Talk:Essex lorry deaths

Migrants or human trafficking?

"Human trafficking is the trade of humans for the purpose of forced labour, sexual slavery, or commercial sexual exploitation for the trafficker or others." which is part of organized crime, while migrants fall under People smuggling. The latter is also a crime but done with the victim's consent. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:26, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Human trafficking & people smuggling are both forms of organised crime. There are significant differences between the 2 & if/when it becomes clear which was involved in this case, the article should clarify which was involved in this case. Jim Michael (talk) 16:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

This is why I had included the Thurrock (Grays area) MP statement, quoted, saying 'she called it human trafficking', but this was removed as apparently irrelevant. Kingsif (talk) 17:28, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Knowledgekid87, I think it's organ trafficking. They were going to sell the organs --Bageense^(disc.) 16:09, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and removed the "Migrant" category and see also as it needs to be sourced in the article for confirmation. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:26, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

The vast majority of these "incidents" are Migrant Smuggling (as opposed to Human Trafficking); see List of migrant vehicle incidents in Europe. Aeonx (talk) 08:25, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality Issue - The article implies the deceased individuals are victims of human trafficking - there is no reported factual evidence to support this. The news reporting and historical trends show it's almost certainly migrant smuggling. There is a significant difference between the two; being that the "victims" may also be seen as willful perpetrators as they have given consent. Aeonx (talk) 08:35, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

• There is no neutrality issue, and we're not reporting it as being the reason. What the article does say is that the police believe those are very likely. Neither is anyone implying the individuals are perpetrators: it is entirely clear they are the victims here. - SchroCat (talk) 09:41, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Driver

He's been id'd & is aged 25, according to CCTV. However, he'd only picked up the truck/container minutes before the bodies were found, so he's probably not involved in what happened... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.3.59 (talk) 17:19, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, and for WP:BLP concerns he's not named in the article. Kingsif (talk) 17:27, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

He should never have been named by the media, and his name should be rev-deleted from the article. It is highly probable that he knew nothing about it, since they were most likely already dead when he picked up the container. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:53, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

It's possible, let's not get into making completely speculative debates on the innocence or not of people involved (for example, we could also say why would a driver come all the way from NI to Essex to pick up a load specifically). Read: you don't have anywhere near enough evidence to declare him "highly probably" innocent and impose that on the article. I think it's perfectly fine to have some information on him included, that which is from RS (note: the BBC put his face on the evening news, so we now know their stance). There's BLP and then there's the view to 'oh no! scrub everything until they're in prison!'. Kingsif (talk) 02:08, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:BLPCRIME is very clear about naming non-notable people who are accused of a crime. I wouldn't be surprised if he ends up suing the BBC, Guardian, Sun, Daily Mail etc. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:19, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

The article wouldn't name him, but are we not allowed to say he (gasp) drives freezer trucks and lives in Northern Ireland? Kingsif (talk) 03:23, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

It sounds more like a routine questioning than an "arrest" as such, he hasn't even been charged with anything. According to reports on social media (still waiting for confirmation in RS) he has already been released without charge. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:29, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

...I didn't say anything about an arrest. But, yes, I specifically have not been saying "arrested for murder", just "arrested", whenever I put it in the article. Also remember that we reflect the RS, so if they say he was arrested, we don't WP:OR that into 'well it looks more like he was questioned'. Wait for the sources to correct themselves and be as vague as is not misleading until then. Kingsif (talk) 04:55, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Mainstream media sources have stated that he was arrested on suspicion of murder. Jim Michael (talk) 06:06, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, they did. But I wouldn't get hung up about it - it was only natural that he'd be arrested/questioned. Charged is a whole different thing, and it appears that's not going to happen. And "sue" newspapers? For what? Reporting? If he was the guy in the reports and his name was confirmed, he couldn't sue.50.111.3.59 (talk) 20:01, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

If England's anything like Canada, a subject can be detained for a few minutes to a few days of figuring out if there's probable cause for arrest on any charges, not just "the reason I stopped you" or "what I wanted you to come in to help us understand". The press might call it an arrest to avoid the immigration/war/corruption vibes of "indefinite detention" and "suspect" evokes contempt, while "detainee" tugs heartstrings, but Wikipedia should play by the Crown's definitions, however the boys in blue technically roll up on a dude minding his business in Grays. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:29, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

He's been charged with serious crimes; should we still not name him? Jim Michael (talk) 23:15, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

He's innocent until proven guilty. - SchroCat (talk) 23:24, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Jim Michael did not say that he was guilty (or innocent). He asked: He's been charged with serious crimes; should we still not name him?. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:35, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I am well aware of what the question was. The point about guilty or innocent is answered by looking at WP:BLPCRIME. - SchroCat (talk) 20:37, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

• Maurice "Mo" Robinson has been charged [1] [2] with 39 counts of manslaughter. This official action definitely should be in the article. – Sca (talk) 12:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

@Sca: it's already in the article, last paragraph in the "Investigation" section. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:44, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

No isn't – the driver's name isn't anywhere in the article and at this point it obviously should be. (And you have no right to arbitrarily delete the Bf emphasis from my previous comment. Hands off other people's posts, please.) – Sca (talk) 13:03, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

No, he obviously shouldn't be. See WP:BLPCRIME: "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. There is no need for him to be included unless and until there is a conviction. This is a policy, not a guideline. – SchroCat (talk) 13:08, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

At what point does he cease to be relatively unknown? Jim Michael (talk) 13:22, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Relatively unknown prior to the crime. He's not notable enough to have his own article, so there is no need to mention him at the moment. Post-conviction is fine. This is an encyclopaedia, not a news source, no matter how much anyone wants to keep bolding the name to make a POINT. - SchroCat (talk) 13:29, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I must admit I had always assumed that phrase meant "non-notable" in Wikipedia terms. But yes, there seems to be room for debate over that wording. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:24, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I had also assumed that the policy did not apply to article talk pages, whether emboldened or not. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:42, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPTALK, the BLP policy applies to all pages, not just the mainspace. In this case it's a bit of a grey area, because we're not saying anything that is not supported by numerous reliable sources (ie that he was the driver of the vehicle and that he was charged), but I still think we should keep it clear of the main page, and not go overboard in highlighting it here jsut for the same of it. - SchroCat (talk) 13:52, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Martinevans123: the penultimate sentence in its lead confirms that it definitely does apply here too: This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:57, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

This user does not respond to comments by SchroCat. – Sca (talk) 14:05, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

🤦‍♂️ You don't have to respond (even with a comment like that), you just have to take note of the policy explaining why is the name "obviously" shouldn't be on the page. - SchroCat (talk) 14:14, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

@Sca: there in no reason to name him in the article, that will not add anything of any encyclopedic value, and see WP:BLPCRIME as mentioned above. Also I removed the bolding because I thought it rude and inappropriate per WP:SHOUT, please reconsider it, and maybe even remove the driver's name in the spirit of the consensus not to name him now. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

My position is, Mr. Robinson and the charges filed against him should not be mentioned in an ITN blurb but should be mentioned in the article. As noted, this is an official action that people already are reading about all over the world. This is reality. We're not betraying any secrets whatever by including this highly salient and widely known fact in our article, nor are we saying he's guilty as charged. – Sca (talk) 14:14, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:BLPCRIME. - SchroCat (talk) 14:15, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

This user does not respond to comments by SchroCat. – Sca (talk) 14:21, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

This user does not care just how childish you are acting, as long as you note the policy we have in this regard. - SchroCat (talk) 14:23, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Your position might sound very reasonable to many people. But it contravenes policy, notwithstanding the meaning of "relatively unknown." Martinevans123 (talk) 14:18, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

If the vague term relatively unknown means not notable enough for an article of their own, that should be stated on the policy article so readers know that. Otherwise, many people will add the name of the accused in cases such as this, reasoning that someone who is named in many reliable, mainstream, national & international media sources has become well-known. Jim Michael (talk) 16:03, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I fully agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:13, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree - perhaps a thread on Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons to suggest the point should be made? - SchroCat (talk) 16:35, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any sound new reason why the driver should be named here. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:45, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Observation: don't forget that two lorry drivers have been charged with similar offences. Davidships (talk) 21:55, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

We should treat all suspects (charged or not) in the same way. If we're not naming one of them, we shouldn't name any of them. Jim Michael (talk) 22:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

If they're not charged, the police have insufficient reason to suspect they did something illegal. Ignore them, unless they're talking to reporters. All those formally accused should be named with the same simple caution we use when naming any other susperp in a case with its own article; relay the charges and don't presume guilt on any till the verdicts are in. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:36, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: taking into account the advice "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction." given in WP:BLPCRIME, what would be your rationale for ignoring that? -- DeFacto (talk). 21:45, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't ignore it. We're seriously considering excluding material on the accusations against him right now. This includes considering whether he's a relatively unknown person. I think he's the prime suspect in a very well-publicized case involving 39 deaths. If it was one or two manslaughter charges, it would and should stay in local news, not a global encyclopedia. But this is almost 20 times more serious, so no wonder readers on multiple continents already know of him. We only look silly when the cat is this far out of the bag. Not to mention how hypocritical we'd look next to mass shooting, stabbing and ramming naming. Accidental freezing is odd, but still gets the same depth of coverage. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:40, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

We still don't know if they died of hypothermia or suffocated - or if the trailer's refrigeration was on. Jim Michael (talk) 23:12, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. Dying in a trailer with 38 other people is odd, by any means. Still a big story. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:36, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

The driver under reference is not "the prime" suspect, he is one of two with the same charges. Differentiating between them would at this stage be OR. Davidships (talk) 11:23, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

So we shouldn't name any suspects in this article? Jim Michael (talk) 16:42, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

No, we just shouldn't hold people who drove the same truck in the same case in the same papers with the same charges to different standards. I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. Just came naturally in direct response to the BLPCRIME quote about "a living person"; applies equally to each actual example of "the person", of course. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:56, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

"refrigerated lorry container"

The above term, linking to two other articles, is currently in the first sentence of the Incident section. [R]efrigerated lorry links to Refrigerator truck and container links to Intermodal container. This term is problematic in a couple of ways. One, judging from Refrigerator truck, such a truck/lorry has its own type of trailer and does not normally transport an intermodal container. Two, if it's an intermodal container, it's not strictly a lorry container. I suggest that the term be replaced with refrigerated container if that is in fact what the dead were found in. (Or were they found in a trailer pulled by refrigerated trucks/lorries that had been driven onto the ship in Belgium and off of the ship in Purfleet by a different cab than the one that it was found attached to?) —⁠184.207.39.217 (talk) 09:14, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

If that's something you can tell from a photo, I think Davidships is the one to ask here. Kingsif (talk) 09:19, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that the police and media chose the word "container", as that is commonly used to mean intermodal container, 20 or 40ft long, rigid with 8 corner mountings to allow lifting from above and securing on a ship, train or flatbed trailer. In the case in question, the chiller lorry consists of the powered cab section, linked to a refrigerated semi-trailer which has no front wheels of its own, only two supporting legs (Most of the long-distance refrigerated transport by truck is done in articulated trucks pulling refrigerated semi-trailers). This is indeed clear from the press photos. Here is perhaps an ideal photo of a typical Scania model.

The semi-trailer will most likely have been loaded/discharged at the port by the ferry company's or port's power unit (no doubt the Belgian police will know by now who delivered it to Zeebrugge port). Davidships (talk) 11:13, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Incidentally, I have reverted the Bulgarian registration to refer to the lorry generically - as I understand it, cab units and trailers are registered separately and not necessarily in the same country (ie a British cab could tow Bulgarian trailers or v.v.), so sticking to citation of official Bulgarian statement. No doubt this will get clarified in due course. Davidships (talk) 14:27, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

@Davidships: For what it's worth, when I viewed a head-on photograph of the cab, I think I saw the steering wheel on the cab's left. (Thanks for your replies in this thread, by the way.) —⁠184.207.39.217 (talk) 14:50, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Note image here. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:59, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I would like to reinforce DavidShips' info. In UK English the vehicle shown in the pictures is in most general terms a lorry, more specifically a tractor and an articulated lorry or artic. In US English it is a truck or more specifically a tractor and a trailer. It is not a shipping container, they do not have wheels but instead are moved on bare frame artic lorries/ trailers called skellys (skeletal) in the UK or container chassis in the US. The lack of corner posts with lifting points on the artic shown is the giveaway. The white wind deflector underneath is another one as container skellys/chassis omit them because of occasional stacking. CableGrip (talk) 07:22, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Movements of lorry cab/tractor unit and trailer

(I realise that the answers to some or all of the following questions may not yet be clear). The article says that "The lorry arrived in Essex in two parts. The trailer arrived in Purfleet, a town near Grays with a port on the River Thames, from the port of Zeebrugge in Belgium at around 00:30 on 23 October.[7] Police believe that the lorry cab came from Northern Ireland[8] and entered the Welsh port of Holyhead on Saturday 19 October[9][7] after passing through the Republic of Ireland.[10] Initial reports were that the cab and trailer arrived at Holyhead together."

1. So is the article saying that the lorry cab/tractor unit and the trailer did not come together until they both arrived in Purfleet from different directions - the lorry cab/tractor unit through Great Britain from Holyhead, and the trailer across the English Channel from Zeebrugge?

• Yes, as per sources given

2. Is it normal practice for trailers of this type to travel from Zeebrugge to Purfleet with cabs or without cabs?

• Mostly without, but both are carried - in this case without - source added re collection

3. Is it known whether or not the cab visited the continent of Europe at any time after it last arrived from the island of Ireland at Holyhead?

• Not publicly, though authorities wll know for sure - implication of cited info is that it didn't

4. Is it known whether or not the "Initial reports ... that the cab and trailer arrived at Holyhead together." were correct?

• Yes, they are known to be incorrect, as per sourced info

5. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-50159748 gives details of the trailer's movements (including on the European continent) and says that "Essex Police said the tractor unit (the front part of the lorry) had entered the UK via Holyhead - an Irish Sea port in Wales - on Sunday 20 October, having travelled over from Dublin. Police believe the tractor unit collected the trailer in Purfleet on the River Thames and left the port shortly after 01:05 on Thursday." So is it known which cab was pulling the trailer during its movements as listed, and whether or not that was the same cab as the one which collected it at Purfleet?

• Not publicly known (authorities will at least know how and by whom delivered to Zeebrugge port)

If the answers to any or all of these questions are known, I suggest that it would be helpful if the article provided them. Thoughts/comments? Alekksandr (talk) 22:09, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Inserted above best info available currently, mostly was already in the article. Davidships (talk) 23:25, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification - I have amended the article to state for clarity that the initial reports about the vehicle movements were incorrect.

The owner of the trailer has been published - https://www.rte.ie/news/world/2019/1024/1085287-migrant-deaths/ Tentstick (talk) 10:44, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Name victims

Although not confirmed, yes, but should we name victims (for now and future revelations). See Father of Vietnamese woman believed dead in Essex truck: Smugglers said this was a 'safe route' CNN article, Pham Thi Tra My is named as the 19-year-old Vietnamese woman. comrade waddie96 ★ (talk) 06:27, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I'd say we shouldn't. The names of these WP:LOWPROFILE individuals do not add anything to the reader's understanding of the subject. TompaDompa (talk) 07:25, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

If and when an official list goes out, sure. But not piecemeal and based on who talks to human interest reporters the quickest or most often. Or who happened to be the young pretty one, or the one with the most children, or the military veteran. Clickbait. Only hard news needs prompt repeating here. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:43, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

No, there is no need. And although it is probable, there is no confirmation that's these individuals are the same as the dead. There is a possibility that there are two lorries on which deaths have occurred. Given the amount of people smuggling into the UK that goes on, that is entirely possible (although hopefully unlikely). - SchroCat (talk) 09:32, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

• Addendum: Given this report, where it is stated there were 100 people in a convoy of three lorries, there is no evidence at the moment that this young lady is one of the victims on that lorry. There may be another of these three or others, or she may well be. Either way, her name should not be on the page. - SchroCat (talk) 17:14, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Definitely not now as it is speculative - heaven forbid, but the unfortunate young lady may have been in another lorry. When bodies have been been identified, then only individuals who are notable in relation to the narrative of this incident (as Pham Thi Tra My may be as she had a posthumous role in revealing a Vietnamese connection) should be considered. Certainly not a memorial list of all those identified - a link to external source would suffice. Davidships (talk) 09:35, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

We should not ever name any of the victims - the names are of no use or relevance to over 99% of readers. Jim Michael (talk) 14:02, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

No include names of victims. Kingsif (talk) 17:13, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support – I support addition of the victim's names. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:37, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

• See WP:VICTIM. - SchroCat (talk) 20:43, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I did see that link. What specific part are you referring to, there? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:07, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Maybe this part:

"1. The victim or person wrongly convicted, consistent with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Subjects notable only for one event, had a large role within a well-documented historic event. The historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role."? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:13, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Isn't WP:VICTIM about whether individual victims can meet the notability test to have their own article?

WP:LISTBIO and WP:LISTPEOPLE seem more relevant, though difficult to interpret. The pro and con arguments are considered in these essays: WP:CASL and WP:VL I tried to express my interpretation of the principle a few lines further back. Davidships (talk) 00:16, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, VICTIM and NOTMEMORIAL pertain to article subjects. But some contend there's an unwritten "spirit" in there that carries across to content. Though seemingly only when the content is directly-involved victims. Nobody cares if we remember peripheral regular people (Dirk De Fauw this time), or it just doesn't come up. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:27, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

De Fauw is relevant to this article in relation to his position in Zebrugge, that the trailer is known to have travelled through - so it's right that he's named in the article. He chose to speak to the media, so there are no privacy concerns in relation to him. He's not a victim; he isn't being memorialised due to the fact he's alive. He's not a suspect, either. Naming him is very different to naming the victims &/or suspects. I don't see the relevance of him to this discussion in regard to victim names, nor why you chose to bring him into it. If you think he shouldn't be named, &/or that the victims should be, say so & give your reasons for that. Jim Michael (talk) 06:23, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

And [insert name here] is relevant to the article because his or her body was discovered in the trailer that is solely known for the time it was discovered to contain bodies. Thirty-nine times over. If they hadn't chosen to get in while alive, we wouldn't be remembering De Fauw for anything, instead of for saying a port he's involved with was not involved with that. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:15, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Being one of many people to die in a mass death incident doesn't make that person notable, important etc. Knowing those people's names cannot help readers understand any such event. Millions of people have smuggled themselves - or been smuggled - internationally. Having the misfortune to be among the small but significant minority who died during that process usually doesn't make them individually important. In comparison, De Fauw is of marginal notability - to a similar level as a local politician - because he has chosen to be in charge of a busy international port. He's mentioned in this article because the trailer left continental Europe via his port. Better security there may have prevented this from happening. His quote to the media that it's highly unlikely that the victims entered the trailer in Zeebrugge is relevant. At the time, he was unaware of the illegal immigrants being smuggled through his port, but it happened on his patch. He's relevant to the case, even though not directly involved. He could be questioned by police about the port's security procedures. If you're saying that his name shouldn't be in this article, I can't see the justification for that. Jim Michael (talk) 17:33, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Crime categories

Under what scenario could this not be a crime? Jim Michael (talk) 17:51, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

If the travellers hid themselves in the trailer unknown to anyone else, perhaps? In the light of what is known, that is clearly unlikely. However, until there are trials and convictions it would be difficult to be precise about what crimes have actually been committed. We can wait. Davidships (talk) 18:16, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

In the highly unlikely scenario that they were stowaways whose presence no-one else knew of until they were found dead, they'd have been committing crimes themselves. Jim Michael (talk) 18:29, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Only if they were alive when they arrived in the UK. Also, a successful asylum-seeker has a statutory defence for some immigration offences, and similarly under Modern Slavery law. But all this is academic - the point is that we cannot yet put this into any particular crime cat(s). Davidships (talk) 19:35, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

If they might have been killed elsewhere than in UK it would not be a crime? but currently the driver has been charged with 39 counts of manslaughter, so see Manslaughter in English law... The place·s where the phone call occurred could be known by police, because mobile phone were cut to not be tracked by police.

However, this incident looks like the 2000 Dover incident which was both classified as a Manslaughter in English law and as a crime while being one of the largest mass killings in British criminal history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.136.208.32 (talk) 11:22, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

From Criminal jurisdiction: "In English law, where murder and manslaughter are concerned, the English court has jurisdiction over offences committed abroad, if committed by a British citizen (see section 9 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 and section 3 of the British Nationality Act 1948)" Both the drivers are reported to be British (in this context = UK) citizens. Davidships (talk) 15:18, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

That's pretty clear, thanks. So, simple question: do we have to await convictions before adding any criminal Cats? (although we have 5 already) Martinevans123 (talk) 15:28, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Good question. My judgment would be that it is only when they appear at their substantive trials that it will definitively known which crimes they will face (some of the present list may not be proceeded with against one or other of the accused); and then, as you imply, entering criminal cats prior to judgment is tantamount to deciding that those particular crimes have actually been committed, which at the moment is OR (and that is before coming to BLP considerations). Davidships (talk) 15:47, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

That sounds entirely reasonable. I guess the existing Cats are OK as they are just "crime-related". Martinevans123 (talk) 15:51, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Convoy?

The Telegraph is running a story that the Grays lorry may have been part of a three-vehicle convoy of which two reached destination. But it seems to be a synthesis/speculation based on other vague reports, so I have not added it, pending wider sourcing. At present there is an unexplained pair of maps in the article, but they are not captured in the archived version. Davidships (talk) 18:33, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

It's coming up on a couple of sources (I added one two threads above): it's connected to the Vietnamese angle about which there is still no confirmation. It's probably the same people, but until the connection is made between the claims from Vietnam and the people in the lorry, then there is still a possibility that there are two set of people being smuggled in, which is entirely possible. I agree it shouldn't be included just yet, until there is more concrete information - SchroCat (talk) 18:49, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

The owner of the trailer is known - [3] and that the trailer is equipped with a GPS tracker, [4]. The GPS data is said to show that the trailer may have crossed from mainland Europe to the UK in the previous week [5].

Scania link to Scania instead of Scania AB

I’m an IP so I can’t edit. Can someone fix please? Thanks. --100.6.163.186 (talk) 20:08, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done --Racklever (talk) 20:32, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2019

Please change "On 23 October 2019, the bodies of 39 people were found in a refrigerated articulated lorry in Grays, Essex, United Kingdom" to "...Grays, Essex at the outskirts of London". Judging by the map, it's an outer suburb of London 93.136.156.137 (talk) 00:06, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

We have a map to show where it is, and if people want to know where it is in relation to, then the linked articles carry more information. The proximity to London is not a factor in this incident. - SchroCat (talk) 00:26, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I would disagree with IP. It is not in Greater London, which was created to encompass London's outer suburbs inside its "green belt" - Purfleet/Grays/Thurrock is separated from Greater London by extensive agricultural land and other green spaces - see this view. Davidships (talk) 00:41, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

It's just outside London. The location of the discovery appears from the map to be in West Thurrock, so why is it described as Grays, including in the address in your link? Jim Michael (talk) 01:03, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Good question. I have always known the conurbation between the M25 and Tilbury Docks as Grays Thurrock, though that's from before the area became a unitary authority. From the beginning the police gave the address as Grays and that seems to have been taken up generally by the press; Essex News refs seem to use the two names interchangeably. Davidships (talk) 01:44, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I would disagree that it's seperated from Greater London by extensive agricultural land. The dartford crossing is the only thing seperating Thurrock from London's urban area and your linked map even shows that. Eopsid (talk) 17:45, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

There's some green area, but it's not extensive & I don't know how much is agricultural. Jim Michael (talk) 19:31, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, in the area in question, north of Purfleet, I can see green cultivated fields, ploughed fields, grassland, woodlands, pastures with animals - ie "extensive agricultural land and other green spaces" - as well as other non-urban spaces (and of course the small town of Aveley, Essex which is nearer to London than Thurrock). Davidships (talk) 20:44, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't know how you can tell the land there has all those various uses, unless you mean you're there in person & you can actually see it in reality rather than from a map.

The linked view above is not a map, its a photograph. Davidships (talk) 23:26, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Aveley is in Thurrock rather than between Thurrock & London. Jim Michael (talk) 22:35, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

OK. Nearer than Grays then. Davidships (talk) 23:26, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Cause of death?

According to The NYT], we don't know whether the refrigerator was on or off, whether they froze, whether they suffocated, or whether something else killed them. Do we really have no sources that say whether the refrigerator was on? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:11, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Nothing so far (or at least nothing I have seen). I guess the results of the first post mortems will be announced shortly. – SchroCat (talk) 07:18, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I've not seen anything on that yet either, only the purely speculative "can be kept frozen to preserve perishables, and can be kept as cold as −25 °C (−13 °F)" as in the article. Nor what else was in the trailer, if anything. Davidships (talk) 09:49, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't find this that surprising. This happened in the UK and they tend to keep investigative details much more tightly held then if you are used to how things happen in the US. As SchroCat mention it's likely we will eventually at least some details from the post mortem, but those take time. Nil Einne (talk) 00:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Referring to "Refrigeration not turned on?" below, I wonder if the CO2 levels might turn out to be the people hazard here. Long before they run out of oxygen the CO2 concentration from exhaling will rise to dangerous levels. Some wild guesses suggest the normal atmosphere 20% oxygen level inside this artic might have sufficed for a day or two but the normal 0.04% CO2 level might have risen past the numbing level to a dangerous 0.5% in 1/4 to 1/2 of a day. Something that maybe needs more authoritative calculating.... CableGrip (talk) 07:51, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

We can wonder, but until it is reported as relevant by good sources, such speculation is not suitable for inclusion. Davidships (talk) 01:40, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

'Bloody handprints'

Several sources, such as Huffington Post, are reporting that the victims left ‘bloody handprints’ and that they were ‘half naked’ and ‘foaming at the mouth’. Is any of this worth putting in the article, or is it irrelevant human interest stuff? Sir Magnus Fluffbrains (talk) 16:15, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Some sources

The Sun https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10215863/essex-lorry-deaths-news-found-naked-bloody-handprints/

Daily Mirror https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/dead-migrants-left-bloody-handprints-20726568

Daily Mail (unreliable source) https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7615547/Police-bloody-handprints-freezing-coffin-39-migrants-died.html

Birmingham Mail https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/uk-news/essex-lorry-deaths-horror-conditions-17150885

Belfast Live https://www.belfastlive.co.uk/news/belfast-news/essex-deaths-conditions-39-victims-17150343

The Times https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/dreams-of-new-life-end-with-bloody-handprints-in-a-lorry-bzws6dpct

Daily Star https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/essex-lorry-migrants-left-bloody-20727239

I don't see anything in the more responsible end of the news media, except the Times - the rest of them are toilet paper. If it makes its way into the proper sources (because it indicates a cause of death, etc), then it may be worth considering, but not just for the sake of it. - SchroCat (talk) 16:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

When I see a bunch of really low quality sources all telling the same story with "according to sources" or "sources told us" I assume that one of them made up a story out of whole cloth and the others jumped on the bandwagon to get more clicks. If anyone has an afternoon to waste, they could try to determine which source "broke" (by "broke" I mean "invented") the bloody handprints story first and document how the bullshit echo chamber piled on and added imaginary details. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

The Sun says a source told the Mirror. But behind that link, I get an error. If you can read it and it doesn't pass the buck, there's your scooper. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:16, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Note that The Sun is on the list of deprecated sources, so we should avoid using it. Autarch (talk) 15:16, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

As a reference, yes. As an aid in tracing hearsay, it's probably not lying. The Daily Mail likewise points to the Mirror, in the latter context. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:44, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

This page

A redlinked category Wikipedia requested images of miscellaneous has been lurking at the bottom of the page for some days. Can someone fix it please? Davidships (talk) 23:58, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

•  Done Kingsif (talk) 01:45, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Content before rules...

[Moved here, where discussion about the content of this article belongs, from my talkpage. It refers to this edit of mine. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:14, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

The dailymail is actually more reliable than other news sources when it comes to certain events (particular to the UK). Undoing an update because I sourced the dailymail isn't justified. I'm an experienced editor, I know about the blanket suppression of it, and I choose to use it as a source anyways. You should have a read... Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. When it comes to providing better encyclopedic content, WP:IAR. Aeonx (talk) 23:35, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

@Aeonx: it is probably best to wait until sources acknowledged to be reliable report it. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:21, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

"The dailymail is actually more reliable than other news sources: No, no, no, no, no NO!!! The Daily Fail is one of the biggest culprits for stretching facts, fabricating quotes, reminagining scenarios as fact and outright straight, bare-faced, open lying. It belongs with the Sun, Mirror, People, Express, Star and Record as sources that should not ever be used as a source for anything! - SchroCat (talk) 07:44, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Right you are, cat. Just check the Evening Standard piece it cites. No 999 call, no news agencies, just fainting. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:54, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

The same Daily Mail article, entitled "39 Chinese migrants..", clearly states that the "39 dead Chinese immigrants" .. "had travelled from China to the UK". They "were all from China" (etc). This article clearly shows they are being somewhat over-assertive with what they consider to be facts. If they use the words "a friend said" as they do here - which raises other questions - and no proper reliable sources are discussing it, I'd be especially concerned. I'm sure this type of detail will surface in reliable sources eventually, so let's wait until it's properly sourced. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 07:46, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is on the list of deprecated sources at WP:DEPRECATED - in fact, it was the first source to be put on the list. (The decision to deprecate it was upheld in an RfC in 2019.) Autarch (talk) 15:27, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

As the RfC generally allow, the print version of the Daily Mail can provide facts relating to British politics (but even then they have a heavy Conservative lean) and what seem to be trivial events, and then has generally expected coverage of sports etc. that any other paper also provides; its opinion pieces are all from non-experts with strong views, so don't touch them. The Daily Mail Online is a piece of crud and should never be used. The consensus to deprecate clearly notes that anything the Daily Mail publishes that is arguably reliable and factual will have definitely been published by another paper, so there is no need to cite the DM when better sources (that don't run the risk of the article being liberal with the truth) exist. WP:DAILYMAIL is a thing. Kingsif (talk) 16:42, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Flown to China

I distinctly remember hearing the claim, on a BBC TV News item, that the Vietnamese had been flown to China where they were given false Chinese identity papers. And then flown to Europe. This would obviously explain the initial confusion over their nationality. Does anyone have a good source for that? I can't remember the day I saw that News bulletin, but it was certainly a few days ago. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Not got the source to hand, but I think I've seen it too. It may have been from one of the tabloid papers. - SchroCat (talk) 14:26, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Maybe so. I'm sure I heard and saw it from a BBC reporter on the BBC News. It was just after the Vietnamese families had started to ask questions. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:28, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Found them - [6] and [7] say the Vietnamese travelled to China and then on. I guess we'd have to wait until confirmation that the dead are actually the Vietnamese and not a different group before we're sure it's true. - SchroCat (talk) 14:32, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks. Yes, I guess we should wait. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:46, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

When the details are reported by reliable sources, we should state the route, method(s) & dates of travel from Vietnam to Zeebrugge. Jim Michael (talk) 21:26, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes in principle, but we do not need the detailed itineraries of individuals. Davidships (talk) 13:28, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

No, we won't need images of their individual boarding cards, But, given the level of outraged indignation expressed by the Chinese authorities early in the investigation, I had thought it was quite a key aspect of the entire incident. If this is shown to be true, and there are lessons to be learned from the tragedy, the unwitting involvement of Chinese airport security may well feature as a point of focus. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:39, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

The BBC was reporting a claim as such, not something fact-checked. We don't need images at all, just multiple reliable sources that are not just reporting unsourced speculation. As for the so-called "indignation", that was sourced only to a Guardian piece [8] quoting at length from Global Times and then mostly from the outspoken editor Hu Xijin's comments; Global Times is rated "no consensus" in WP:RSP, but see particularly the recent [9] - definitely not to be used as a sole source. Davidships (talk) 15:32, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

All good points. I agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:53, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Titles

Diane Abbott has this: "Abbott has been Shadow Home Secretary since 2016." This article has this: "Diane Abbott, the shadow home secretary, said greater international co-operation was needed." This seems a bit odd? The article here also has: "António Guterres, the United Nations Secretary-General. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:53, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

It's a tricky grammatical thing, and I struggle with it, but it is explained (sort of) in MOS:JOBTITLES, with examples in a table. It is clearly widely misunderstood! -- DeFacto (talk). 20:07, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

And I think it's a tricky made-up Wikipedia thing, that leads (quite obviously) to ignoring the common usage in sources and producing unwanted inconsistencies across adjacent sentences in articles. For what grammatical reason exactly do we have "António Guterres, the United Nations Secretary-General"? But never mind. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:23, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Gosh, and now we have United Nations secretary-general, which to me looks particularly awkward. Still, rules are rules, I guess, even if they make Wikipedia look silly. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:06, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Martinevans123: to be honest, sources seem to follow this practice too. I de-capped the Secretary-General after finding it thus in The Independent. Think of it as caps for titles and no caps for a role - like "Chief Editor Evans is Wikipedia's chief editor". -- DeFacto (talk). 21:11, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't think it's worth thinking about. I'd say it was an unnecessary and distracting worthless distinction. But hey, who am I to spoil 50 man-years of torrid discussion at WP:MoS!? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:17, 28 October 2019 (UTC) p.s. I think you'll also find he's Wikipedia's Chief Editor.

misquote and referencing problem

1. Diane Abbott, the shadow home secretary, said greater international co-operation was needed to prevent similar events happening again, adding "You cannot stop international people tracking trafficking gangs, if people trafficking is what this is, you can't stop them without working internationally. ... Yes, we can try and make our east coast ports more secure, but you have to have more international co-operation." This has a clear misquoting error, noted above and confirmed by the TV interview itself here at about 38:56. However, although a RS, I do not think that this video works as a reference as (a) it is only available for another four weeks and (b) I think that it is only legally available within the UK - and I cannot see how it could be archived. Unfortunately all the reliable media I can find reporting the whole sentence as a quotation have the same error. Some media, for example the Independent miss out the erroneous phrase, but the consequence of that is that the following "them", referring to the gangs, has no object and looks all wrong.

What is the best solution? Davidships (talk) 00:47, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

It can be used as a source (or rather the text of the interview can). The transcripts for Marr's programme are made available, and page five of this interview has the info. I've added it to the article and tweaked the quote. - SchroCat (talk) 08:45, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks - I hadn't thought that they were were so easy to access - can see the route now, via the Andrew Marr Show home page.Davidships (talk) 10:05, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

"The Andrew Marr Show Home" sounds like it has a certain chachet. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:07, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Map and caption

If we're not careful the explanation needed, to explain which parts of the lorries were where, might make the map less useful than might have been hoped for. I guess colour coding might work, if we could all agree which parts were where? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:01, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

That sounds like a positive enhancement to me. :) -- DeFacto (talk). 17:04, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Can we agree that "the Irish cab" was just in Dublin, Holyhead and Purfleet? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

The 'Purfleet' cab was Romanian registered, Irish owned; we don't know about the registration/ownership of the 'Zeebrugge' one. Nor do we know whether the latter cab visited the places in France since they are based on the trailer's GPS.

I think we may be trying to be too sophisticated. I would treat this as a useful map to show readers of the text where the places mentioned are in relation to each other, just marked as now. What would be better is if the map could be cropped to reduce irrelevant areas - sort of "British Isles and near Continental Europe" Davidships (talk) 18:11, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Bulgarian rather than Romanian I think, and I agree with the cropping remark. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:22, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, registered in Varna, Bulgaria, it seems. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:30, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Oops, of course. Suggest boundaries 61°N 12°W 49°S 5°E, or just a little bigger if preferred. Sorry, don't know how to do one!Davidships (talk) 18:39, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Have never tried. It's very easy to take a copy, crop down and upload as new. But will the location co-ordinates still work? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:46, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I think not - that's the point - and with the dynamic map, other places can be added if they become relevant. Davidships (talk) 20:59, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Images

Does no one have a CC image to put on the article, the map doesn't serve much use.Berrely (talk) 16:02, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

We currently have three maps? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:12, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Refrigeration not turned on?

Regarding this restore by ‎Eric Kvaalen, does this source say that the refrigeration was turned off? Also another question, which may be pertinent to this topic: If the lorry had been transporting cookies, as was falsely claimed, would the refrigeration have been required to be turned on? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:23, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I see that the sentence in question has now been removed again as WP:SYNTH. I agree. It would be interesting to know whether or not cookies do typically need to be chilled, or frozen. in transit. I guess this might be addressed in any official report on the investigation. Until then, however, it's just WP:FORUM. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:48, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

So far as I know it has not yet been revealed whether the refrigeration was switched on or, if so, at what temperature (different cargos need different temperatures - like the two levels in a domestic fridge/freezer). Also I have seen nothing on what else was in the trailer apart from the unfortunate people, nor whether that may have included cookies (for example a row of pallets of such in case of casual inspection, if that is what was on the manifest). It would not be particularly unusual for such a truck to carry non-refrigerated cargo on a back-haul. The only clearly false claim is that, if it were indeed cookies, it cannot have been a "full load". Davidships (talk) 23:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I'd suggest that the wording of the opening sentence "... were found in a refrigerated articulated lorry ..." suggests that is was refrigerated i.e. switched on. I guess we'll have to wait. Is there any plan for an "official enquiry", other than what transpires as part of the criminal prosecutions? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:52, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Had a go at the first sentence for this - and to avoid "trafficked humans", as we don't use that noun to refer to people. (sorry - forgot the edit summary)

Yes. I would expect that there will inquests. Davidships (talk) 13:40, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Martin, you have admitted that the lorry was not refrigerated, in your first edit comment on the subject. You objected that I said something that was not in the source. Now I have rephrased it so that it doesn't say that the lorry was not refrigerated. So what's the problem now? I think it's bad that the rules about "original research" and "synthesis" are interpreted to mean that we editors have to act totally stupid -- not allowed to make even the slightest logical extension from what a source actually says! But now, as I said, I have reworded it so that it doesn't even say that the lorry was obviously not refrigerated. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 14:43, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I guess the driver will have known if that trailer's refrigeration was switched on or not. And those poor people who died. But we don't know. What if it was switched on to start with, and then failed? What if it was switched on, but at a very moderate level? I cannot admit to something I don't know about. And if I did "admit" that, that was a mistake. And no, we're "not allowed to make even the slightest logical extension." We have to stick with sources. If you can find a source that says "so-and-so, from organisation xyz suggests that the trailer's refrigeration was switched off", I'd be happy to see it added. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:01, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@Eric Kvaalen, I don't understand why you are persisting in trying to say anything at all about something that we know absolutely nothing about at present. You cannot claim from reports (which may or may not be complete) of a personal text message, sent in the circumstance that it was, that the absence of mention of any particular information is of the slightest significance. You have to wait with the rest of us for reliable information to be made available. Davidships (talk) 17:43, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

You two are bein' r... (I won't say it). We certainly can conclude that the refrigeration was not turned on. Anyway, as I said, I reworded my edit so that it doesn't even say that! Do you really think that a girl who is freezin' to death would just say she's dyin' because she can't breethe?? But I give up. Let people think that the victims were all frozen solid. Why should I care? I have better things to do than try to help people understand what happened in this incident. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 14:43, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for giving up. Not sure if I can speak for David, but (I'll say it) we're being "right in line with policy." I'm sure your sharp investigative skills would be a real asset at the inquests. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:13, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

The press reference to refrigeration is unfortunate. Refrigeration on a lorry doesn't mean refrigeration, it means refrigeration OR heating. Much as there are cargos that must be protected from warm temperatures there are also cargos that need to be protected against freezing temperatures (moving produce or liquid products across the US continent in winter). The refrigeration units can also be operated in a simple ventilating mode if that is all that is needed to keep temperatures down. On artics/trailers the refrigeration units are self-powered, either from an internal engine or by plug in when at a depot, they are not powered from the tractor. Significant for our article, the cooling/heating needs lead to insulation in the body walls and gasketing on the doors. Finally, as mentioned there are times when refrigerated artic/trailers are assigned for non temperature controlled cargos simply because it is economically convenient and no actual refrigeration/heating usage occurs.

Choosing an artic with insulation helps suppress people noises inside. Perhaps also important, the gasketing slows up the CO2 from people exhaling, apparently CO2 detectors are one of Immigration's tools. Artic doors are usually gasketed to keep rain out but renting a refrigerated artic would ensure receiving one with good gasketing. So for our case at hand the question about the refrigeration unit could indeed turn out either way. CableGrip (talk) 07:47, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

"The deceased"?

Any reason we're speaking so formally of the dead in an article titled after their deaths? Plain English works best, I thought yesterday, but at least one of us thinks not. Discuss? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:19, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

The more precise (and common and very plain) term used when referring to those who have recently died is the "deceased". -- DeFacto (talk). 21:32, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

How is it more precise? It is half as concise. Certainly isn't plain, lawyers and funeral directors prefer it. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:39, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

It's more specific than just "dead" as it means "recently dead", which seems more appropriate in this case. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:49, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Newsing "is dead" versus "is deceased" indicates you two have it backward. Recent specific deaths are appropriately declared dead by mainstream writers, earlier or general are said to be deceased. Try and see. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:54, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

DeFacto is spot-on. We have no obligation to favour a one-syllable word if a two-syllable one is both widely understood and more precise.

InedibleHulk That is a different grammatical construction, we are talking about adjectival nouns Davidships (talk) 22:40, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

The opportunity to use two syllables instead of one will make Wikipedia doubly encyclopaedic. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:58, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

It'll just take longer to read, and part of you knows that. Monotonous when we repeat it as much as we do, too. A "they" or two wouldn't hurt, at least! David, in all forms, the recent dead are commonly called dead. Try "two of the dead" or whichever number for many examples (including one about the two youngest of the dead in this case, small world). I'll concede there are three of you, so if you want to use a longer, less common word over and over till it loses its oomph (seven of eight are on one screen, two short paragraphs have two each), I guess I'm the crazy one in here. Out there, not so much. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:12, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not averse to bringing some variety into the text. My crystal ball tells me that later on we will be able to additionally use "victims" which would help reduce repitition, but we don't at the moment (even though they are routinely referred to as such, even by the police). Come to think of it, why are we tiptoeing round this word - people are routinely referred to as "victims of accidents", as well as of crimes. Davidships (talk) 00:22, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

When I titled this Victims section "Deaths", I just had "Casualties" (the previous wrong word) in mind. If nobody's wounded, missing or captured, they must be dead, I figured, or we'd have survivors. No tiptoeing intended, just a brainfart. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:59, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Tried fixing my brainfart, was rolled back. DeFacto seems to think further confirmation is needed, leading me to believe he's thinking of crime victims, not unnatural death victims. "Deaths" and "fatalities" both suck for describing dead or fatally wounded people because they refer to the event, but the former wrong word was shorter. Just trust us, DeFacto, we and the reliable sources mean it the neutral and confirmed sense. Maybe remove "victims" from "human trafficking" and things would be clearer? InedibleHulk (talk) 12:25, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I think we should avoid the use of any ambiguous or loaded terms, and keep it totally neutral until the inquests and trials are all complete. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:51, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Of the nine writers cited here in sentences mentioning "the deceased", can you guess how many use that word? Yes, zero. Unless you count one direct quote from a Chinese ambassador whom it turned out is irrelevant. How is this common again? We call a truck a lorry, we can agree with every source on this, too. (I tweaked one instance where we claim a dude thinks it's only "highly unlikely" deceased people entered a container, for even more obvious reasons than the remaining seven shouldn't exist; I trust we all see how animated corpses are "just wrong", in Zeebrugge or anywhere beyond fiction.) InedibleHulk (talk) 23:32, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Not quite - of the seven current occurrencies of "the deceased", the very first reference (BBC) uses it once. And you forget to mention that of the total of 10 references, only two use "the dead" (once each - Independent, VN News), so not common either. Why? Because all the citations regularly use "victims", 50 times across those 10 references (excluding use in headlines and similar). Davidships (talk) 00:19, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't know how I missed the beginning, but it's possible. Thanks. I'm not married to "the dead", just anything less weird than this times seven. Migrants, immigrants, bodies, emigrants, victims, Vietnamese, people...all common, appropriate and various choices. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:26, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Turns out what you thought was the first one was my second before Mr. Evans slightly jumped ship to bring us down to six, and it gave me a 403 error, so I figured it was forbidden knowledge and left. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:33, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

But looking back again, my first of seven was EssexLive, which was the forbidden site. My first of the new six is The Guardian, which lets me in. Is your very first BBC reference the one quoting Mr. Liu? If so, that was never my first, somewhere around fourth. Bizarre, but moot. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:51, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

"The deceased" doesn't strike me as a weird or unusual word, and the level of formality is appropriate for an encyclopedia. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:33, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

The word itself isn't weird (except as a verb), just how it's sometimes misused, overused or explicitly attributed to people who didn't use it. All three went wrong, in this case. Not a good overall look, in my opinion. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:18, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

If you want to cut down on the repetition for stylistic considerations that's fine, but there's nothing inherently wrong with the word. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 06:33, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

It's much better now with "victims". Of course it wasn't attributed (explicitly or otherwise) to people who didn't use it, since we are encourageed to edit using our own words, while remaining true to the sources. Davidships (talk) 13:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

"Mo Robinson" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Mo Robinson. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:36, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Lorry driver & name (part 2)

He has admitted plotting to assist illegal immigration this morning. I don't know how this works with the article and naming him though. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:12, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Does this court admission mean that we should or should not name him in the article? Jim Michael (talk) 16:25, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

There should be clear and unambiguous advice on a question such as this as part of WP:BLP. Currently it says this:

For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law.

So I have been rather boldly changed the hidden notes from "DO NOT add name of the driver" to "DO NOT add name of the driver until court case has concluded." But the advice in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#People accused of crime is really not clear about multiple charges, only some of which have a guilty plea. As it's all fully in the press now, perhaps we should not be so cautious? I'm not sure if the fact that one of the charges is murder makes any difference. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:21, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't think he should be named. WP:BLPCRIME seems clear to me when it says "unless a conviction has been secured". If he is convicted of something, then come back and discuss whether it is then appropriate. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:28, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, I think that is right. Worth bearing in mind that the charges admitted are relatively minor compared to those of manslaughter (not murder) and trafficking. The application of the BLP guidance should be focused on the most serious charges. Davidships (talk) 21:02, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Loaded sentence

The police initially said the bodies were believed to be Chinese, but on 7 November 2019, following extensive investigations, they named all the deceased and confirmed they were Vietnamese. or, following the concerns raised in WP:EDITORIALIZE, avoid the use of the word 'but', so something like: The police initially said the bodies were believed to be Chinese, and on 7 November 2019, following extensive investigations, they named all the deceased and confirmed they were Vietnamese. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:45, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Following WP:EDITORIALIZE, More subtly, editorializing can produce implications that are not supported by the sources. Words used to link two statements such as but, despite, however, and although may imply a relationship where none exists, possibly unduly calling the validity of the first statement into question while giving undue weight to the credibility of the second.. The cautionary advice is understood, but in this case the implication is supported by the sources. Both parts are are directly related as the sequential views of the police, who themselves called into question their initial belief that they were Chinese when further investigations showed definitively that they were not (and that is hardly undue weight). "But" is the correct conjunction of contrast ("and" is for non-contrasting cases). Davidships (talk) 00:37, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

We don't know what led the police to the first "belief" so I'm not sure we should be, effectively, judging it as a mistake. Do reliable sources make that contrast or characterise the first "belief" as a mistake? If there is evidence for it, then we need to describe it in the body first, before summarising this way in the lead. All we have at moment are two discrete facts - the first, that they originally said they believed them to be Chinese; the second that they were identified as Vietnamese - I don't think we should imply any unsaid type of relationship between them. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps we could begin a second sentence with the word But, just like the BBC does here? Knowing what led the police to their first "belief" has little to do with it (although we probably do know, it was fake ID documents). The first conclusion as wrong, the second conclusion was right. Use of the word "and" suggests that this was some kind of logically correct progression, that Vietnamese people were a sub-set of Chinese people, or at least that they were "both Asian peoples." The summary misses, of course, the intervening very vocal reaction of the Chinese Government, which was another reason why "but" is justified. I see the issue has now been temporarily solved by removing the passage wholesale. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:31, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Given 'buts' can be troublesome, I do not understand why we cannot omit it to avoid leading the way readers might perceive an unsaid relationship. We can convey the same two facts in two different sentences without loading, and leave readers to reach their own conclusions. Wikipedia shouldn't exhibit any bias and should avoid the journalistic-style editorialising language common in news media. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:14, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I'd urge restoration of this material, as the nationality of the victims was certainly notable. I'd say the first police announcement, and the resulting reaction from the Chinese Government, was also notable. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:04, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

The idea of this discussion is to agree the wording so we can restore it. I'd be happy with two separate sentences - with no 'but'. Would you? As for that other stuff, I don't think it belongs in the lead, but feel free to start another thread to discuss that further if you like. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:10, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I think the conjunction but is fully justified and is better than two separate sentences. Happy to hear from other editors. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:21, 5 March 2020 (UTC) p.s. " 'buts' can be troublesome"? Maybe they can, sometimes. But we're not discussing in general terms, we're discussing this one exact usage in this exact context? Or are you suggesting the word "but" should become a forbidden word at Wikipedia?

Accused

I cannot understand the problem with "accused=3" (corrected from 2, per the article). Three template fields are a logical sequence and all are stages in the formal process of investigation/justice system: Arrests > Accused > Convicted. The "accused" field appears to relate to those accused of specific crimes and brought before the courts, and only three have been reported, all cited in the article, so it is hardly meaningless. Davidships (talk) 00:10, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I think, as "accused" is a noun and usually used as "the accused", that this field is for identifying the accused (individually of by group affiliation), rather than for the number of individuals having been accused. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:26, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

There is no advice at all at Template:Infobox event. But I don't see how the difference between a noun and a verb would mean that only names and not numbers are appropriate here. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:41, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Furthermore, the assumption that this field will be filled with one or more names seems to lie in sharp contrast to the general policy of not naming accused persons while a case is sub justice. Indeed, Wikipedia goes out of its way not to name people who have even been widely named in the press. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:19, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the documentation is lacking. But generally, the accused is a name and not a number. The field is not obligatory though, so can be left blank as we are complying with the guidelines and not gratuitously naming the accused in this article. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:00, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, DeFacto, but I do not find that at all compelling. Clearly the "accused" can be used as a noun in the way you believe is meant - it has verbal and adjectival uses also - and other relevant interpretations should not be dogmatically excluded. The number of individuals who have been formally accused is exactly what I would expect a visitor to the infobox to want at this stage - and of course that information is already properly in the article itself, as well as in the Lead, so not at all "meaningless". Davidships (talk) 01:48, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

While I don't care about the numbers, I am also fairly certain that the "accused" parameter is for (a) name(s). Though the template page doesn't elaborate, it is between other similar parameters (convicted, suspects) that are for the names of people in similar positions. The "arrests" parameter is for a number. Kingsif (talk) 12:23, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Is either "I think" or "I am fairly certain" a good enough justification for insisting on the deletion of useful information. What is the reason for this? For the reason already noted by Martinevans123, it is unlikely that any names will ever be entered there as the people will be either convicted, found innocent, or the cases droppped before they will be considered for inclusion. As the article stands, the reader who looks at the infobox to discover what it is all about finds that 39 people died, 13 people have been arrested and there are serious crimes, but is not allowed to be told that, of the 13 (if that is the right number), three are before the courts, or indeed how many people are accused of the serious crimes listed. Davidships (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Trucks project

This article is not "obviously within scope" of WP:TRUCKS, which covers "articles on trucks, truckparts and truck manufacturers", with goals "to co-ordinate articles on light, medium and heavy trucks. It aims to improve the coverage of manufacturers and models, and to make articles on trucks uniform and informative." This is clearly focused on articles about trucks as transport hardware. It is not for general editors to tell a WP what they must be interested in; they have been asked, but no WP participant has answered, but I note that that WP has been tagged for over six years as only semi-active. Davidships (talk) 23:13, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Court appearances

In the section "Court appearances", it begins with "On 25 November, Robinson pleaded guilty in the Central Criminal Court to conspiring with others to assist illegal immigration and acquiring criminal property". In my opinion, the sentence could begin with a brief explanation of who Robinson is; I read through the article but could see no mention in any of the sections previous of who he is, which I believe might be confusing for the reader. Okama-San (talk) 02:54, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

It is in line 1 on the "Incident" section. But I agree that now that eight people have been convicted most of the "a man from..." sections can be reworked and simplified. Davidships (talk) 10:12, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Article title

Given that there were long custodial sentences for manslaughter, should the article title not be Essex lorry killings, or similar? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:36, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

That name doesn't seem to be used elsewhere though - a Google search for it returned 0 (zero) hits against 80,000+ for "Essex lorry deaths". -- DeFacto (talk). 11:54, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Ah right, I'll get me coat (and take my Project Death flowchart with me?) Martinevans123 (talk) 12:06, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Any news?

Any news on the investigation? 2601:1C0:8100:A380:8CC7:E4BC:28E2:748A (talk) 12:00, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

What is there left to investigate? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:26, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Is the case still being investigated?

The Investigation section, as of 3 October 2022 (special:permalink/1113209127#Investigation), says

The investigation is being led by Detective Chief Inspector

Is the case still being investigated? If it's closed, a past tense should be used here. --CiaPan (talk) 06:01, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

—
Hello? Anybody there...? --CiaPan (talk) 07:59, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello CiaPan. Given that up to 12 people were jailed in 2021, I think we can conclude the investigation was concluded some time before then. So I have changed is being to was. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:36, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: Thank you. :) --CiaPan (talk) 17:13, 9 November 2023 (UTC)