Talk:2010 Northumbria Police manhunt/Archive 1

Archive 1

Notability

This article is subject of deletion because the Subject is known only for one event - I dispute this because he shot three people and killed one of them over two days, unless of course you wish to include this period of time as one event. And he is the centre of a national manhunt (in the United Kingdom) - signed by user Arthur Roberts.

I agree that this should not be deleted, as Derrick Bird has an in-depth article for a similar event. This is a major national news story in the UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.23.232.41 (talk) 08:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The commenter above doesn't seem to understand that WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A NEWSPAPER.89.80.194.201 (talk) 11:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Is that an agreed policy? Along the lines of WP:SOAP? Keristrasza (talk) 11:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

More like WP:NOT#NEWS 89.80.194.201 (talk) 16:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

As that makes quite clear, it refers to "things like announcements, sports, or celebrities" ... The manhunt for Britain's most wanted is hardly celebrity tittle tattle. Keristrasza (talk) 19:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

You're reading it very selectively, aren't you? It mentions those things simply as an example. Did you miss this bit? "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." 89.80.194.201 (talk) 07:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no point even continuing this debate though. This article without any doubt at all is notable. If anyone wishes to waste everyones time by attempting to have the page deleted. Go ahead and see how quickly the deletion request is rejected. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess the answer to whether this becomes a strong keep, will be sadly on how the events of the next few days pan out.

This is noteworthy, an historic event currently taking place. It neeeds to stay Prestonmag (talk) 12:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thankfully, any multiple shooting is notable in the United Kingdom. It may not be so if it were to occur in the United States! Skinsmoke (talk) 14:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

This article should be deleted. Wikipedia is for inventories of Pokemon characters, Porn star biographies and lists of the service stations on Minor A-Roads. This serial murder spree and major police investigation is not notable. Leonig Mig (talk) 08:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Title

Should this not be moved to 2010 Northumbria shootings? The 1989 Monkseaton shootings also occurred in Northumbria. Skinsmoke (talk) 14:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

What are you going to do if there's another incident this year? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.136.62.42 (talk) 18:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

We can always rename the article at that stage if a second incident in the same area does occur. I see you did originally include a time stamp in your post, you can read up about how to use the signatures on WP:Signatures if you want which makes things easier for everyone as posts do need to be signed thanks. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes. --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed BritishWatcher (talk) 14:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Should we not now disambiguate Northumbria shootings? TheRetroGuy (talk) 15:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Would be better to keep that as a redirect here, but could put a link at the top of the article linking to that other shooting. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Easy either way - but shouldn't it be Northumbrian Shootings - although to date, they've all been on tyne and wear I think? --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Northumbria doesn't even exist any more does it? --86.136.20.134 (talk) 15:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Not as a county, but in the mind maybe. Well the whole thing is being handled by the Northumbrian police for one thing. --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

2010 Northumbria shootings is ambiguous and still requires a separate page for Raoul Thomas Moat, which I created in the first place. By all means have a Northumbria shootings page, as long as you continue the theme by creating county specific shootings pages (an absurd possibility). Transfer this page back to its original title! Arthur Roberts 18:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Roberts (talk • contribs)

Per the style guidelines, it is the event rather than the person which is significant here. A separate page on Moat would most likely be nominated for deletion again. See Derrick Bird which redirects to Cumbria shootings for an example. TheRetroGuy (talk) 18:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Have added a dablink to the Monkseaton shootigs. TheRetroGuy (talk) 18:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• I've moved it to 2010 Northumbria Police manhunt, because no way is the shootings the notable part of this ongoing incident - an article about 1 dead, 2 injured, immediate capture, would most definitely fail NOT#NEWS, and also, as above, while the hunt is happening in the Northumbria Police area, this incident covers a much greater area than the county of Northumberland, and it only entered the county of Northumberland days later, having begun all the way down in Birtley, which is nowhere near Northumberland, not even if you are using the traditional county boundary of the Tyne. And Newcastle has not been part of modern day Northumberland for donkeys years either. It's also probably arguable that 2010 is not needed, although as with just Northumberland shootings it is probably just about warranted. MickMacNee (talk) 18:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry but how on earth are the shootings not notable? There is a manhunt because of the shootings, and a manhunt could be for any number of reasons, so this title is hardly descriptive. It is also recentism, as it focuses on the particular issue at the present time. The BBC are currently calling it "Tyneside Shootings". it would also be a good idea if you discussed these sort of things first, otherwise the page gets moved all over the place in accordance with individual preferences, especially considering there is already a discussion about the correct title. Quantpole (talk) 19:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• I think it would be worth moving it back to the previous title for now, and adjusting the article accordingly. I tend to agree that the shootings are the thing that sparked the manhunt, and in time it will probably be the shootings rather than the manhunt that is remembered. Certainly if the suspect is captured and put on trial or whatever. If the BBC continue to call it Tyneside shootings then that could be a more appropriate title. I'm not from the area, but I think Northumbria is referring to the police force rather than the county. TheRetroGuy (talk) 19:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to revert this change in one hour unless there's a consensus not to do so - we've no way of knowing if the 'manhunt' is going to be the most notable aspect of this event and the shootings of 3 and death of one should not be so easily diminished as to make the manhunt, the central thesis. --Joopercoopers (talk) 19:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't it need an admin to reverse a move? Or is there a case for moving it to "2010 Tyneside Shootings" - Tyneside being a more general area, not an administrative one (and that's what the BBC are using). Quantpole (talk) 19:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• It's not recentist, and the former title was Northumberland, not Northumbria, not that there is a difference, both are misleading without 'police'. The manhunt remains the notable thing about the article, even after it ends. If you think that there have been comparable incidents in the past, please say so, but I'm sorry if you think it diminishes 1 death, but you won't be doing anything usefull by claiming that 1 death by shooting is notable in Tyneside. You might as well name it 2010 London knife attack for all the long term notability that has. Yes, the shootings started the manhunt, I never said they didn't, but like I already said, had he been caught straight away after the 'shootings', there would be no article. People are free to disagree, but that's just a plain fact. And in terms of content of the article, the shootings are a small part of the incident, getting smaller everyday. The ongoing coverage is due to the manhunt. And 'shootings' is hardly informative after, considering it makes no distinction between this relatively minor 1 death 2 injured incident here, and the mass shootings in Cumbria. If you revert this back to plain 'shootings', then people are just going to be starting articles every time some random shooting occurs in the UK, which is actually not as rare an event as the news makes out, and certainly not something that is automatically notable. In that regard, I can tell you now for free, 'Tyneside shootings' is a totally poor title as an alternative (although at least better than the misleading 'Northumberland' one), which, while it is something the news would pick as a title, they do not have to worry whether it means anything in years to come - this is the difference between news values and encyclopoedia values. I rather think that Northumbria manhunt will resonate in future as well as now, because that is from where I'm sitting, the notable part of this incident - the police appeals, the cordons, the raids, the motive / backstory, etc etc etc. MickMacNee (talk) 19:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, your opinion Mick, but lets get some consensus before we start moving the article around willy nilly. How many shootings would you like before the original makes sense over the manhunt? I'd be pretty happy with 2010 Tyneside shootings. --Joopercoopers (talk) 19:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Feel free to make an argument for changing it based on the facts of this incident, but I'm not going to start debating theoretical situations that have never happened. No two incidents are the same, and the notability of this incident is all about the manhunt. That is frankly beyond obvious to me - this is not opinion, it's basic fact, based on the facts on the ground and of the coverage of this incident. Still, people are free to disagree, just don't give proveably false opinions such as the idea that 'Tyneside shootings' is anything but a transient news title, and in a few months, let alone years, will not make anyone think of this incident. Not to mention that Rothbury is frankly nowhere near Tyneside, and you need to have your geographic frame of reference expanded to full wide angle before even Birtley can be considered part of Tyneside either. MickMacNee (talk) 20:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I've been looking at the article all day with misgivings about how exactly it should be titled - oh, and disagreeing with the (now removed) link to spree killing, the definition of which does not cover the events to date. The "manhunt" is probably the most noteworthy aspect of the incident so far. As it unfolds and more information is released and verified, I don't think it improbable that the article will be retitled again. But I'm comfortable with it being called a "manhunt" at the moment. For all the media frenzy (and rolling coverage of a roadblock all day hehe), it is hardly Hungerford or Cumbria revisited. At least not at the moment. And hopefully for all involved not at all, of course. Keristrasza (talk) 20:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Anyone up for removing the infobox altogether? What's it adding?--Joopercoopers (talk) 20:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

"The manhunt remains the notable thing about the article, even after it ends." Even today, during the manhunt, there have been many other strands to the story that have been at play in the news. The letter written to the police, the supposed steroid use, the hostages etc etc. Yes, one death from a shooting is not automatically notable, but everything that has happened since then, and the prolonged period in the news does make the shootings themselves notable. Quantpole (talk) 20:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I take the point, and agree that there is a helluva lot more mileage in this story yet to come. But it is also one of the reasons that I partially sympathise with the faction who object to wikipedia being used as a news aggregator... For now, the title isn't really such a big deal - nothing is set in stone - and I fully expect the article to be retitled and completely unrecognisable by the time this - if it does - comes to trial. At the moment, it is essentially a huge manhunt for a suspect in a murder and two attempted murders. Keristrasza (talk) 20:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

If anything, that is an argument for calling it the Raoul Moat case or Raoul Moat shooting spree or Raoul Moat manhunt then, but no doubt that won't get past the BLP censors. Frankly, I can think of no other article where the notable topic is mentioned just by referring to the trigger incident. MickMacNee (talk) 20:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I can, Watergate springs to mind. Quantpole (talk) 20:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Watergate is an awfull title. What's so hilarious is that even now, many people outside the USA have no clue how it got that name, and in actual fact, most Americans have no clue how the Watergate building got its name either. It should frankly be at Watergate scandal to be a proper title, but to do that, you would have to convince American readers that they aren't the centre of the universe. MickMacNee (talk) 20:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• Infact, I prefer Raoul Moat manhunt actualy to any version of 2010 + 'place + shooting'. This would satisfy BLP1E, it would not become dated, it would not innacurately imply this was a notable shooting spree (it's barely a spree at all), and not use innaccurate place names, and most of all, get rid of the idiotic practice of sticking the year on everything and anything. It is even bordering on a first time guessable title, and would certainly make it to Google news due to having enough key terms in it. MickMacNee (talk) 20:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that line of reasoning, but I'm not necessarily insisting upon a change. How do others feel? Keristrasza (talk) 20:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

But it would become dated if the manhunt is not the notable thing about this case. Quantpole (talk) 20:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Raoul Moat manhunt as opposed to Raoul Moat animalhunt? Bundesmonopolverwaltung (talk) 23:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thats a nicer title than i thought up for this guy and the incident. I have been searching for a Category:Criminal Justice System screw ups to add, but i cant find it. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I am very confused by the articles current title. When the newspapers and historians look back at this in a couple of years time, will the notability be for the manhunt or the shootings? I'd currently conclude that the manhunt is created because of the shootings, and apart from a possible charge of wasting police time won't take up much of the eventual courts procedure. But, can we just leave it as is at present - as long as it doesn't mention Raul Hunt in the title, its in context and wiki rules - and have a further debate once he is retained and the legal case progresses? Its now changed title twice in less than 24hours - anything more and we might as well create an article title lucky dip tombola! Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 10:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Notability is not decided by the subject of any possible future court case, and it is probably more likely he is going to simply be shot in a final stand than be captured alive. And the notability is the manhunt - that is the word that precedes every single ongoing report, and it is the only reason why this incident will ever be re-visited in the future by historians or newspapers. Yes, the manhunt was set off by the shootings. So what? That is made clear in the first line of the article. It does not make the title any more relevant, because the simle fact is, without the manhunt, the shootings would not have become notable. And you are simply mistaken if you think the rules mean we can't include his name, it only precludes naming the article with just his name on its own. MickMacNee (talk) 12:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

You do have a point. There are shootings all the time sadly, it happens in London all the time but there is little police action. The massive manhunt taking place responding to the incident is the big story. After this is all concluded, and i do hope it has the conclusion that you suggest is likely, we may have to revisit the title. But until there is a major change in the situation we should keep the present title, there isnt a single term all the media are using to describe this incident and this is fine for now. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

On reflection - I'm happy to keep it as it is for now as well. But we'll review it when there's a conclusion to the events. --Joopercoopers (talk) 13:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that it should be renamed 2010 Northumbria shootings. Ggoere (talk) 17:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Mention of the IPCC?

Would a section on the investigation into the polices handling of the incident be justified yet? At the moment it would just need to mention the IPCC being called into investigate it after it was revealed they had a warning from the prison. Such a section will certainly be needed in the future, if theres somewhere else the IPCC being called in can be added for the time being that would be fine instead. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Go for it - there's a ref at the bottom of this article. --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

NATs airspace closure?

I notice that there is already a "dubious" note next to this section - however, is there any evidence what-so-ever that this is a fact? The official NATs website has no mention of this at all and I was wondering what people thought about removing this section of the article as it is both not really adding to the content and is possibly false information. Yours, --AycliffeAngel (talk) 21:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I have removed it, i cant seem to find any mention of it in the media. The Media helicopters were operating above the police operational aircraft during todays coverage, but i didnt hear anything mentioned about NATS closing airspace. Should only be readded if sources are provided. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

This originated with a Northumbria Police statement: "Urgent advice for people in Rothbury area Dated: 06 Jul 2010... We are closing down a geographic area near Rothbury. This is a two mile radial exclusion zone on the ground. In addition there is a five mile, 5,000 feet air exclusion zone." Source: http://www.northumbria.police.uk/details.asp?id=29238. Didn't originate with NATS. Keristrasza (talk) 21:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Added the bit about airspace to the sentence on the ground exclusion zone. Although even before the change the wording did not seem to make sense by having " and two men were found walking along a road." at the end of it. That needs a new sentence. Ive not checked the sources was the exclusion zone established before or after the two men were found, from what i heard i thought it was after they were found. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Moat's child - delete

Although he has not been arrested, the explicit naming of a child in an article about an alleged murderer is poor judgement. The daughter has not got anything to do with present events and therefore the name should be should be left out of this article. It's notable that Moat has a daughter but it's not notable to name who she is (based on Wikipedia's own criteria).

If he get arrested, then laws pertaining to the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 come into play especially when it's such a high-profile case (you have in fact given her a name, therefore putting her at potential risk). Therefore the name should be removed forthwith. I have not done it myself because I don't want to get involved in an edit war. That is why I have made my case here first.

Please note on Wikipedia : A reverse precedence has already been set. In the article about Billy Bob Thornton, details about his daughter being charged with murder were removed because it has nothing to do with him. Under that reasoning, Moat's daughter should be shown the same courtesy as she is not involved in these current events and therefore should have her anonymity protected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.18.0 (talk) 09:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Well done for making the post on the talk page rather than starting a potential edit war on this matter. From a quick google search i see Skynews has published the name [1] and the current Guardian source [2] mentions it and the daily mail too. [3] and Yahoo [4] So the name is already very clearly in the public domain. I wont oppose her name being removed if others want to, but i do not think it needs to be. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the name needs to be removed, the suspect seems to mention his kids from time to time so I guess it's relevant. Also, I'm not sure WP is subject to the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. raseaC^{talk to me} 10:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I've taken the name out but left the reference to kids as it appears to be one of the contributory factors in Moats meltdown. Can anyone find any references for the other two, apparently they've been involved with social services according to moat. --Joopercoopers (talk) 10:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

On reflection, I've restored the name. Moat mentions his daugther in this quote "They took it all from me, kids, freedom, house, then X and Y." Which doesn't make complete sense unless you know who X and Y are. --Joopercoopers (talk) 11:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that it is particularly relevant that a man who is clearly unstable puts the name of his daughter in the public domain. We have a longstanding convention in the United Kingdom that innocent children are not named, to protect their privacy. The daughter is only tertiary to these incidents (not the perpetrator and not one of the victims), and it is not necessary to identify her. The fact that the press chose to ignore the convention can be dealt with by complaints to the Press Complaints Council, toothless wonder though it is. Wikipedia does not need to follow their bad practice. As for Moat's quote, rephrase it so that it is no longer a direct quote, but a report on what he is quoted as saying. That way we can omit the name. Incidentally, the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 only becomes relevant if the daughter appears as a witness in court proceedings (see Children and Young Persons Act 1933). Skinsmoke (talk) 17:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

As no further comments, now rephrased to avoid mentioning daughter's name. Skinsmoke (talk) 10:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Stobbart's father

Do we want to report this interview with Stobbart's Dad? [5] I'm not sure we need it, but I'm hovering over the fence. --Joopercoopers (talk) 11:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

PC David Rathband photos

Just copied this to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Copyright_Cleanup#PC_David_Rathband - any lurkers out there knowledgeable about copyright care to have a punt?

Hi, I'd like to upload these images of PC David Rathband to illustrate the 2010 Northumbria Police manhunt article. They were reportedly issued by Northumbria Police "At his request we are releasing a photograph of his injuries before he received treatment. He has agreed to the release of this photos on the basis the media respect the express wishes of his family not to be approached or identified." Is there a reasonable justification for either fair use or PD?

I'd have thought, if it's available to every other media outlet to use commercially, they should be ok with us, but i'm a bear of little brain in this area.--Joopercoopers (talk) 12:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

wow those two images at the bottom are pretty disturbing and im rather surprised they were released at all, i dunno if we should include those on this page. No idea on the copyright rules, they are so complicated its why i would never dream of trying to upload an image. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

If one of those images is to be used on this page. Id say it should be the one on our left which gives a wider shot of him rather than the upclose one of his face. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

it was a pretty unusual step apparently. I'd take the opposite view - the close up, shocking as it is, takes this whole tale out of a cop chase and into the realm of stark reality. --Joopercoopers (talk) 13:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• They are not releasing them in the sense of PD, and you won't be able to claim fair use for those images at all. And even if you could, which you won't, I seriously doubt they would add anything to the article except grossing people out, which is not a very encyclopoedic thing to do. MickMacNee (talk) 13:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• I suppose if the police have relinquished their rights over the images they may be public domain. I don't see though how they would be useful to this article and I would only add graphic images if they illustrated and improved the article. I don't think these are all that pertinent.Mtaylor848 (talk) 13:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the article needs some images and, given that this is a 'shooting spree' an image of a victim seems an obvious choice to me. raseaC^{talk to me} 14:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Other options might include the Police released picture of Moat. I'd be happy to bow to BW's use of the wider shot, if there's a consensus, the other is too graphic for taste and decency. Also perhaps a map with the locations of the shootings, raids, and Rothbury, would be useful. --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

A map would be very useful, even just showing where the hell Rothbury is if nothing else and I suppose one of Moat makes sense. I think that one of the two images above (either/or) has value because it's actually of one of the victims and, if the copyright is all OK, it adds a new element of information to the article that is otherwise lacking. The PC getting shot is one of the major parts of this whole situation and, unless someone has a picture of the actual shooting, one of the aftermath is good enough. Graphic or otherwise (I don't actually see the problem with the pictures) is irrelevant as per relevant policies and the disclaimer on every page which, of course, we've all read ;). raseaC^{talk to me} 14:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I never thought I'd be one to be posting anagrams, but WP:CENSOR bears a little reading. --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree there should be no censorship. If I thought these images would improve the article I wouldn't object, be them graphic or otherwise. I don't really think there appropriate and I don't think an image of an injury is really going to aid a users understanding of the subject. A photograph of the alleged perpetrator would be more useful and I dare say that the police will issue them into the public domain so they are more likely to be used.Mtaylor848 (talk) 12:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I've spoken to and emailed Northumbria Police's media center this morning and sent them a release form - they'd never heard of CC-BY-SA before. I asked for the pictures of PC Rathband and a few of Moat. We'll wait and see. --Joopercoopers (talk) 13:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Basic map

I have added a basic map. To add any further locations, find the digital co-ords from that new locations wiki-article, and then add in the same format as the others. Not quite a picture, but it will do for now! Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 01:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Great work Trident - I'm going to be absent for a few days. Suggest the inclusion of 1. HMP Durham, 2. Seaton Delaval and 3.Wrekenton --Joopercoopers (talk) 01:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Right, got those extra locations and dates in, except Durham prison. The map format only fits certain longs/lats, and Durham prison stands outside the map's area, so adding it sends it all Pete-Tong! I have added the co-ords for Durham prison to the format, but its blanked out at present. Good night all! --Trident13 (talk) 01:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Would suggest Cartington and North Kenton are added to the map. Skinsmoke (talk) 17:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

MOS and dates

Does anyone else think the contents looks really confusing with the dates formated as "1.1 1 July"? I changed it to read "1.1 July 1", but an IP has reverted. I know it's a British article and usually the MOS convention is to have it formatted as day month, but for simple legibility of the contents I wonder if this is a case to IAR and reverse the convention - any thoughts? --Joopercoopers (talk) 10:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Lmao omg i was just posting exactly the same thing. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Am i the only one who thinks its a bit confusing/messy having so many numbers in the contents list for the timetable section, especially as the numbers are so similar. 1.1.1 / 1.2.3 / 1.3.4 etc.

• 1.1 1 July – Release from prison
• 1.2 3 July – Birtley shootings
• 1.3 4 July – Denton shooting
• 1.4 5 July – Letter, sightings and appeals
• 1.5 6 July – Cordon of Rothbury
• 1.6 7 July – Further appeals, reward offered
• 1.7 8 July – Court appearance

Has been bothering me a couple of times that ive looked at it. If no one else has a problem with it dont worry, was just wondering if anyone felt the same and im not sure how it could be resolved anyway. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Haha! I'd suggest, for consistency we'll just change the whole article to the American format of July 1 etc. --Joopercoopers (talk) 10:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree it should be changed, saying July 1 / July 2 would be an improvement separating the numbers yes BritishWatcher (talk) 11:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

That looks much better. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

What is the virtue of consistency in this regard? Use the Month Nº format in the headings for a good reason, yes, but otherwise it doesn't matter, does it? Rothorpe (talk) 01:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

How about "Thursday 1 July" etc., which puts the day name between the date and the section number. Frankly, I think after a few weeks, having a day-by-day will probably seem like overkill and we'll end up with a single "the manhunt" section of more modest proportion. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 19:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I see someone has changed the dates back. BritishWatcher (talk) 06:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I've put it back to read July first, which makes so much more sense. Either way, Finlay McWalter is right, give it a couple of weeks and it'll just be one section. raseaC^{talk to me} 13:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Manpower

Just a thought but wouldn't this section be better titled as "Resources"? Much of the section is about manpower but also includes non-human resources, although I am fairly sure the RAF would have sent some pilots with the planes. --Wintonian (talk) 12:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'd agree. GedUK  14:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Seems logical. raseaC^{talk to me} 14:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done GedUK  14:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Apprehended

Sky News coverage currently running with the apprehension of Moat, who is cornered with his gun to his head while police negotiate with him. Keristrasza (talk) 19:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

That's not an apprehension yet. It's all over that they've got him cornered, but the conclusion isn't known yet. --Fbifriday (talk) 20:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

For Resources Cheshire armed officers are also involved

For Resources Cheshire Armed Officers are also involved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.71.46.213 (talk) 21:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding times

Now that it appears that the event has come to a conclusion, shouldn't we remove the times altogether, to begin to set up the article's shift from a recent event to a more general record of the manhunt? Or should the article be moved altogether to a more central event centric name (For example, 2010 Northumbria Spree Shooting, or Raoul Moat Shooting Spree) and begin to feature aftermath (whatever it may be) and feature the manhunt as a section, as opposed to the main feature of the article? --Fbifriday (talk) 01:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Times are more appropriate to Wikinews; Wikipedia is more geared to describing events after they've happened. But since all is still up in the air, I see no reason to change anything much, per WP:RECENTISM, more like WP:DEADLINE. Rodhullandemu 01:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm with Rodhull. Leave as is for now, as we agreed above. The media have not settled on a title for this case, and we normally don't name articles after the perpetrators unless they are serial/over a period of time types. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 01:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Most articles for spree killings are named after the Year and Place (See 2009 Tel Aviv gay centre shooting, 2010_Habikino_shooting, 2009 Landshut shooting), and a rare few don't have the year (see Fort Hood shooting Sello mall shooting, Virginia Tech massacre). Therefore, I think the best naming for this article would be 2010 Birtley Shootings (My apologies for saying Northumbria earlier, as technically, Birtley is in Northumberland, as Northumbria isn't actually a place, just a police service), or something similar, depending on what would be the most recognizable. --Fbifriday (talk) 01:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

We should take a step back here, in a situation that is subject to rapid development; there is no universally accepted term amongst the reliable sources that give this incident a name. If you look at the "What links here" to the left of the article, all the bases seems to be covered. There is no requirement here for us to be up to date, as I've already mentioned above, ad Wikinews is the more obvious vehicle for currently-developing situations. Rodhullandemu 01:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I have just created a redirect from 2010 Rothbury manhunt as to me that would seem to be a logical name as the main story seems to be about the search for Moat. Another option for discussion later on if the media don't end up in agreement. --Wintonian (talk) 03:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Intro

The intro is no longer follows Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section); I've just skimmed through it and there's at least three pieces of information that are not mentioned in the main part of the article. I'm pretty tired now, so if anyone's willing to hack it down to a summary of the article's main body – go ahead! matt (talk) 01:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Lead

it is also way too long and needs to be trimmed down. details can go in the article. a "brief summation" for the lay reader it is not, one would lose interest. (i do too, and i read lots of wikipedia articles (even outside my core competency)Lihaas (talk) 09:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

It's fine as it is. This was a huge and complex case, and the main article doesn't even yet cover a fifth of what could be written about it yet. If you lose interest after reading just what is in the lede now, then you aren't really interested about this subject at all. MickMacNee (talk) 14:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the intro doesn't summarise the main article – it doesn't even say how the stand-off ended. It also covers information not included or referenced in the main body of the article – such as the assertion that Moat had roid rage (this term is not mentioned in the body, nor is it referenced in the intro). There are also a few other loose ends – the intro suggests that the shootings in Birtley and Denton were using a sawn-off shotgun, but the first mention of this in the body is during the stand off. matt (talk) 15:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's not mix apples and oranges, whether it is too long is one issue, whether it contains details not in the main article is another. You neglected to detail them in the post which started this section, which is probably why nobody did anything about it. If you want to detail them all, I suggest you start a section at the bottom of this page, so it looks more like a current issue. Alternatively, I think there might even be a specific tag for this (not 'citation needed', rather a 'not in main body' tag, but either suffices, if you just want to tag and leave. As for it not saying how the standoff ended, it currently says "on 9 July Moat was recognised by police and contained in the open, leading to a standoff. After nearly six hours of negotiation, Moat shot himself in the early hours of 10 July, and was later pronounced dead ". How is that not saying how the stand-off ended? MickMacNee (talk) 16:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Deceased

Sky is now saying live that from their sources he is now deceased as of 2:52 BST GMT+1 81.109.175.173 (talk) 01:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Sky News Source Raoul Moat has deceased on arrival at the hospital - http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Raoul-Moat-Sky-Sources-Says-He-Is-Dead-After-Shooting-Himself-Following-Stand-Off-With-Police/Article/201007215662595?lpos=UK_News_Carousel_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15662595_Raoul_Moat%3A_Sky_Sources_Says_He_Is_Dead_After_Shooting_Himself_Following_Stand-Off_With_Police 81.109.175.173 (talk) 02:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

HE DEAD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.161.164 (talk) 02:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Both the BBC and Sky are saying a "good source" says that Moat has died. They're both careful not to explicitly say that this is the case without talking about this source. As such, it's not verifiable. However, a police statement was made very soon after the gunshot so hold tight and we'll have a source soon. matt (talk) 02:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The BBC article is saying that the police ARE the source. I believe that is verifiable now. --Fbifriday (talk) 02:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, although the article says the Metropoliton police? What information or source is there that the Met has provided this information? The Met Police are based in the area of London; the other side of the country? 02:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JasonO99 (talk • contribs)

Yeah, I removed that little bit. Even though the Met did provide AFO's for the search, everything has been handled through the local police service, especially since the Met is a good bit of distance away. --Fbifriday (talk) 02:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

What's the link? Of course something from the police is entirely different to just "sources". matt (talk) 02:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The link is here, and it's in the title. And on BBC radio, they said that while the Northumbria police have yet to put out an official statement, their police sources have confirmed, as usually happens with breaking news, the official statement takes longer than the unofficial comments --Fbifriday (talk) 02:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Sky News are repeatidly saying that the police and hospital have not confirmed the death of Roaul Moat. This kind of clashes with what the BBC is saying; I'm sure the police would not just tell the BBC but not the rest of the media? They usually release it all in one statement of some kind, right? JasonO99 (talk) 02:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

It depends on who which reporter talks to. If they're just talking to one specific random officer, yes, one news service could get the news before a different. There will be an official statement eventually, but unofficial statements could come little by little. --Fbifriday (talk) 02:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Map

{{editsemiprotected}} I propose adding "9 July - Rothbury" to the location map next to the lead, because that is when and where the final standoff was, where the manhunt came to a close. 94.212.31.237 (talk) 06:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, therefore Done. AJCham 14:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Hasn't Raoul Moat earned the right to his own Wikipedia page now?

Collapsing as pointless. See our policy about people notable for just one event. MickMacNee (talk) 20:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Un-collapsing - discussion is ongoing. --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Read WP:TALK. Just becuase it is 'ongoing' does not mean it is no longer relevant and cannot be collapsed with a relevant direction as to why. This discussion is wholly pointless, and you are wrong to give novice editors the impression there is anything to be gained by them continuing to post here. There is zero chance there will ever be an independent biography article, that's just a fact. And infact, rather predictably, by keeping this section open, it has now meandered into the complete opposite direction, which would not have happened had you left it closed and forced a new section to be started. MickMacNee (talk) 17:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Far less notable maniacs have their own pages, why does Raoul only exist within the context of the establishments attempts to subdue him? 78.151.46.79 (talk) 14:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable only for one event, which says "The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person." If he was notable for something else as well, then an article might be justified. But he hasn't, he's notable only in the context of the crime and its aftermath. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 14:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the rationale of that particular rule to be honest. When I type in 'Raoul Moat' to learn more about his life I certainly wouldn't think to type in the rather more cumbersome alternative of '2010 Northumbria Police manhunt'. I think he has done enough to earn himself a page of his own. 78.151.46.79 (talk) 14:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

{{ec{{ Contrary to your claims, there is no conspiracy theory. Wikipedia has articles on notable people. Moat is only notbale for this event (see WP:BIO1E), so this is where Wikipedia's coverage of him belongs and his name redirects here. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, typing in 'Raoul Moat' takes you to the relevant section of this article. Problem solved. trolling Conversation over. raseaC^{talk to me} 15:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

This is small-minded, pedantic, PC lunacy. I, like 98% of other people, typed in Raoul Moat wiki. By sheer weight of numbers, of course the article should be titled 'Raoul Moat'.Mygodfrey (talk) 13:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree with 78.151.46.79. I dont understand why raseaC uses patronizing childish comments such as"Problem solved. trolling Conversation over". 78.151.46.79 did ask a LEGITIMATE QUESTION so please keep the insults to a minimum.

97.78% of visitors searched for "raoul moat wiki" NOT 2010 "Northumbria Police manhunt", This is further proof of Wikipedias covert censorship covered up using one of their zillion Rules, regulations, Policies and red tape .Raoul Moat IS notable enough for his own article.

raseaC/ User :Finlay McWalter/HJ Mitchell please explain whyPaul the Octopus and Mani the Parakeet have got their own pages but the person responsible for the BIGGEST media story in the UK hasn't? paul and mani are animals that guess things, i am sure that those articles infringed many wikipedia superlaws2.0™

OH I FORGOT According to "the supreme Wikipedia law" 2007 paragragh1.3 rev2.0 CC-BY-SA 3.0007 GFDL abc-wtf that paul and Mani are notable media created novelties who guess the outcomes of FIFA world cup 2010™ football matches(!) smells like a conspiracy to me. User10hb01 (talk) 18:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes of course, no 3 editors can form the same opinion of their own accord, the only possible explanation is that they're conspiring with each other. Get real! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

They've got their own articles purely to piss you off. We came up with the idea at the Super Secret No People Other Than Us Invited Wikimeet 2010 the other day. It was a fun day, shame you weren't there. raseaC^{talk to me} 18:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't you mean the Absolutely Super Duper Top Secret No People Other Than Us Invited Cabal Meeting™ 2010? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair question 78.151.46.79, which deserves a fair answer. Lets put the rules aside for one moment, and think about what we could say about Moat from media sources? Bouncer, born in the northeast, couple of kids, couple of convictions, short prison sentence, numerous para's about last 10days, death. Most of the sources would be related to the last 10days, not his life. Hence, we'd end up replicating almost everything that's here. Why create two pages when one will do, because someone is only notable for one thing? Hence rule WP:BIO1E, to stop replicating the same information twice, when a redirect will suffice. Its partly good management of the space, partly good database management, and partly so every unfortunate soul who commits a singular crime that is well covered by the media doesn't get the long term attention that some would desire. You bring up Paul the Octopus as a trivia issue, but he's been predicting results since Euro2008, and that article is basically a copy of the one on the German version of Wikipedia which is well source supported. On a personal level, if there is any justice in the world and respect for his victims, I don't think idiots like Moat are deserving of a wiki article. So how ever much people search, if the redirect comes here then as raseaC says "problem solved!" Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 19:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• This section is ridiculous. Just point to the policy and move on. No need for attempts at humour or in depth comparisons to eight legged freaks. Collapsing. MickMacNee (talk) 20:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

While I realise it's poor form to add to a collapsed discussion and refute Mick's suggestion that I and HJ only attempted humour (actual 'LOL', HJ). I would like to say that Trident pretty much sums up all of my (serious) thoughts. If it transpires that Moat has a hidden past that makes him notable then yes, he may warrent a separate article but that would only be because he has been involved in more than one notable event. As it stands he is only involved in this notable event and therefore it's much more useful for readers that are interested in Moat to be redirected here, as they get the full story. In all fairness it is a fair point that the OP raised, but I still think it was raised for the wrong reasons (but that's just my opinion, and I'm usually wrong). raseaC^{talk to me} 23:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Why does http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimveer_Gill have his own page? Why can't Moat have his own page too? Liquinn (talk) 11:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

They should probably be mrged in an ideal world. Also it might be worth reading this essay for help and further advice on this. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 15:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't even think there should be an article on this event, per WP:NOT#NEWS. This manhunt might be a big deal now, but only in a local British media context. In the US guys kill their ex's new boyfriend, go on the lam and top themselves with depressing regularity. I consider any effort to have two articles to be a non-starter. Abductive (reasoning) 15:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Then be bold and take it to WP:AFD. Lugnuts (talk) 17:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Probably a moot point, but shouldn't Raoul Moat be at least somewhere in the title? 2010 Northumbria Police manhunt suggests it was a vague manhunt without any specific individual in mind. The police always knew it was Moat. I know redirects work to make sure readers arrive at the same page, but seriously who is going to type "2010 Northumbria Police manhunt"? 91.106.116.120 (talk) 00:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• There is a precident here in that Ian Huntley whose news story was bigger than Moat's has not got 'his own' page. On Wikipedia rules are rules, whether or not you like it. If you feel so strongly that Moat needs his own page, tough he won't have one. If you don't like it then try another site. Also I don't feel that Moat has 'earnt' anything, do you? I also note most of those who are pushing for a Moat page are anonymous and whilst anonymous users are encouraged I've got to question their motives.... Cls14 (talk) 13:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Er, kind have got the impression no one wants to carry on this discussion but....what we've ended up with does seem to be the least informative and relevant title possible. The word 'manhunt' seems inappropriate consider how it all ended (i.e a few months after the event, the killings etc being the prominent part of the story rather than the 'hunt'). Also, not having Moat somehere in the title makes it all fairly obscure (although obviously it shouldn't be an article on the man himself alone). I would have thought it would make more sense to call it something like "The Raoul Moat murders, 2010" or "the Raoul Moat shootings" to cover his suicide.DeCausa (talk) 15:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Suicide

PPlease could somebody with editing rights change this to "suspected suicide". It will not be confirmed as suicide until the Coroner rules that it was. I know that it sounds petty but it is correct and this is an encyclopaedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.228.235 (talk) 07:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I quite agree. I've changed it. You could change it yourself, as well as being an encyclopedia, we're also and open source wiki. --Joopercoopers (talk) 12:24, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Jooper, the page is semi-protected, so he can't. As for the requester, use {{editsemiprotected}} next time so we know what exactly you're requesting. Other than that, good call on this one. --Fbifriday (talk) 19:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Why? Did the vandalism get a lot worse while I was away? Can we think about unprotecting now? --Joopercoopers (talk) 21:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The protection was introduced on Friday evening, partly due to BLP concerns, and also because editing was so quick that flagged protection was counterproductive. It expires tomorrow, although I see no reason why unprotection would be declined if someone asked for it at WP:RPP. Regards, WFC (talk) 21:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Copycat section - Hari/Dietz 2nd para

I am trying to understand the need for the second paragraph in the copycat section, that starts ... "Dietz's research demonstrated that how the media reported events such as this and the Cumbria shootings "can make [someone] more likely to charge out of his house to kill, or less"." Presently, the first the two para's of the copycat section are an edited summary of the full Hari written opinion piece at The Independent. The two para's make-up half of the whole copycat section. I like and support the idea of the copycat section, but do we need half of it focused around one article in one newspaper? There is also only one reference in covering both para's, both leading back to the Hari article. Apart from seemingly skirting around/close to a copyvio, it seems to wholly unbalance the section. I hence can't see the need for the second para, which could be better understood by reading the original article. I removed it this morning, but someone thinks its essential - hence the debate here. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 23:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking about this yesterday - in general the section seems overly long and suffering a little from WP:WEIGHT considerations - surely we don't need to be mentioning Charlie Brooker and everyone who might have mentioned the media spectacle - so there's a case from trimming it back a little in my opinion. Actually I think the Hari stuff is rather more pertinent. However, for now, as the article is likely to continue to expand as we go through the inquest and IPCC investigations, I'm happy to leave it as is for now - the Copycat section, may look better weighted when the story has been fleshed out a bit more by subsequent events. --Joopercoopers (talk) 11:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I've trimmed the 2nd para down to "He was also critical of the media's glamorising of Moat, with their descriptions of him "having a hulking physique" and being "a notorious hard man", while they provided noticeably less coverage to the victims of the shootings" and incorporated it into the 1st. It was I that actually did the undo on Trident's initial edit, but it was more of a "ooh, hang on, maybe we can fix that" than a "oi! hands off!" revert. I was caught up in a long session revamping another page however, and couldn't quite put my mind to it at the time. Keristrasza (talk) 18:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

We have a stub on Copycat crime that can be fleshed out using some of those more general sources. Fences&Windows 02:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

David Cameron/Facebook

The sites dedicated to Moat were mentioned at today's Prime Minister's Questions and condemned by David Cameron (see this from the BBC as an example). Facebook has also defended its position. Do we need to include this somewhere? TheRetroGuy (talk) 18:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I think so - big news. --Joopercoopers (talk) 18:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

ok, have added information to the timeline, but someone can factor it into another part of the article if if that is more appropriate. BBC News is reporting that Cameron is to make an official complaint to Facebook about the site, although I haven't found an online source for this yet. TheRetroGuy (talk) 18:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

A mention of these sick facebook followers is certainly noteworthy. Perhaps a mention of the shot PC responding to some of the support people have given moat would be good too. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed - good balance. --Joopercoopers (talk) 20:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Rathband

The suggestion that P.C. Rathband was targeted at random seems to be untrue. Rathband and a colleague had dealt with Moat in a matter in which Moat was not prosecuted. This was 16 months earlier. Whether Moat could remember this is another matter. See today's "Mirror". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.30.71.244 (talk) 14:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

It is said that insurance not being for scrap metal was involved. This seems to be untrue.

Police officers can hardly tell at a glance if a motorist is insured for a particular load.

Long debates over the Police radio about the clauses of a policy are hardly possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.30.71.244 (talk) 14:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Idolisation of Moat

Is this really necessary, or even appropriate for this article? Notwithstanding the fact that The Sun can hardly be regarded as a reliable source, there's the unreferenced claim concerning people from Northern Ireland. I think personally we should remove this section, but will leave it to others to decide. TheRetroGuy (talk) 17:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Hoax

I have tagged the bit about people thinking the story was created by the media to drown coverage of the world cup as a possible hoax per: WP:HOAX due to the lack of a citation, I think this should probably be deleted as the claim seems dubious at best. --Wintonian (talk) 09:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't find any reliable sources that back this claim. Not worth keeping. If credible sources are found in the future, it can always be added again at a later date. Keristrasza (talk) 13:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Facebook Tribute Page (Social Media Section)

Why is it relevant to identify Siobhan O'Dowd as a 'single mother'?

I realize the quoted source (The Daily Mail) sees that as evidence of debauchery and worse but one would hope Wikipedia aims a tad higher? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.141.53.155 (talk) 01:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)