Talk:Terry Lloyd

Untitled

This article implies that US Forces were attacking the Al Jazerra Television network and its personel, this is false.

-- The statement that Terry Lloyd was killed in the attack on Al Jazeera is incorrect. The statement that US personnel attacked Al Jazeera's Baghdad office is correct. Which are you objecting to?

-- Here's some unbiased reporting on the Al Jazeera attack: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,83503,00.html

--Jim68000 11:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Terry Lloyd was killed on the road to Basra, not anywhere near the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad. His inquest has established he was killed by US gunfire. I have added two citations to the article. Yonmei 14:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Should more detail be added to the article? Such as the fact that he was killed while being transported to a hospital? http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,,1889272,00.html Kytok 02:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

"Be bold" - but though I thought it important to correct the factual error about the Palestine Hotel in timely fashion, it seems to me to make sense to wait adding to the article until the inquest is over and the coroner has given his verdict. I don't think everyone involved has given all their evidence yet, have they? Yonmei 09:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/10/11/nlloyd11.xml has some interesting information about the shooting that should probably be added to the article. Kytok 20:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

This BBC article has first-hand evidence from the only known survivor. The coroner will record his verdict on Friday - I still think it makes sense to leave extensive updates on this article until after the coroner's verdict. Yonmei 20:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

BBC News has reported a verdict of unlawful killing has been recorded. BBC: Iraq reporter unlawfully killed.Leigh 11:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I've added a brief report of the inquest. Something seems to be wrong with the ref formatting, though. Yonmei 11:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

inquest

i'm just wondering why the added section on the result of the inquest that came out today had been reverted to the article without it? any reason why? 15:09, 13 October 2006 Matt006

Please sign and date your comments. The section on the inquest is there now: if it was gone at the time you commented, it may have been accidentally removed. Yonmei 15:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

unlawful killing

Cshay removed the adverb "unlawfully" as NPOV. In fact it is the verdict recorded by the inquest. Have added it to that section again, pending discussion here.

I have now reworded the section to be factually accurate, without the NPOV issue. In otherwords now we are specifying clearly who exactly is saying it is "unlawful", and under whose laws it was "unlawful". Cshay 21:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Edited to remove repetitive detail. Yonmei 22:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Your edit is much more awkward than what was there before and is borderline NPOV again. Please stop trying to push a POV. It was declared unlawful by a british inquest, but may not be held unlawful by international law or US law. I have reverted your awkward edit. Cshay

Please stop trying to push an American POV. US soldiers shot at a civilian minibus carrying wounded and leaving a battle. International law clearly states such actions unlawful, and a formal inquest has just declared Terry Lloyd's death an unlawful killing. Stop pushing US POV: this is supposed to be an international and neutral encyclopedia. Yonmei 08:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I have reworded the section to be factually accurate, without the NPOV issue. In otherwords now we are specifying clearly who exactly is saying it is "unlawful", and under whose laws it was "unlawful". Cshay 21:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Good grief. Okay, well, I've never looked it up, but I'll take your word for it that in the US it's perfectly legal for soldiers to shoot civilians who are no threat to them. However, this is not legal under international law. While I accept your assertion that this is not criminal behaviour on the part of US soldiers, I still think you are trying to force an American interpretation on what ought to be a neutral account, and while I have reached my 3RR limit (slightly over, indeed) I hope a more internationally-minded editor will correct your US POV edit. Yonmei 14:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the way NPOV works. Let me give you an example. Suppose I changed the North Korea article to say: "North Korea, one of the three countries in the Axis of Evil, recently detonated a nuclear weapon." That would be unacceptable because I am implying that the Axis of Evil is commonly defined and agreed upon and might be seen as pushing a pro-USA administration POV. Instead, it would need to written something like "North Korea detonated a nuclear weapon. The United States has labeled North Korea a member of what it calls the Axis of Evil." Do you see the difference? In this case, it is better to stick to the facts and say explicitly whose law has been broken rather than to use the potentially NPOV generic adverb. Cshay 21:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I see that you appear to be trying to argue that the verdict of "unlawful killing" is a purely local and temporary phenomenon, much as Bush's calling three countries the "Axis of Evil" was. But for soldiers to kill civilians who present no threat to them is in fact unlawful, under international law and in British law. It may well be considered lawful in the US, at least in the current atmosphere prevailing, but that is the local and temporary phenomenon, just as judging North Korea part of an "Axis of Evil" is.

I'm very conscious of the fact that wikipedia is an American encyclopedia, that Americans, no other nationalities, have the final judgement in wiki. It's a lost cause to insist that an article on a British journalist killed unlawfully by US troops shall be NPOV, and not US POV. I register the protest here. Yonmei 08:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, but you are missing my point entirely. In fact I am arguing for neither "British" nor "American" POV and I think we have achieved that now by sticking to the facts of the matter and specifying clearly who exactly is saying it is "unlawful", and under whose laws it was "unlawful". All I can suggest at this point is that you re-read my previous explaination of NPOV or perhaps see if the NPOV Wikipedia entry makes it clearer for you. Good luck. Cshay 12:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I read both explanations. But I note that the practice of not saying that someone was murdered or unlawfully killed is not general in Wikipedia: looking up multiple pages under "American murder victims", for example, I find that wiki editors in general write "X was murdered by Y" rather than "X was killed by Y. An American court found Y guilty of murder". Yet you appear to be arguing that to introduce the verb "murdered", or "unlawfully killed", is "NPOV" - it is only proper to say "X was killed by Y" and then specify who exactly is saying it was murder, and under whose laws it is murder. If this is the case, then you have a lot more editing to do, which I cannot discover that you - or anyonme else - appears to be interested in doing. Yonmei 14:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

This is an international incident, so if you are going to compare this to other Wikipedia articles, you need to compare with articles dealing with other international incidents, where different countries' laws are involved. Cshay 01:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

So you are arguing that in the US it is legal for American soldiers to kill unarmed civilians attempting to flee the scene of conflict? Or that in Iraq it is legal for US soldiers to kill unarmed civilians attempting to flee the scene of conflict? If it is an international incident, international law should apply: according to the evidence presented at the inquest, Terry Lloyd was unlawfully killed. But, as I said, Wikipedia is an American encyclopedia, and there's really no point trying to present an international and neutral POV on a page where Americans want the US POV to rule. Yonmei 12:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not arguing for any POV. In fact, I am simply making sure this article follows Wikipedia NPOV guidelines. To do so, I have reworded the section to be factually accurate, specifying clearly who exactly is saying the killing is "unlawful", and under whose laws it was "unlawful". Cshay 00:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not just a coroner but his jury that returned the verdict of unlawful killing. Not just any Coroner either but the Coroner for Oxford whose jurisdiction covers RAF Brize Norton and is thus responsible for the investigation of the deaths of all persons whose bodies are flown into that airbase. He probably has more experience of military deaths and deaths at the hands of the military than any other Coroner. Moreover he added a rider to his verdict requiring the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Attorney General to consider proceedings against the perpetrators. In the fullness of time that may lead to an extradition request. malky53

Early life/career

This page is practically a stub - the only comprehensive detail on it is his death, investigation, and the inquest. Can there be a stub-request for his early life/career? Yonmei 09:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I basically agree with Yonmei here, there is not much on Terry Lloyd's career. I am going to get to work tracking down sources of biographical info. I may write it up later, but feel free to get started if you prefer. Here they are:

• Guardian Unlimited Obituary - Terry Lloyd by David Nicholas and David Mannion 24/03/03
• The Derby Gripe - Terry Lloyd
• The Derby Gripe - Terry Lloyd 2
• This is the North East: The Lloyd Brothers from Derby

The BBC profile in External Links also has some info.

abdullahazzam 12:00 21/10/06

ITN links

I just found a new URL for 'Lloyd footage may have been edited (itv.com)' and when I went back and clicked on it, it also had disappeared, it's not even in the archive, what gives ?

http://itn.co.uk/news/bcb200049a635c99b2462da8213660d5.html http://www.itv.com/news/index_bcb200049a635c99b2462da8213660d5.html

emacsuser (talk) 16:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems that the ITN site has been purged, but the BBC page making essentially the same point is still active, so I've amended the page accordingly. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Terry Lloyd. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070208214910/http://www.nuj.org.uk:80/inner.php?docid=1494 to http://www.nuj.org.uk/inner.php?docid=1494

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Terry Lloyd. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://uk.news.yahoo.com/06102006/344/tank-shot-lloyd-itn-team.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929111210/http://www.itv.com/news/index_bcb200049a635c99b2462da8213660d5.html to http://www.itv.com/news/index_bcb200049a635c99b2462da8213660d5.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060905075037/http://www.fred-nerac.info/ukartdesmout.htm to http://www.fred-nerac.info/ukartdesmout.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/article/021006/nuj_speaksa_out_on_eve_of_terry_lloyd_inquest

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:31, 28 November 2017 (UTC)