| Revision as of 21:01, 29 July 2010 editWill Beback (talk | contribs)112,162 edits rv troll← Previous edit |
Revision as of 07:04, 8 January 2011 edit undoSlimVirgin (talk | contribs)172,064 edits archivingNext edit → |
| Line 59: |
Line 59: |
|
{{refend}} |
|
{{refend}} |
|
<font color="maroon">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font> <font color="green">]</font></sup></small> |
|
<font color="maroon">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font> <font color="green">]</font></sup></small> |
|
|
|
|
== Unbalanced == |
|
|
|
|
|
<s>This article is written from the point of view of the British judicial authorities, who are only commentators in this case. The point of view of the German authorities, who actually have legal standing, is buried at the end of the article. It seemed to me that the obvious solution was to give equal billing to the public statements of the Germans. However, Slimvirgin, who judging from the history seems to have written this article almost single-handedly, reversed my edit, so I have added the unbalanced warning. If the article were titled "British campaign on Death of Jeremiah Duggan," the present layout might be appropriate, but if it is billed as a factual article explaining his death, the German viewpoint ought not to be suppressed. <font face="Courier">] (])</font> 11:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)</s>''<small>sock of banned editor</small>'' |
|
|
|
|
|
<s>:Slimvirgin, what you put in the "edit summary" box was "that makes the lead too long." I'd like to point out that you had other options; if the length of the lead is a problem, you could reduce both points of view proportionately, instead of reducing only that of the German authorities. Also, much of what you reversed was not in the lead at all, it was in the middle of the article, but you still moved it back to the end. <font face="Courier">] (])</font> 11:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC)</s>''<small>sock of banned editor</small>'' |
|
|
|
|
|
::Albert, I don't agree that the German position needs more in the lead, because there really isn't more to add. We can only go by the reliable sources. The Germans ruled that it was a suicide, performed no autopsy, destroyed his clothes, and took only very basic details from the drivers. That position hasn't changed or been expanded on. It's in the lead, and repeating it several times won't help. But if you have new German sources on it, please let us know. |
|
|
|
|
|
::What I would like to do with the German position is expand what the courts said, but I've run into language difficulties. I read German but I'm having problems with the legal language and don't feel confident enough to write an overview. If you read German and can translate it that would help a lot. The latest decision is . Another Wikipedian translated some of it (see ]), but ideally we need the whole thing, as well as an earlier decision they said they were upholding. <font color="maroon">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font> <font color="green">]</font></sup></small> 09:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
<s>:::I've read your article several times, and it is clear that the central theme is an allegation that the Schiller Institute committed murder. That's a serous allegation, and it's clear that many people believe it, judging by the press coverage, although the actual evidence looks to me to be only circumstantial or speculative. One quote that you removed from the lead that I think should be replaced is the following: "In an interview in March 2009, Ferse's deputy, Klaus Schulte, stressed again that there was no evidence linking the Schiller Institute to Duggan's death." Since there is an unequivocal statement by the German Public Prosecutor's office that there was no evidence that Schiller Institute committed murder, it seems only fair that it be included in the lead, given the seriousness of the allegation. Besides, it is quite recent, unlike the other statement that you allowed to remain in the lead. You also removed a statement by the prosecutor's office that "suggested the murder theory had developed because Duggan's mother cannot accept that her son committed suicide," which also seems appropriate for the lead, because so much of the article is devoted to exploring the murder theory. <font face="Courier">] (])</font> 00:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)</s>''<small>sock of banned editor</small>'' |
|
|
|
|
|
::::I think your point about adding the 2009 statement from the prosecutor's office is a valid one, so I did that. I changed it to LaRouche movement, rather than Schiller Institute, because we don't mention Schiller in the lead, so suddenly to have them not being blamed would look odd. Regarding the personal comment about Duggan's mother, I removed that from the lead some time ago as it didn't seem appropriate, and also seemed like over-egging. <font color="maroon">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font> <font color="green">]</font></sup></small> 12:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::I've re-ordered the lead a little in the hope that it seems more neutral. The first paragraph gives the basic facts. The second paragraph goes into the British position. The third reflects the German one, and the fourth is the LaRouche response. This seems like a fair balance, so I hope it's okay that I removed the tag. This has always been a difficult lead to get right, because the overwhelming majority of the sources are saying the same thing, and we're supposed to reflect that. Yet what they're saying is not even close to neutral, so we've had to struggle with that quite a bit. <font color="maroon">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font> <font color="green">]</font></sup></small> 13:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
