Talk:Killing of Mark Duggan

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Death of James Ashley which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 08:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

"Lawfully"

@Sweet6970: Why do you think the word "lawfully" should be in the first sentence of the article and the short description? Have you read and understood WP:HOWTOSD? Do you understand WP:BRD? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:37, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@Arms & Hearts:1) Lawfully Your reaction to the addition of the word ‘lawfully’ in the lead is a demonstration of the need for the word. Although you declare on your User page that you are from the UK, and your editing history demonstrates an interest in politics, you referred in your edit summary to ‘potentially controversial information’. This gives the impression that you are not aware of the legal position on this death, because the fact of the verdict is not controversial. Many readers who have not kept up to date with the legal position will come to this page for information, and one of the main points they will want to know is – was this murder, or manslaughter, or was the killing lawful? Do you have an alternative wording which would refer to the legal verdict, rather than just saying ‘lawfully’?

2) Short Description I have read the link you have provided. I do not see anything which would prevent the word ‘lawfully’ from being used in the Short Description. But, to answer your unasked question: No, I don’t know how the Short Description works. I was not the editor who originally added the word to the Short Description, and I have no objection to it being deleted from that.

3) BRD I assume that you have read this, and so you will be aware that it starts: ‘The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD) is an optional method of reaching consensus.’ It also says: ‘When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed.’ Your editing on this article today did not give the impression of someone who was trying to reach consensus. I am pleased that you are now engaging in discussion. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Ignoring the majority of the tendentious rubbish above and getting to the point: the alternative wording I'm proposing is the previous wording, in which the first sentence deals with the facts of the case and the legal status is explained in the following paragraph. The idea that readers who arrive at this page in search of that information can't find their way to that paragraph, and must have it provided devoid of context in the first sentence, is ridiculous. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:40, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

If you are going to ignore what I say, and call it ‘tendentious rubbish’, then it is going to be difficult to reach consensus. Why did you delete the word ‘lawfully’? Sweet6970 (talk) 20:02, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Response to Third Opinion Request:

Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on Killing of Mark Duggan and cannot recall any prior interaction with the editors involved in this discussion which might bias my response. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here.

Opinion: One particularly wise Third Opinion Wikipedian, RegentsPark, once succinctly put the purpose of Third Opinions like this, "It's sort of like if you're having an argument on the street in front of City Hall and turn to a passer-by to ask 'hey, is it true that the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale?'." This Third Opinion is like that. I do not believe the word lawful should appear in the first sentence. The point that the killing was held to be lawful by the cororner's jury is addressed in the second paragraph of the lede and is thoroughly examined in the body of the article. Since the killing is largely notable because of the question of legality, making the point of legality twice in the lede places undue weight on that side of the controversy. The word should be removed from the first line of the lede.

What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TransporterMan (TALK) 21:36, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

(1) I was not notified of the request for the Third Opinion.

(2) I do not consider that the question has been thoroughly discussed on the Talk page – User:Arms & Hearts has declined to answer my question as to why they deleted the word ‘lawfully’.

(3) There are, in fact, more than 2 editors involved, since the word ‘lawfully’ was added by an IP. Thus, there are 2 editors in favour of having the word ‘lawfully’ in the lead, and 1 (Arms & Hearts) opposed.

(4) With all respect to User:TransporterMan, I don’t understand the reasoning behind their Opinion. The Opinion says: ‘Since the killing is largely notable because of the question of legality, making the point of legality twice in the lede places undue weight on that side of the controversy.’ There is no controversy about the legal position on the killing, because the inquest verdict stands. The Opinion says that the killing is largely notable because of the question of legality – in which case I do not see that it could be undue to make it clear at the beginning of the lead that the killing was lawful. The 2nd para of the lead gives events in chronological order, and only gets to the inquest verdict at the end. This is the best way of doing it, but it means that the most salient point, that the killing was held to be lawful, is right at the end of this paragraph. I think that it is necessary to make it clear at the beginning that the killing was lawful.

(5) Since there are 2 editors in favour of inclusion, and 1 against, there is a consensus that the word ‘lawfully’ should stay in the first sentence. Sweet6970 (talk) 09:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Just a couple of procedural notes:

(1) Since 3O is just an independent opinion, there is no requirement at that project to give notice to anyone. Notice was not required.

(2) A 3O volunteer is not limited to the reasoning brought forth on the talk page. So they're free to opine even if some of the technical requirements of 3O aren't met.

(3) Only editors who have participated on the talk page are generally considered in determining the editor count. Moreover, every 3O volunteer can choose to waive or enforce the two-editor requirement.

(5) Two-editor consensuses, especially when not established on the article talk page, but in general as well, are very close to being no consensus at all, and that is particularly true when one of them is a one-time-edit by an IP with that edit made with no reason or argument. Many IP edits are intentional or unintentional sockpuppetry. Moreover, since consensus is determined by discussion, not bare editing, there is virtually zero contribution to consensus by that edit.

(4) I do not argue the content in my opinions: They are what they are. Like asking a passerby whether the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale and then, once they've answered, them walking on without further interaction. Let me note that, as I say in my opinion, that 3O's are not tiebreakers and do not contribute to consensus. The disputants are free to take them or ignore them, with about the only time ignoring them sometimes makes a difference is if an edior is accused at WP:ANI of tendentious editing.

Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:50, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@TransporterMan: Thank you for your comments. I have not been involved in a Third Opinion before as, in my previous experience, it has always been possible to resolve a difference of opinion by discussion on the Talk page. I am sorry that your time and effort has been wasted. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:28, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Request for comment

Should the first sentence of the article state that Mark Duggan was "lawfully killed"? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:32, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose including "lawfully": the inquest's verdict is described with due nuance and contextualisation at the end of the second paragraph. Shoehorning it into the first sentence denies that context and nuance. The first sentence ought to focus on, and to my knowledge until yesterday always has focused on, the uncontroversial facts of the case, with the legal proceedings summarised in the second paragraph. Sweet6970's repeated claim that this the lawfulness of the killing is uncontroversial is plainly false: uncontroversial killings do not result in an IPCC investigation, an inquest (resulting in a split decision), protests, riots and continued scholarly attention nine years later. All these things both indicate and constitute controversy. The argument that the information needs to be in the first sentence simply because it's factually correct is similarly incoherent. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:43, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support The fact of the inquest verdict is not controversial, as, for instance, the fact of a conviction is not controversial, even if the conviction is being appealed. It is the circumstances of this event which are controversial. I have never claimed otherwise. An inquest verdict does not have any ‘nuance’. Information on the legal proceedings is set out in the 2nd para. You have to get to the end of this para before it is stated that the killing was lawful. It is important that it is obvious to any reader, including those who do not have a particular interest in legal matters, that in the end, this killing has been held to be lawful. This would be particularly important for anyone who came to this article from 2011 England riots via the link for Mark Duggan, and might very likely only read the first sentence of the article.

I have never claimed that ‘the information needs to be in the first sentence because it is factually correct’. I queried why the factually correct information was deleted by Arms & Hearts.[1] A& H then referred to the information about the lawfulness of the killing as ‘potentially controversial information’.[2]

The information about the lawfulness of the killing (i.e. the fact of the inquest verdict) is not controversial – it is the circumstances which are controversial.

A&H has refused to discuss this on this Talk page – their response has been to say that they are ignoring my comments as ‘tendentious rubbish’. [3] A& H then asked for a Third Opinion without inviting me to agree to this, and without engaging in proper discussion.

I am open to suggestions as to an alternative wording for the first sentence.

Sweet6970 (talk) 20:22, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

As a substantive comment (but not an RfC !vote), I think the article (as opposed to simply the reported verdict) has to deal with some actual nuances of language. The "lawfully killed by police" text reads to me in the same way it would if, for example, the Rodney King article stated that he "was legally beaten by LAPD officers" in the lede of that article. Yes, none of the officers in King's case were found to have committed a crime (and yes, the UK and US legal systems use different terminology), but there does seem to me to be something tone deaf, at the very least, in saying that anyone was "lawfully killed" or "legally beaten" in an article's lead paragraph. I am not saying that the trial finding in this article should wait until the end of the second paragraph, but some attempt should be made to thread the needle here (rather than giving the impression, e.g., that Mark Duggan was lawfully eligible to be killed and that this happened to be accomplished by police, which is one straightforward reading of the LEDE you restored, Sweet6970). Newimpartial (talk) 20:46, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: Thank you for your comment. I agree that the current wording is less than ideal, for the reasons you give. My only suggestion is ‘….was shot and killed in an incident which was subsequently held to be a lawful killing’. This is awkward, and you would then probably need a separate sentence giving the time and place. I am hoping that someone can come up with a better wording. Sweet6970 (talk) 22:25, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. It's redundant with the sentence in the second paragraph, the other sentence provides much better context, and I think trying to move that context into the lead sentence would be a mess. I will also note that the third opinion posted above was quite reasonable: The point that the killing was held to be lawful by the cororner's jury is addressed in the second paragraph of the lede and is thoroughly examined in the body of the article. Since the killing is largely notable because of the question of legality, making the point of legality twice in the lede places undue weight on that side of the controversy. The word should be removed from the first line of the lede. P.S. Note that that lawfully + lawful killing violates MOS:DUPLINK, hinting at the underlying problem. If the info does stay in both the first sentence and the second paragraph, the second one should be delinked. It would be dubious to do that now, as that link would have to be restored if it's deleted from the first sentence. Alsee (talk) 18:42, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose including lawfully. I think this needs to be examined in more detail later in the body of the text to ensure that it doesn't become a percevied biased lede. --Investigatory (talk) 11:18, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose: the IPCC verdict is described much more clearly and with less bias later in the lede itself. Loki (talk) 02:57, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

It is not the IPCC decision which makes the killing lawful, but the inquest verdict. Sweet6970 (talk) 09:56, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. The sources indicate considerable debate over the subject remains (and reliable sources continue to treat that debate as serious, not as WP:FRINGE). Official accounts and legal findings are certainly important, but outside of a few specific situations where they overlap with WP:BLP in ways that don't apply here, we're not supposed to give them absolute diffidence in places where significant numbers of people dispute them and that dispute is given credence in high-quality reliable sources; therefore, we cannot state that it was a legal killing as undisputed truth in the article voice, certainly not in the first sentence of the lead. They are definitely important to mention (and the lead does mention them a few sentences down), but they should not be presented as absolute truth, and cramming them so hamhandedly into the very first sentence manages to be WP:UNDUE for even something of that much prominence. --Aquillion (talk) 15:51, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

‘therefore, we cannot state that it was a legal killing as undisputed truth in the article voice’ ‘they should not be presented as absolute truth’ As far as I am aware, Wikipedia does not deal with truth, absolute or otherwise, and that’s as it should be, so I don’t understand the reference to it in User:Aquillion’s post above. But it is an undisputed fact that the killing has been held to be lawful. This does not mean that everybody approves of it. I have agreed with User:Newimpartial that the wording under dispute is not very good. I suggested as an alternative: ‘….was shot and killed in an incident which was subsequently held to be a lawful killing’. This is also not very good. I was hoping that someone would comment on this suggestion, and/or come up with a better suggestion. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

We deal with the truth as the sources report it. When the sources indicate skepticism or doubt, we must reflect that coverage. And they are definitely not putting the degree of weight in the IPCC report that you are putting here. A full and accurate summary of what the sources say would be something like ...was shot and killed in an incident which an internal investigation by the Independent Police Complaints Commission subsequently stated to be a lawful killing, though later forensic investigations have cast their account into doubt. That is obviously too long for the first sentence of the lead, but it would be unacceptable to mention only part of it, and it is particularly unacceptable to introduce the Independent Police Complaints Commission conclusions via WP:WEASEL words that obscure the source of that conclusion (it scarcely needs to be said, but obviously the commission itself is biased, and is treated as such in secondary sources; its findings and opinions need to be attributed to it directly every time they are referenced.) Either way, there is no particular reason why the IPCC report in particular should be given the weight you're trying to accord it while downplaying the numerous people questioning it, which are given at least equal weight in the sources - the shooting itself is the one indisputable fact (the one no sources disagree on or contest), so it should be all the first sentence says. The back and forth over various invested parties like the IPCC, the victim's relatives, and later investigators advancing their personal accounts of what happen can be covered in more detail further down, as they are now, so we can go into depth on who is saying what and how they disagree. --Aquillion (talk) 18:44, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@Aquillion: You have completely misunderstood the legal situation. It is the inquest verdict which makes the killing lawful. The role of the IPCC was to investigate possible police misconduct. The IPCC did not have the power to determine whether the killing was lawful or not. I am not trying to accord any particular weight to the IPCC investigation. There were no ‘weasel words’. The fact that the killing was deemed lawful by the inquest jury is reported later in the article. The fact of the inquest verdict is an indisputable fact. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:15, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

That does not change the key point. If the inquest concluded that it was legal, we can only state that that was the conclusion of the inquest; we cannot state it as absolute fact when there remains serious disagreement that the sources continue to take seriously. And it is in some ways even worse because an article's lead is required to reflect the body (which in turn reflects the preponderance of reliable sources); the body does devote significant text to the inquest or treat it as important as you are trying to make it here. It is one legal opinion, no more or no less, and while it is significant it is merely one point in a lengthy dispute. Trying to use it, unattributed, to frame the entire topic in the first sentence of the lead is inappropriate, and I am not convinced (given the current coverage and state of the article) that it is appropriate to mention it in the very first sentence at all. It belongs a bit further down in the summary of the timeline, where it is covered currently. --Aquillion (talk) 04:33, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per above discussions. Idealigic (talk) 15:57, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose insertion of ‘lawfully’ in this sentence. I believe most editors here are aware of the inquest verdict and the IPPC verdict and the implications of both, however it is unnecessary as the context of the verdict is discussed immediately below. The insertion of the word in this place is provocative and liable to be misconstrued by casual readers out of context. Mramoeba (talk) 21:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Edit to article 21 September 2020

Re User:Aquillion’s edit [4]

These critics accuse police of misconduct and of failing to cooperate with those investigating Duggan's death.[10][11]

1. The edit summary refers to ‘restoring’ this material. I don’t understand what has been ‘restored’.

2. I do not see the relevance of the France 24 source.

3. Neither of the sources supports the statement that critics accuse police of ‘failing to cooperate with those investigating Duggan’s death.’. Is some other source intended to be used? Sweet6970 (talk) 10:58, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

It was removed recently here. For reference, things don't need to be cited in the lead if they're cited in the body, but I've added another source from the body. And the France 24 source states However the alleged mishandling of the Duggan case is just the latest in a string of incidents of police misconduct. --Aquillion (talk) 18:36, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@Aquillion:I see now see where the wording was previously added, and properly removed, because it was unsourced. There are still no sources to support the statement you have added, and the France 24 source is still not relevant. Since you don’t understand this case, I suggest you cease editing this article. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:18, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, Sweet6970, but the statement the alleged mishandling of the Duggan case is just the latest in a string of incidents of police misconduct is, in fact, a valid example illustrating that critics accuse police of misconduct in this case. Newimpartial (talk) 23:36, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Ethnicity

This edit seems unhelpful to me: while it's probably accurate to say Duggan was descended from Caribbean people (a broad category that includes White Caribbean and Indo-Caribbean people), the more specific claim that his ancestry was (British) African-Caribbean also seems uncontroversal. I haven't reverted, though, as reflecting what the cited source says is also a priority, and I don't have access to the source beyond the brief preview the Times provides. Can anyone else access it or does anyone else have thoughts on this? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:01, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Hutchinson-Foster case outcome

@Sweet6970: Could you clarify your edit summary here? Are you suggesting it's no longer the case that the Hutchinson-Foster case did not resolve a number of significant unknown questions related to the Duggan killing? What are the subsequent events you're referring to? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:44, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

The Guardian source dates from January 2013, which is relatively early in the long, complicated series of investigations and legal processes relating to this incident. In particular, it was written before the inquest and the IPCC report, and states specifically that it is these which were expected to shed light on the circumstances of Mr Duggan’s death. It also mentions the awaited report from an inquiry into the police shooting of Azelle Rodney. The Guardian writer thought this might be relevant, but as far as I can see, it did not have any effect on the outcome of the IPCC report and the inquest. All these events are now in the past. So whilst the wording According to The Guardina, the Hutchinson-Foster case did not resolve a number of significant unknown questions related to the Duggan killing., may, strictly speaking, be accurate, it no longer has any significance. If we are going to say in the article that there are still questions to be answered, we need a more relevant, recent source on which to base such a statement. Sweet6970 (talk) 09:43, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. This seems like a case where the wording or placement of the claim is what's causing confusion, rather than the claim itself. I definitely didn't get from it the implication that there are still questions to be answered in 2021, just that there were still unanswered questions when Hutchinson-Foster's trial concluded in 2012–13 (which may have been answered by the inquest in 2013–14). Is there a way of wording this that would definitively avoid that implication? Perhaps paraphrasing the bit in the source that says It falls to the inquest into Duggan's death to shed some light on this? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:05, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I deleted the sentence in my edit of 21 November because I did not think that it was useful information in 2021 that the Guardian said in 2013 that the Hutchinson-Foster case did not answer all the questions. It was not to be expected that the H-F case would do this, since that was the purpose of the inquest. But if you wish to have a comment based on the Guardian source in this section, how about: ‘The Guardian commented in January 2013 that this case would not resolve the questions relating to Duggan’s death, which would be dealt with at the inquest’. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:17, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I've gone with The Hutchinson-Foster verdict did not resolve a number of central questions related to Duggan's killing, which remained open until the inquest later in 2013. Feel free to continue to revise. For what it's worth I don't see any reason, per WP:INTEXT or WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, why we'd need to cite the Guardian in text (I note that that attribution was only in the article for about 36 hours, with the sentence having been there for several years). 19:14, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I am happy with your amendments to the article. I am glad we have reached agreement on this. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:42, 28 November 2021 (UTC)