Misplaced Pages

Talk:Death of Harry Dunn: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 09:25, 17 February 2021 editChaheel Riens (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers38,601 edits →Sacoolas' full name← Previous edit Revision as of 20:50, 17 February 2021 edit undoStephenfryfan (talk | contribs)285 editsNo edit summaryTags: Reverted Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile editNext edit →
Line 69: Line 69:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/User:DeFacto https://en.m.wikipedia.org/User:DeFacto
] (]) 16:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC) ] (]) 16:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Defacate

Could you please help answer these matters simed at you? Thanks. ] (]) 20:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


== "CIA operative" == == "CIA operative" ==

Revision as of 20:50, 17 February 2021

While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconAutomobiles
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconBiography
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Note icon
An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.
WikiProject iconBritish crime (defunct)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject British crime, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.British crimeWikipedia:WikiProject British crimeTemplate:WikiProject British crimeBritish crime
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconDeath
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconInternational relations Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconMotorcycling
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Motorcycling, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Motorcycling on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MotorcyclingWikipedia:WikiProject MotorcyclingTemplate:WikiProject MotorcyclingMotorcycling
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
To-do list:



 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconNorthamptonshire Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Northamptonshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Northamptonshire-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NorthamptonshireWikipedia:WikiProject NorthamptonshireTemplate:WikiProject NorthamptonshireNorthamptonshire
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconUnited States: History
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. history.
It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.		Upload
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Death of Harry Dunn article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days 

Anne Sacoolas working for CIA - relevance to family

The importance of this to the family seems to be that they feel the Government knew all along and never told them, hoping that the matter would all be "kicked all under the carpet." Family spokesman Radd Seiger's statement is here. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Why would they expect to be party to that information, and what relevance does it have to the subject of this article? -- DeFacto (talk). 22:44, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
You're suggesting that Dunn's family did not deserve to be told the truth and that their feelings have "no relevance" to the death of their son? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:47, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
No, neither. I'm looking for the justification for including their interest in the career history of Sacoolas. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:02, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
If Jeremy Corbyn thinks the topic is sufficiently notable to ask Boris Johnson about it in the House of Commons, I think it's notable enough to be included in this article. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:49, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion this is "relevant" as it might have provided a reason or why Sacoolas was allowed to return home. This seems to be what the family now think. It might be more productive to discuss the topic here first, before repeatedly adding Template:Importance section and/or removing content? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

It's currently not made clear in the article what the importance or relevance of this content is. Hence the template. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
I added the quotes from Dunn's mother and Seiger to demonstrate the relevance, but you removed them 11 minutes later? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:52, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
We don't need more quotes, what we need is a duly weighted and reliably sourced account (of whatever this section is about) and not just a bunch of, apparently, random sound bites. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:05, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
We don't need warning information templates slapped on the article when it's being actively edited and several editors are already engaged in discussions here? As far as I understand it, the section covers "later developments", including detail about Sacoolas, the accused party, and the UK government's dealings with the family. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:39, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
That isn't a "warning template", it's an information template, and it was placed there for a very good and very appropriate reason. The relevance (and quality for that matter) of that new content is disputed, and I think an appropriate way to proceed if the "R" in BRD is not honoured by the editor being "B", is to place that template to inform readers that that content is disputed for those reasons. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:34, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
I've amended my comment. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:38, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello DeFacto -
  • "..what we need is a duly weighted and reliably sourced account": The current text is reliably sourced. Would you explain your specific concerns of the current text in respect of "duly weighted"?
  • "not just a bunch of, apparently, random sound bites.": As this is an inaccurate description of the current content further comments are not possible.
  • Perhaps you could suggest some modifications to the text.
--SnowyMalone (talk) 14:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
I note that DeFacto has made some changes the text and with input by Martinevans123. I assume this subject is now at rest.--SnowyMalone (talk) 14:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello DeFacto - I struggle to understand how you can realistically claim this development is not notable. As has been noted previously, notability is highlighted by statements from the family, wide-scale reports in reputable newspapers (and newspapers of record) and comments from two senior government ministers. Whilst not wishing to be insulting your recent actions with tagging and deleting appear to be peevish reactions after two discussions on these talk pages were characterised by other contributors disagreeing with you. And deletion of sizeable amounts of text without prior discussion is unconstructive. I support Martin's view this development is interesting in respect of her prompt return to home, and perhaps also the great reluctance of the US government to allow her extradition--SnowyMalone (talk) 22:59, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
I didn't say it wasn't notable (although I am yet to be convinced that it is). I'm looking for the section to be written in a logical and reliably sourced way that makes it clear what we're saying here. At the moment, it appears as a random collection of quotes, with no prose explaining their relevance or justifying their inclusion. Don't try and link my doubts over the encyclopaedic value of the contents of this section with my reservations about the unnecessary use of loaded terminology in other parts of the article in any way other than as a consistent attempt to to try to improve the article, which is, to my mind, in a very poor state at the moment. And don't forget, we should be concentrating here on trying to improve the article, and compromising on our personal positions in an attempt to reach consensus where we can, and should always be assuming good faith wrt other editors and avoiding making personal attacks. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello DeFacto -
  • "I'm looking for the section to be written in a logical and reliably sourced way that makes it clear what we're saying here." Perhaps you could suggest some modifications to the text.
  • "At the moment, it appears as a random collection of quotes, with no prose explaining their relevance or justifying their inclusion." Based on earlier discussions you are aware of the pitfalls related to editorialising and of the risks of opinion creeping in .. for example, "We should simply present the cold bare (and fully supported) facts, in an as neutral way as possible, and let the reader draw their own conclusions." But, as you have expressed reservations with the style of the text perhaps you could offer suggestions about its modification.
  • "making personal attacks" No personal attacks have been made. However, if you refer to my earlier 'peevish' comment you will note that I wrote it was a reaction that appears peevish: this is speculation of a possible explanation and is not an insult. The speculation was made because of your currently unfathomable position, which is at odds with all others (which includes the bereaved family, major newspapers and a number of senior politicians .. and, of negligible consequence in the grand scheme, other contributors here) and not an attack on you. It was written to stimulate further discussions on the subject, and to an extent was productive as it has led to this exchange although you still have not explained why you consider this part of the article is troubling you. Also, the speculation was not written, or indeed meant, as a personal attack; should you consider it as such then I am unable to apologies as offence is taken not given. I stress no attack or insult was intended.
  • "trying to improve the article, and compromising on our personal positions in an attempt to reach consensus where we can" I trust you will bear this in behind before any further deletion of sizeable parts of the article without previous discussion & agreement.--SnowyMalone (talk) 10:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Why is The Independent article here, which reports Dunn's mother, not seen as "mainstream media" exactly? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Or how about HuffPost? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:55, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Martin, I don't understand these questions, please clarify. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
DeF, your edit summary here said "none of this is reported in the mainstream media". But Seiger's statement semes to be reported in both of those outlets? And by others? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:47, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
I got 11 hits on that long quote, and none were from The Idependent or any other mainstream media. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello DeFacto - a question earlier today in the House of Commons demonstrates its notability: 'Mr Corbyn asked the Prime Minister if the reason the US is refusing to extradite Anne Sacoolas, who allegedly killed Harry Dunn, is because she is a former CIA agent, as has been reported.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by SnowyMalone (talk • contribs) 23:45, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Notable in what sense and for what purpose, and in what way is that relevant to this article? -- DeFacto (talk). 07:14, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello DeFacft - notability has been noted and explained by a number of persons. Some of this was mentioned in a question raised yesterday in The House Of Commons, which to quote: '.. if the reason the US is refusing to extradite Anne Sacoolas, who allegedly killed Harry Dunn, is because she is a former CIA agent ..' This question references the two individuals at the centre of this article, as well as recent, widely reported information about her occupation and how this may be influencing a high-profile legal case and a diplomatic disagreement which has involved both the Prime Minister of the UK and the President of the US.--SnowyMalone (talk) 10:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes it relevant.Slatersteven (talk) 10:16, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. https://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2020/february/prime-ministers-questions-12-february-2020/
DeFacto

What was wrong with GOODWIN? https://heavy.com/news/2019/10/anne-sacoolas/ Stephenfryfan (talk) 16:08, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/User:DeFacto 

Stephenfryfan (talk) 16:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Defacate

Could you please help answer these matters simed at you? Thanks. Stephenfryfan (talk) 20:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

"CIA operative"

Is it appropriate to describe Anne Sacoolas as "a CIA operative" in the lead section? Note that this source from The Guardian is sourced to The Mail on Sunday. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:26, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I would say not. As you point out, the source is ultimately one that Misplaced Pages has decided to to place much faith in. Secondly, why is it important to the incident? The lede is a distilled version of the article, and I don't see the relevance of the CIA to her hitting and killing him, then scooting the country while claiming full responsibility. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:01, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
The significance of her real employment and employer lies in it's contribution to whether or not she had "diplomatic immunity" from legal prosecution and was thus free to leave the UK at any time. I think there have already been contradictory statements about this. But the question is now been tested in a Virginia court. The Guardian here says this:
"So, if Sacoolas was at the Croughton site not simply in her capacity as the wife of a CIA operative, but was herself actively working at the site, her access to diplomatic immunity at the time of her departure arguably falls away. The Dunn family lawyer Radd Seiger called for an urgent investigation.... It is also possible to argue that although she was employed by the CIA, she was not being employed by the CIA at Croughton."
Martinevans123 (talk) 11:07, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
i agree with martinevans. Stephenfryfan (talk) 09:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Stephenfryfan edits

Pretty much all of the edits by Stephenfryfan are falling into the WP:SOAP and WP:GREATWRONG category. I invite him to discuss his changes here, rather than continue to effectively edit war. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:47, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. He or she should suggest changes here at the Talk page first, instead of adding material which, while it may be correct, is poorly sourced, unbalances the article and is certainly not appropriate for the lead section. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Ok. Stephenfryfan (talk) 14:29, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Based on a base. Base and station are similar. Ami right? Stephenfryfan (talk) 14:31, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
I will add something here first. After consensus i shall edit. Stephenfryfan (talk) 14:33, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Stephenfryfan, I think the intended meaning requires the word base i.e. the nounal phrase is "the United States Air Force listening station base at RAF Croughton". But the word "base" could possibly be omitted altogether. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:40, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/revealed-foreign-office-diplomat-who-told-the-us-they-should-put-fugitive-spy-anne-sacoolas-on-the-next-flight-out-of-britain-after-harry-dunns-death/ar-BB11w7Cb Stephenfryfan (talk) 14:53, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Not needed. Sorry. Already in this article. Stephenfryfan (talk) 14:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
What has this link got to do with use of the word "base"? I wonder could you indent your posts here please? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:01, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
i just forget. Nope. It has none to do with it. But i thought it was a breaking news. It is not. Thanks. Stephenfryfan (talk) 15:05, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
It's dated 21 March 2020. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment - I think we could add a "Controversies" section to the article if we have some controversial materials from reliable sources. STSC (talk) 15:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Sacoolas' full name

i added name details. https://heavy.com/news/2019/10/anne-sacoolas/ Stephenfryfan (talk) 15:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

@Defacto undid ANNE ELISABETH GOODWIN. What should you do? Is it right to undo? Stephenfryfan (talk) 16:04, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Stephenfryfan, the infobox is generally a summary of content in the rest of the article, and that isn't there anywhere else. But even if it's correct and can be reliably sourced, it's probably too much detail for this article, which isn't her biography. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree with DeFacto. Sacoolas' full birth name really has no bearing whatsoever on the death of Harry Dunn, whcih is the subject of this article. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
was i wrong?https://heavy.com/news/2019/10/anne-sacoolas/ Stephenfryfan (talk) 16:05, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
should i add this source as a link for first sentence? heavy.com/news/2019/10/anne-sacoolas Stephenfryfan (talk) 16:16, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
But it is important to be in details about NAME OF A FUGITIVE for justice/record's sack. That is why we use mugshots. And it is an ESSENTIAL information. It is not about personal information. It is the most BASIC info that must be included. Stephenfryfan (talk) 16:21, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Stephenfryfan, please read WP:LEADCITE. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:22, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
i read. But am confused. Stephenfryfan (talk) 16:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
You may add a footnote if you so wish. STSC (talk) 16:26, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
how do you do it? Stephenfryfan (talk) 09:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Click on the wikilink WP:FOOTNOTES and follow the instruction. STSC (talk) 15:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Her middle name might be useful, I guess, but I'm not sure that her maiden name is relevant to this case. I don't know, however, if it's used in the US legal process. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:54, 15 February to 2021 (UTC)
There could be some other "Anne Sacoolas" existed, we may include her full name (as a footnote) just for the sake of completeness. I think the best place to put the footnote is in the infobox. STSC (talk) 17:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Well, The Sun seems to agree with you: Martinevans123 (talk) 17:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
The Interpol certainly wouldn't want to catch the wrong "Anne Sacoolas". STSC (talk) 17:21, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Comforting they'll be using Misplaced Pages. :) Martinevans123 (talk) 17:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

So is a report from The Associated Press, fully attribued to her wedding announcement, considered unreliable? We suspect she may have somehow "removed" her middle name when she got married? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Martinevans123, I wasn't questioning the reliability of the source, I removed the addition for the reasons given in my edit summary. The source didn't give a middle name for her current name, only for her former name, and it didn't say where she was born or what her name at birth was. And we shouldn't 'suspect' anything, we should only add sourced content. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Oh, I see. I pretty sure many RSs have her current middle name. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC) p.s. that heavy.com source tells us she was born in in South Carolina. But again, I really don't see what that has to do with Harry Dunn.

I don't think the low-profile one sentence footnote is undue. Anne Sacoolas is now on the run, and the article itself should actually include more details about the alleged killer. STSC (talk) 19:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

It's not a case of whether it's correct about her name, but whether it's relevant or important to the article. I don't think the inclusion of a middle name adds to the article. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
And her maiden name? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Also we need to consider the purpose of an infobox, and per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE it is generally to "to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article". If these facts are importnt enough to be in the infobox, then they probably need to be presented and reliably sourced in the main body of the article first. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:18, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
A footnote is acceptable in infobox per WP:INFOBOXREF. STSC (talk) 13:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
STSC, only if the info is not in the article, and if the info is not applicable to the article, why would you want it in the infobox? -- DeFacto (talk). 15:14, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
STSC, why do you think the mainstream sources haven't, on the whole, included these details and do you think that if they are included they should all be reliably sourced? -- DeFacto (talk). 21:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Americans, in particular, have a fixation with the inclusion of middle names. Why “Lee Harvey Oswald” and not just “Lee Oswald”? Why “John Wilkes Booth” and not “John Booth”? Given this is not a biographical article, the moniker Anne Sacoolas is sufficient. WWGB (talk) 21:56, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
That may be true. But we have no indication that Sacoolas ever uses her middle name. So I'd agree, in general, "Anne Sacoolas" is sufficient. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:33, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
This article is an encyclopedic article which is not a news report as the mainstream sources. Including some biographical details of the alleged killer within the encyclopedic content is absolutely not undue. And I think the Aiken Standard source is quite reliable. STSC (talk) 13:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
No objection to a footnote, for full name, if the source is good enough. Still don't see how birth name is useful. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:33, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Maiden name is useful for research purposes on the person. STSC (talk) 14:48, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
add full name. It is suitable for wiki. Defacto does all PUNDITRY. Stephenfryfan (talk) 18:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Defacto behaves like Clarence thomas. the dictator attitude harms. Ehat is wrong with defacto. Is it about his snapchat goin public. Stephenfryfan (talk) 18:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
a footnote should not be irritating if defacto solely wants to lobby for suppressing informations... i think he will say it is FAKE NEWS or DEPRECATED SITE. DEFACTO knows all... huh? I agree with martinevans123 and STSC. Stephenfryfan (talk) 18:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
defacto hope not to defecate by acting like SCOTUS. Stephenfryfan (talk) 19:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Anne sacoolas is now a heavy profile and yet has no dedicated article like skripal and killers mishkin and chepiga. A lot comes to this article by only typing about sacoolas name out of curiosity. But Defecate acts both like he is Mr sacoolas and sacoolas attorney with CLARENCE THOMAS doctrines. And sometimes like censoring news that come first like mail and sun saying unreliable. Man... only after that from nyt to guardian to twp all raised it and FCO sec RAAB admitted it after hesitance. What is wrong with a footnote at least. What he does is undo and dogmas. Stephenfryfan (talk) 19:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Stephenfryfan (talk) 19:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
**martinevans123** Stephenfryfan (talk) 19:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree with STSC AND WWGB AND MARTINEVANS123. Stephenfryfan (talk) 19:54, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

There has been no consensus to include the middle name in the article, which is borderline BLP. Also, Stephenfryfan, I suggest you edit your comments above to remove the personal attack to DeFacto, regardless of any decision made here - that's unacceptable. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:25, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Image of RAF Croughton

RAF Croughton

The only image currently used in the article is this one. Is this slightly misleading, as it may suggest these were the roads where the accident occurred? Would it be better to use File:Snookered^ - geograph.org.uk - 464365.jpg (the lead omage at RAF Croughton)? Unsurprisingly there aren't many photos of the inside of the base. A better image would probably be one of the base entrance on the B4031 road. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:21, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

look martinevans123... Stephenfryfan (talk) 19:35, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
That image appears here, but WP:DAILYMAIL applies (sourced from the Daily Mail). Also not a free image, so to use it would be copyvio. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Categories:
Talk:Death of Harry Dunn: Difference between revisions Add topic