and Vancouver (BART Police shooting of Oscar Grant and Robert Dziekański Taser incident), as well as, most famously, Rodney King. SlimVirgin 23:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Neither of which seem to have featured on ITN. :) And what you have just done is prove my point quite extensively that such investigations are commonplace. And therefore not significant enough to bypass the (so far losing) debate which is already taking place at ITN about it. :) --candle•wicke 00:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I will also make the point that Ireland's emergency budget has been getting a significant amount of coverage in its country but that does not guarantee it a place at ITN. I'm afraid your reasoning for having this case on the Main Page is slightly flawed there. But, as I said previously, maybe DYK will accept it. :) --candle•wicke 00:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Candlewicke, this incident was exposed on, and to some extent by, the Internet. It was an investment fund manager from New York who took the video. It was bloggers from all over the world who were at the protest who started writing about it on the Web, so that witnesses came forward. SlimVirgin 00:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Before I say anything else, are you aware that discussion over ITNs habitually and traditionally takes place at WP:ITN/C as opposed to on the talk page of a particular article? And that opinion has already been expressed there on this article? --candle•wicke 00:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Article, as presented, belongs on Kikinews not Misplaced Pages

the article, as currently presented, reads as a news article and not as an encylcopeidic one. this version would seem better suited in wikinews with an encyclopeidic version presented here.--71.183.238.134 (talk) 13:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree. I believe the several news reports presented here are describing an historic event. If you look at the implications this has on our confidence in social institutions like the police and the news, I think you will see this fit to be recorded for many years to come. I suppose it's all a question of time. This is too hot right now. We have to wait and see how the situation develops and change the article accordingly. But I do think that you have to take into consideration that in this case the news reports are part of the article's interest itself. The way the media handle this from the start became the news. So, don't let yourself be fooled by the expressions in the article concerning the presentation of a news source, as a summary of a news entry itself. Maziotis (talk) 18:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Police autopsy

Philogo, what do you mean by a police autopsy? SlimVirgin 00:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The Guardian reported that the first autopsy as a police autoposy; I am afraid I do not know what that signifies, but in the context of this unfolding story in might be important, so I would liek to stay. There was no mention in the reports of that autopsy of anything other than the casue of death (heart attack); there was no mention of nay bruises or cuts etc. I find that rather disturbing. To spell it out, suppose: Cop whacks man, Cop medics take him away, copy doctors in opy post mortem (autopsy?) say natural causes, cop doctors will provide no other details. Press raise question. Cops investigate cops. Independent watchdog leaps cops to investigate cops. Cops tell newspaper to not talk to family. etc. No mention of cops of impounding of cops filming. I am reminded of Blair Peach.--Philogo (talk) 00:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps police procedural may be some use? --candle•wicke 00:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, Phil. I don't know the significance of it either. I would imagine all autopsies are conducted by staff working for the coroner. SlimVirgin 00:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

On checking it is describes as a (police) postmortem, not sure if this necessarily involves an autopsy. An autopsy is normally called is the death is not apparently of natural causes, I believe.--Philogo (talk) 02:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I think they're the same thing. There are different procedures within an autopsy, some more rigorous than others, depending on circumstances. But they are all called autopsies or post mortems, to the best of my knowledge. SlimVirgin

I would not have thought that a coroner had been appointed at that stage. People die all the time. If a doctor signs a death certificate giving a cause of death which is a natural cause, then a coroner is not appointed: otherwise the coroners courts would be jammed packed. We do no know who carried out the postmortem or who singned the death certificate. If he were taken to a hosital I should imagine a doctor there would sing the certificate. The police call a police surgeon/doctor if the death occurs in a police station. All we can do it report what is said in citeable sources. and I cannot say I have seen any mention of first or second autopsy only of a postmortem examination. There was an inquest today (I understand) so a coroner has now been appointed. He or she may order an autopsy, although I read a policeman quoted as saying "It will take a brave coroner to record anything other than natural causes". Brave presumably because...erm...--Philogo (talk) 02:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The newspapers reported that the second autopsy/post mortem is believed to have happened on April 9, conducted by Nat Carey. SlimVirgin 03:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

See also

Phil, what's your criterion for adding to the See also. I can't see how Orgreave is relevant. SlimVirgin 02:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Police assault. Ditto Kent State shootings (massacre).--Philogo (talk) 02:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

We can't really list every police assault, that's the thing. I've been adding things that newspapers have mentioned as relevant in their view; and/or cases where it was a member of the public's videotape that got the facts out. SlimVirgin 02:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

No we can't really list every police assault. The press however has been referring back to a few notable ones, Blair Peach and Peterloo for example, arguing that the UK has a history of intolerance to demonstrations. Therefore and similarly we could cite one or two famous cases. If interest waxes then then there is the article police butality. I think this story is going to grow and grow and the issues raised will not be containable in one article. There are thousand of other editors out there and this article will doubtless be chopped and merged. Its an odd idea really having an encycoledia artice being written on an unfolding current affair. I have never edited one before. When people google Ian Tomlinson they will hot this article as well as the Guardian and The times. Unlike the press we can accumulate the story as it meoves along, unlike the press.--Philogo (talk) 03:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC) PS Death_of_Ian_Tomlinson has been viewed 3659 times in 200904 see --Philogo (talk) 03:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the See also is inappropriate. There is a category of Alleged police brutality that readers can follow. In particular the link to the Cory Doctorow book has no relevance to this case. I would remove most of them - perhaps keep links to Blair Peach and Jean Charles de Menezes as the Met was involved in each and there are similarities. Fences and windows (talk) 17:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

We've added see alsos that reliable sources have mentioned in relation to this case. The Doctorow novel has been mentioned. SlimVirgin 21:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Trim uneeded material

I think this article could do with some wholesale removal of selected information, or mergeing of sub-sections, and a refocus on the core information about the incident and investigation.

I think the background section is totally overboard, and stuffed with masses of loosely relevant information that better resides in the main articles aboouth the MET/CLP/TSG/IPCC. The duplication of logos and charts that again are all in these other articles is also really distracting, and not exactly needed to understand this article.

And a 'Blogger's' Response section? Really? If US Airways Flight 1549 only mentions Twitter in an EL, when that was a quite infamous new media exclusive, I'm sure the furious reactions of bloggers about this incident is hardly adding anything groundbreaking to this 2009 article. And I'm sure this is not the first case where the internet has been important in assisting investigatinos.

As an aside, I don't think a 'Call for witnesses' section is at all appropriate for an encyclopoedia article at all, but I'm not so deluded to think that removing that would stick at all.

MickMacNee (talk) 04:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

It might stick. I'm not so keen on it either. Also not sure about the bloggers' section. I do think the background about the Met/City of London police/IPCC should stay in some form, because people outside London, and many inside, won't know the difference between the first two, and people outside the UK won't know what the IPCC is. The relationships between them are quite crucial to understanding what's going on here. SlimVirgin 05:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the article again, I agree with you, and have removed the bloggers section and appeal for witnesses. We could perhaps restore the bloggers bit if more information becomes available about their role, but you're right that there's not enough yet. SlimVirgin 06:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I also removed the police logos and the chart, and I combined those sections to make them shorter. I did add one Met image to break up the text. SlimVirgin 07:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I should mention that I'm very impressed by the existence, the formatting, and the content of the section "How the story emerged." It is a rare and stunning use of the advantages of a wiki's medium, while remaining effective and entirely appropriate prose. Bravo. --Kizor 07:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Kizor! :-) SlimVirgin 08:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with MickMacNee that there is too much detail in the background section, and probably in other sections. Misplaced Pages has a tendency to focus in too much detail on current events, and this is a prime example of this. Much of this information should be pared back. Fences and windows (talk) 17:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The material that MickMacNee wrote about has been either removed or reduced. SlimVirgin 21:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Language: "Apparently no provocation"

Summer, I reverted your edits because I feel the current version uses more neutral language. The facts and images speak for themselves. We shouldn't over-egg it. SlimVirgin 08:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The whole thing stinks.80.7.238.150 (talk) 19:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Just saw this section of the discussion page. Well, the video simply does not show any provocation, so saying "appears" implies an unjustified doubt. It's just weasel language.--Sum (talk) 13:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Lead

People keep changing that the video "appears to show no provocation" on Tomlinson's part to "does not show any" (which I've changed to "shows no provocation," just because it's tighter). However, I still think "appears to show" is better. It is more neutral, less decisive, makes us sound more reasonable. What counts as "provocation" in a case like this is subjective to some degree, and it's going to be for a court to determine. It is clear that words were exchanged, but we don't know what was said. It's also clear that he was walking very slowly, but we don't know how slowly. We don't know what happened just before the footage etc.

For all these reasons, I think we sound more encyclopaedic if we say "appears to show no provocation," or something similar e.g. "shows no obvious provocation on Tomlinson's part" -- something like that.

Any thoughts? SlimVirgin 21:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I would recommend something like, The Video gives no indication of provocation, basically what i'm thinking is saying that the video shows none but it is not a 100% reliable, and that there is no ruling out provocation before the start or that the video may have been edited. Lodi01 (talk) 22:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Common "machine guns" fallacy

I've deleted the reference to "submachine guns" used by the TSG, as this is a common but erroneous claim. British police use a semi-automatic versions of the MP5 machine-gun and other similar weapons, i.e. they lack the ability to fire on automatic, and are therefore designated a "carbines" not a "sub/machine guns". A weapon that cannot fire full-auto is by definition not a machine gun. See List of police firearms in the United Kingdom. Nick Cooper (talk) 19:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem now is that the source after the sentence doesn't say what you added. Do you have a source? SlimVirgin 20:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Try List of police firearms in the United Kingdom and the sources thereof. The bottom line is that British police (with the exception of the Ministry of Defence police) do not use "machine guns," despite what the press commonly and sloppily describe as such. The most common British police long-gun is a semi-automatic version of the Heckler & Koch MP5, which 'was designed as a machine gun, but by definition can't be one when it has its full-auto capability removed. Nick Cooper (talk) 20:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you find a reliable source other than The Daily Telegraph? Then we can say A says X, though B says Y. SlimVirgin 20:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

What's the relevance to this article? None of the officers involved is reported to be carrying any gun, I fail to see any reason to include more than a sentence on the TSG, with a link to the relevant article. I've altered the text to the specific weapon, as that is neutral-ish because of the conflicting sources - although I know Nick Cooper is correct that they are not, as per Waldren etc.

Wnjr (talk) 13:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Just because the Telegraph says "machine guns" doesn't make it true. Please take a look at List of police firearms in the United Kingdom, and you will see that the only forces noted as using fully automatic weapons (i.e. "machine guns") are the Ministry of Defence Police and the Civil Nuclear Constabulary. All long-guns used by other forces are specifically noted as being "semi-automatic carbines," i.e. although they are based on weapons that often have full-auto capability, the ones used by British police do not. The Metropolitan Police Authority page from 2002 here lists the firearms available to the Service, and includes:

MP5 Carbine

This weapon is available for deployment in four versions:

• A2 with solid stock.

A single shot 9mm weapon operationally deployed by the Diplomatic Protection Group-SO16, Heathrow Airport Security officers and, in limited numbers, by Royalty Protection-SO14.

• A3 with folding stock

A single shot 9mm weapon operationally deployed by the SO19 Firearms Branch, Belmarsh Court Security and SO12-Special Branch officers for ease of carriage.

• MP5 Kurtz

A fully automatic shortened version of the MP5 Carbine, available for SO12-Special Branch Protection officers only. This weapon requires specific ministerial authority prior to its deployment and has very rarely been operationally carried.

• Silenced MP5 Carbine

This weapon is available for SO19 Specialist Firearms Officer (SFO) use. It has a very limited usage and has never been operationally deployed to date.

Note the first two are specifically stated as being "single shot" (i.e. semi-automatic). Only the third type is identified as being fully-automatic, and that it is only available to one unit (not the TSG) under exceptional circumstances. Nick Cooper (talk) 22:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying you're wrong. It's not a question of right or wrong, but of what the sources are saying. The Telegraph obviously spoke to a Met spokesman before writing this, and that's what he wrote. If we want to question it, we need to find another, better, source. SlimVirgin 23:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

So a clear policy statement by the body that oversees the Metropolitan Police, is less authoratative than a press that repeatedly make this sloppy but false claim? I would again urge you to read List of police firearms in the United Kingdom, but also Specialist Firearms Command, Specialist Firearms Officer, Authorised Firearms Officer, Armed Response Vehicle, and you will note that the weapons in question are uniformally described as "semi-automatic carbine" and never "fully-automatic"/"machine guns". In addition, this from Hansard deals directly with the same mistake.

This is a wide misconception because all most people know about the likes of the MP5 is what they see in films and TV, where they are invariably fully-automatic models, but the plain and simple fact is that the use of actual machine guns by British police is virtually non-existent, and the Telegraph is just wrong in suggesting the TSG have access to them. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Then please write to the Telegraph and ask them to correct it. If you're right, they will. Then we can change the article. I'm not being facetious in suggesting this; I mean it. Alternatively, do you have a source that says that they carry submachine guns is a common fallacy? If it really is a common fallacy, someone will have written about it probably. SlimVirgin 09:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

It's more a case that the misconception is so widespread that it rarely gets addressed directly except in the likes of Hansard and books dealing with the police use of firearms, which is what has informed the Misplaced Pages pages I have mentioned above. Do you honestly think that those pages would have ended up omitting all of mention of machine guns is they were actually in common use? The MPA page I cited clearly identifies only one fully-automatic firearm available to the Metropolitan Police, that there are special restrictions on its use, and that it is rarely deployed. The bottom line is that Misplaced Pages should not perpetuate inaccuracies, no matter how many otherwise reliable sources repeat them. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The Hansard link you provided shows that the Met does indeed have submachine guns, if I understood it correctly. SlimVirgin 21:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that you read it again. The MP asking the question refers to "sub-machine guns," but the minister answering specifically corrects him with, "The weapon was not a sub-machine gun, but a carbine specially adapted to fire only one shot at a time." The MPA's report on "MPS firearms policy, performance and training" acknowledges that the force has a very small number of one type of actual machine, but that they are "available for SO12-Special Branch Protection officers only" (i.e. not the TSG), and the type requires, "specific ministerial authority prior to its deployment and has very rarely been operationally carried." By definition that does not include the "less qualified" Authorised Firearms Officers of the TSG. The MP5s used by the TSG and the vast majority of British police are single-shot semi-automatic weapons, so inherently are not "machine guns," and that is a fact, no matter how many times the media gets it wrong and says otherwise. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Nick, regarding your date format changes, if you change the date format in an image name, it becomes a red link. SlimVirgin 20:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry - a bit overenthusiastic, I guess. Nick Cooper (talk) 22:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

It's okay. Not all the dates were changed, so we have a bit of a mish-mash now. It's actually a fallacy that Brits only use 9 April. I'm British, and I've always written April 9. SlimVirgin 23:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Sources

Just a reminder that we can only say what reliable sources have said. People are removing things for reasons that aren't clear e.g. The Times wrote that it was the same group of officers who approached Tomlinson a second time 15 minutes or so after the first assault, and assaulted him again. But an editor removed that it was the same group. The editor may be right and The Times wrong, and maybe other sources agree with the editor, and we can add those opinions too. But in the meantime, the only reliable published source we have says it was the same group.

Ditto for any other disputed material. SlimVirgin 20:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Phil, we link inline to a reliable source when it supports a claim we make in the article. Your postmortem link did not do that. However, it's fine to add it to external links to inform people in general terms. SlimVirgin 23:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The link explained a term used in a claim made in the article, by by citing a very authoratative reference. I feel sure I have seen this done hundreds of times when a technical term occurs and it seema proper way to proceed. If there is a wiki-rule of some kind then do direct me to it. If you disagree on someting it is better to raise the matter on the talk page in the first instance, rather than just reverting; the latter path can lead to the dreaded edit wars; the former path can lead to resolution because other editors can assist if agreement not reached. You will note that I have reverted none of your edits; I would query you first here on the article's talk page. --Philogo (talk) 01:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'm sorry, that's a fair point. My concern is that I'd like the lead to stay tight, well-written, accurate etc. You're right that it's fine to add explanatory footnotes; it just looks odd in the lead after we give the outcome of the first autopsy, as though we're linking to our source. I've added your link to "external links" in case anyone wants to look up what an autopsy is, though I suggest you also think about adding it, or material from it, to Autopsy. SlimVirgin 01:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

BLP tag

Reasons for removal 1) I Believe that he is dead 2) This isn't a biography 3) It seems to be sourced fairly well

Anyone disagree? Lodi01 (talk) 20:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The addition of the tag is probably to remind us that BLP applies to the officer. SlimVirgin 21:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I still hardly see how it applies, it is still after-all describing an event not a person, if the article was about Ian as a person or about the police offer that is understandable, but theres no need for the tag Lodi01 (talk) 22:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

BLP applies to any article that mentions living people. We are going to have to be careful here, especially once the officer's named. But if we stick to good sources and don't go beyond what they say, we should be fine. SlimVirgin 23:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

This article is an obvious blp minefield, blp applies not merely to bios but to any mention of living people and given the controversy around this death I felt it appropriate to tag this talk page. I am not saying the article violates blp right now, merely that we must be cautious. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree we should be cautious but not silent. If there are arrest we do not wish to prejudice a fair trial. Presumably we a farily safe if we merely quote what appears in the press etc.?--Philogo (talk) 10:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, if we stick to what reliable sources publish, and source anything that might be challenged or that readers might want to look up for themselves, we should be okay. SlimVirgin 22:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

6:07 pm: First alleged encounter with police

Another eyewitness photographed him 85 minutes earlier in confrontation with police and deliberately blocking the path of a riot van .. The IT worker said he was drunk and was manhandled out of the way by four riot police after refusing to move

If this is indeed true, then it paints the subsequent incident in a very different light. To summarize what this Wikipedian quote is infering; is that Tomlinson provoked his own death. Now, all I would ask is; what is the name of the IT worker, what is the name of the Daily Mail reporter, where are the photographs of Tomlinson deliberately blocking the riot van?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emacsuser (talk • contribs) 13:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The images are linked to in the same sentence. The reporter's name is in the story; see the footnote after the sentence. The IT worker wasn't named, as I recall. The same images, and the same time, have been published elsewhere too.

A Wikipedian pointed out that the newspapers may have that time wrong by an hour, possibly because the camera was still an hour behind, so it would be 7:07 rather than 6:07, which would fit with Tomlinson's friend's statement about what time he left the newspaper stand. However, the newspapers are all reporting 6:07, so we have to stick with that for now. SlimVirgin 19:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The IT worker was named in both the Mail and the Sun as 'Ross Hardy', although the Mail has now removed this part from their constantly changing article, it is still in google's results at present.

Wnjr (talk) 10:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

It's annoying that these articles keep changing. It's not only the Mail and Sun who are doing it. It means that, after a day or two, and sometimes sooner, our links may not say what our edits say. SlimVirgin 22:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Nineteen Eighty-Four. Ministry of Truth. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

It feels that way. Really, what it means is that we should be using hard copies of newspapers only, which is not only very difficult, but kind of ironic, given that this story revolves around the importance of the Web in highlighting certain issues. SlimVirgin 22:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Video of woman being slapped

This has been published by the Guardian today, which says it's from the recent memorial for Tomlinson. However, it's also on YouTube as having been taken on April 2 and posted six days ago. I've removed it from the article until we find out when it was taken. SlimVirgin 22:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, this has been explained. It is from April 2, take during an early vigil for Tomlinson, not the later memorial march. I'll add it back shortly. SlimVirgin 01:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Responsibility of Police officers to prevent crime, and arrest perpetrators

In the video there are a lot of police officers watching the alleged assault. Are they under any obligation to intervene, or does the fact that "The decision to use force is made by the individual police officer, and they must account for that." mean they cannot?93.96.148.42 (talk) 00:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Image sizes

Anybody like the eccentric fixed size images we have? I attempted to make them MoS compliant but was reverted. Date formats need to be dd-mmm-yyyy here, as it is a UK subject. They certainly need to be consistent. --John (talk) 02:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

John, please don't start a forest fire. You posted on my talk page, and I have replied on yours. SlimVirgin 03:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Slim, check out MOS:IMAGES before you make any more of a fool of yourself. You're wrong. --John (talk) 03:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I was right when I last looked; if it has changed, all that means is that your last revert stood. The MoS (and ArbCom) said that people shouldn't arrive at articles simply to make style changes over objections, then blame the MoS.

And the dates were consistent until someone changed some of them, but not all. I find this obsession with writing dates a certain way quite unnecessary. I am British, and I have always written April 15. Everyone in Britain knows what April 15 means. Change the formatting if you must (but not in the image title), but it's a side issue, or ought to be. But please leave the image sizes are they are. SlimVirgin 03:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages articles that use British English