| Revision as of 09:01, 24 May 2010 editSlimVirgin (talk | contribs)172,064 edits + sources← Previous edit |
Revision as of 09:07, 24 May 2010 edit undoSlimVirgin (talk | contribs)172,064 edits +Next edit → |
| Line 62: |
Line 62: |
|
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) |
|
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) |
|
: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) |
|
: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) |
|
|
|
|
|
::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, 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) |
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. Albert Sumlin (talk) 11:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
