Talk:Murder of Sarah Everard/Archive 1

Archive 1

Reclaim the Streets

I had made a link to Reclaim the Streets, but realise that the current org is Reclaim 'these ' streets, so a different org? my mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melissa Highton (talk • contribs) 12:20, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, here's one of their announcements. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:53, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Death of Sarah Everard

(Moved here from my talkpage. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC))

Hi DeFacto, reference 12 supports Everard's death: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/12/sarah-everard-remains-found-kent-woodland-those-of-missing-woman. Also see https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-56371163. Fences&Windows 15:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Fences and windows, why are you telling me that? -- DeFacto (talk). 15:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I thought you were disputing her death, not her location of death. See below. That's the kind of confusion that happens if you don't use an edit summary. Fences&Windows 15:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Fences and windows, I did use an edit summary, and it was the "by person" as well as the location that I couldn't see support for. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:32, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I misremembered. The issue was your edit summary didn't define what "that" meant: "I don't see that supported in the article". Fences&Windows 17:59, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Fences and windows, the "that" was the category I removed in the edit in question, the one that isn't supported by the article. I didn't think that was ambiguous. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:41, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

It's why it was inappropriate that you didn't explain. In the section below, you reveal it was partly because you misunderstood what the category means. Fences&Windows 21:33, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Fences and windows, see the edit summary - the explanation is that it wasn't supported in the article. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:38, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:DISINFOBOX

I tend not to touch sub judice articles, but I would like to bring up about the "info" box on this article that has been removed and reinstated several times. It does nothing except tell us the month of death, how many people died (strongly inferred by title) and how many arrests. This could all be summed up in a sentence. Infoboxes are not mandatory for every article, and should be there to sum up key points of detailed subjects (United Kingdom, Queen Victoria) rather than exist for the sake of existing. They are not a crossword to fill in each field when we discover the answer. Can we have some discussion about whether an infobox with a month and two numbers is of interest to the reader? Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:45, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I must admit, I do quite like your crossword analogy. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:51, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

As things stand, I agree. MIDI (talk) 19:52, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I happened to visit this article, and was immediately struck by the absurdity of the infobox. The purpose of infoboxes is to provide a quick and accessible summary of what may be a complex topic. In this case (and as currently populated) it tells the reader practically nothing, and is just an irrelevant distraction. It should go. GrindtXX (talk) 21:23, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree, I've removed it. Fences&Windows 21:47, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Date of birth and origin

The Daily Telegraph seems to say (from Google snippet preview) here that she was "born in Surrey in 1987, she was the youngest of three children, with older siblings James and Katherine. The family moved to York when Sarah was still young..." So I guess her DoB must be some time after 3 March in 1987. There's another source here. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:02, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Is anyone who has access able to check? Currently the claims for year and place of birth are unsourced. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:02, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for adding it, User:MIDI. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:21, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

No probs. MIDI (talk) 14:04, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

UK Gov advisory notice

On mobile, so dropping this here for someone to use, if wanted - https://www.gov.uk/government/news/media-advisory-notice-disappearance-of-sarah-everard - Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:40, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that link. Although that Media Advisory Notice from Attorney General's Office and The Rt Hon Michael Ellis QC MP, is clearly dated, there appears to be no time stamp. The words "door, stable, bolting and horse" spring to mind. The suspect has been named on every BBC radio news bulletin I've heard this morning. So I guess the name is not the issue; it seems the issue is rather "material that asserts or assumes the guilt of anyone". Martinevans123 (talk) 10:42, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

From the page's source markup:

"datePublished": "2021-03-12T17:04:56.000+00:00", "dateModified": "2021-03-12T17:04:56.000+00:00",

But of course the page merely reiterates the legal position, which applied even prior to its publication. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:25, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Ah thanks; that was quite well hidden. So it changes nothing. Should it specifically inform the editing of this article? Is it sufficiently notable to be mentioned in the article? Maybe Michael Ellis should have used his Twitter feed? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:36, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

It's significant, as it's not something routinely done in murder cases. For example, there were three such notices in 2020, two about one murder case (ironically, of a police officer), the other about generic "embargoed court judgments". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:04, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I couldn't find the issuing of the notice discussed in secondary sources, so it might be UNDUE to include it. I'm open to arguments otherwise, though. Fences&Windows 14:58, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I found only this one. Oh, and it seems he did put it out on Twitter. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:26, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Death location

I added Category:Deaths by person in London but I realise now that we don't know if she died in London, Kent, or on route - fair enough. I would add a wider category, Category:Deaths by person in England , but DeFacto also removed England as the death location in the infobox and argued that we don't know this. A position that she might have been to Wales, Scotland, or France, for example, and died there before her body was moved to Kent has no basis in what we know of the case and is not a reasonable position. Fences&Windows 15:27, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

We don't know the location. We should not add any category. I really don't see any benefit to the reader in any case. Plus we have WP:BLPCRIME considerations. I'm sure we'll learn soon enough. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:34, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Fences and windows, it's the "by person" that I think is the more problematic of the various speculations you seem to be making. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:41, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Ah yes. It may not have been murder at all, or even a killing. It may have been accidental. We simply don't know. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:45, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh! That's not what "Deaths by person" means at all. As the parent category Category:Deaths by person says "This category is for articles that are primarily about the death of a person." It's not saying the death was caused by a person. Fences&Windows 18:03, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I see. Your heading here is "Death location"? Are you proposing any further corrections or changes to the article at this time? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:27, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

No, I concede the point for now but I think correcting a misunderstanding of our categorisation is worth noting for when her location of death is known. Martinevans123, I don't think a suggestion she killed herself is appropriate (family and friends may read this) and I ask that you remove that comment after which I'll remove this sentence too. Fences&Windows 18:44, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification of the meaning of the Category name which, I think you'll have to agree, is ambiguous. If you find those three words upsetting or undue, I'm perfectly willing to strike or remove. The fact that two people have been arrested makes it seem very unlikely. It is all speculation, after all. The point I was trying to make is that we do not know the circumstances. That includes both the manner of death and the location. Family and friends may well read the article; but I suspect they will only read this Talk page if they intend to edit the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:04, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

If you find the category is ambiguous, please raise at WP:CFD.

I think you should remove what I asked, and it is disappointing that you belittle me ("if you find those three words upsetting") rather than acknowledging that such musings are not OK. Fences&Windows 21:39, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I had and have no intention of "belittling you". Martinevans123 (talk) 22:05, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

There isn't a reasonable doubt that she died in England (almost certainly London or Kent), so Category:Deaths by person in England should be present. Jim Michael (talk) 22:29, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Jim Michael, add that to the article first then, supported by an RS, and it will satisfy WP:CATVER. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:43, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Personal categories

There have been several insertions and reversions of categories related to Everard as an individual, such as birth date, "people from" etc. Is there consensus in the project to include/exclude these categories, and do they go on the rarely seen redirect page instead? Unknown Temptation (talk) 20:18, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

We have a perfectly reliable source that she was born in Surrey in 1987. So I don't see any problem. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:26, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Unknown Temptation, the problem is that the article is about an event, it's not a biography about a person. I don't think the event has a DOB or a DOD or is a person from anywhere, so those categories are not appropriate. If it was a bio, then they would be appropriate. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:49, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Those cats are on Sarah Everard. Jim Michael (talk) 21:00, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I think DeFacto is right. A redirect page has Cats? What's the point? A redirect has no content? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:34, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

They're biography cats, which is why they're on the redirect rather than this article. Jim Michael (talk) 23:12, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. I guess someone might find them useful. Except the source(s) to support them are elsewhere, of course, and might change or disappear. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:17, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Officer suspect

A lot of info about him here: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/14301957/wayne-couzens-from-cop-to-sarah-everard-suspect/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.30.115 (talk) 00:38, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:BLP - and WP:BLPCRIME in particular - applies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:04, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Also, the Sun is a deprecated source - see WP:THESUN. Autarch (talk) 13:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

He's headlined in The Times here, but that doesn't alter the restrictions for WP:BLPCRIME. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:59, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Although the suspect's name is now widely included in the media, BLP policy advises not including names of non-public figures accused rather than convicted of crimes. WP:BLPCRIME says "For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, 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." WP:BLPNAME says "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories." Fences&Windows 15:40, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, he was headlined there, when I added the source at 14:02, with the title "Policeman Wayne Couzens's Sex Crime Missed by Met Officers". But they've now updated it. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:43, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:BLPNAME seems not to apply here, as the suspect's name has indeed been "widely disseminated". Martinevans123 (talk) 16:44, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Martinevans123, if it ended there then I'd probably agree. However, what context is lost without it and is it enough to argue with this: it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context.

And then there's this: When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories. Have we got any such non news media secondary sources that can convince us to include it? -- DeFacto (talk). 17:56, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I am unaware of any. Does "brief appearance of names in news stories" include having the name in the story headlines of several national newspapers? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:59, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Although as a general rule we might be cautious about naming suspects, in a case like this where his name is being plastered all over the place e.g. he was named a few minutes ago on BBC News 24, he has been charged, and it is likely to get even more mention when he appears in court in a few days, it is becoming increasingly artificial not to mention it. PatGallacher (talk) 21:32, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Now the suspect is charged with murder I'd say it's probably ok to include the name. We certainly did in this case. This is Paul (talk) 22:04, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

This is Paul, what would be your answer to the question implied by WP:BLPNAME: what is the significant loss of context that results from omitting the name?

And can you, also per BLPNAME, provide any secondary sources (other than news media) such as scholarly journals or the work of recognised experts to help with the decision on this? Currently all we have are "the brief appearance of names in news stories". -- DeFacto (talk). 22:22, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

PatGallacher, do you have answers to the questions posed by WP:BLPCRIME that I mentioned in my reply to This is Paul? While we are still considering this and whilst there is no consensus to include the name, and per WP:BRD, perhaps you will respect your fellow editors, stop edit-warring, and self-revert. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:33, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I guess the answer is the suspect's name has been so widely reported by now to make WP:BLPCRIME a moot point. Works from scholarly journals, criminologists, and so forth, are probably going to be far into the future. We have to deal with what is in the present. This is Paul (talk) 22:52, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

This is Paul, so what you're actually showing is that we cannot really justify adding it per WP:BLPCRIME then. Or can you tell us the significant loss of context that results from omitting it. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:56, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

That someone has been charged with the crime is fact, and we should report the facts and nothing else. Since the individual's name is public knowledge anyway, I don't see there being a problem with including it. Before he was charged is a whole different story. For example, I don't believe we should name the female arrested in connection with the case since she hasn't been charged with anything. This is Paul (talk) 23:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

(Redacted) People aren't released on bail unless they've been charged with something: [1] 86.186.37.218 (talk) 23:40, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Right now we have the suspect named, but hidden text telling us that consensus is not to name suspects. The name of the perpetrator of the 2020 Reading stabbings was taboo on Wikipedia until he was convicted, though the name was widely disseminated. The suspect Derek Chauvin has an entire Wikipedia article, and that can't be just because of America's looser sub judice laws, as admins did revision deletions to remove the names of the suspects in the Murder of Ee Lee. Where is it in writing that Wikipedia can or cannot name suspects whose names are known to the public, if the wording is clear that they are suspects and nothing more? I see the arguments either way, but consistency is key. Unknown Temptation (talk) 08:30, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think there's an embargo on reporting the names of suspects who've been charged in relation to a crime, especially when that information has been reported by quality sources such as the BBC. I personally wouldn't have chosen to add any names at this stage though, and the name shouldn't have been shared before charges were even brought, as happened on here yesterday. I've long believed we need a wider discussion about articles like this, when and how to create them, and the potential implications of creating them. But it never happens, and every time there's a high-profile criminal case such as this, the same issues, such as sub judice, whether or not to name the suspect, etc, keep coming back. Maybe this article is the one to trigger that discussion, but we'll see. This is Paul (talk) 10:25, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you This is Paul. This is a perennial issue for crime cases like this. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:35, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Our extreme overcautiousness in reporting cases such as these does need to be addressed. Journalists have a far greater understanding of the law than we do, and understand the practicalities of crime reporting. No Swan So Fine (talk) 12:48, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

While the name of the main suspect has been widely covered, I don't see the same for the other suspect which seems to mostly be in deprecated and other poor sources. Please don't mention it or any other identifying details here or in the article unless it is, at a minimum, covered in better sources. I think female has been widely covered and maybe her age. Other details, I'm not so sure. Nil Einne (talk) 18:00, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

A general discussion of when and how to name suspects in criminal cases, while useful, should be had at Wikipedia: Village pump (policy) rather than here. Fences&Windows 15:34, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Fences and windows, I agree. This page is for decisions about this article alone, and currently, with this discussion still being open, there is no consensus to add the name. So as it is currently there in defiance of Wiki policy, it needs removing to restore the status quo. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:41, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. We are not serving our readers by omitting such a crucial piece of information. No Swan So Fine (talk) 15:48, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

No Swan So Fine, that opinion doesn't excuse the defying of the Wiki policy on consensus though. Consensus is still needed for its inclusion. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:14, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Strictly, policy is "must seriously consider" not including rather than "must not include". However, inclusion should wait for a consensus here that including the suspect's name is appropriate in light of BLPCRIME, BLPNAME, and coverage in reliable sources. Fences&Windows 15:53, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Such a mess. We are splitting hairs about being so brave as to include a murder suspects name in an article thats getting thousands of views and women are being manhandled for peacefully protesting against violence. We need to honour the victim and keep the name. No Swan So Fine (talk) 21:43, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

No Swan So Fine, it's not about "being so brave", it's about the necessity per the Wiki policy. Can you describe the significant loss of context we suffer by not including the name?

And which "women are being manhandled for peacefully protesting against violence" and why is that relevant to this discussion? -- DeFacto (talk). 22:02, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Couzens' name now appears 10 times in the article, including in the infobox. There's quite a lot of information about his wife here, although I'm not sure if that source is included in "deprecated and other poor sources." She's also named by The Daily Mail and many tabloids, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:31, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Martinevans123, do you agree that the male's name shouldn't be there at the moment, as there is no consensus to include it, and this discussion about whether to include it, or not, is still open? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:56, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

An explicit consensus does not seem to have been reached although, as Fences and windows has pointed out, policy is "must seriously consider" not including rather than "must not include". Perhaps an RfC is required to bring matters to a definitive conclusion. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:01, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Martinevans123, I think a formal and uninvolved close of this thread would do. Then perhaps a discussion somewhere more generic to try and get a tighter guideline, less open to misinterpretation, for future reference. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

No objections, although I suspect in that general discussion someone may say "every case is different". So we just need to call on someone "uninvolved" here. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:14, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say that a source which brands itself:

one of the world’s fastest growing entertainment news companies with offices in the US and India. We bring you the best content from the global streaming industry and Hollywood, through our team of talented reporters and contributors. Up-to-date news on the entertainment industry, exclusive interviews and in-depth features about the trendiest streaming shows, box office hits and stars, to sleeper winners that you really have to follow.

shouldn't be used for a crime story where no one significantly involved can be said to be part of the "entertainment industry". (And I know that funding can be very difficult for the media nowadays, but it's never a good sign where you have to go to the front page to be able to even see the footer because otherwise the continuously loading ads make it almost impossible.) Frankly I agree with those who suggested it probably shouldn't be used for BLPs point blank Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 289#Is Meaww a reliable source?, even for entertainment stories. I'm aware it's been covered in deprecated tabloids, and maybe some non deprecated tabloids. But if those are the only sources that seems to prove it's not something well covered, since this case has been very well covered. As always, if you're digging from the bottom of the sourcing barrel in BLP matters, you have to ask yourself, why? While I understand some people's "completionist" urgings may make them to feel like they should, it's something we're not supposed to do with BLP issues, especially when the matters could be considered contentious. Nil Einne (talk) 11:27, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks for the clarification and the link. I agree with all your points. If someone uninvolved can close this, I trust they will also make a decision on the wife's name. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:37, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Nominated at ITN

Is this case important enough to be nominated for ITN? Jim Michael (talk) 11:27, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I would say that due to sustained and wide coverage yes, but the inevitable characters would say "local issue", "what about women in other countries?", "this happens every day" Unknown Temptation (talk) 13:30, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

It's been covered by all the main UK media, as well as some major foreign media outlets - including the Canadian Broadcasting Centre & Deutsche Welle.

Does police officers being arrested, charged & remanded in custody for kidnapping & murder happen every day? Jim Michael (talk) 14:04, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I was in support of it being ITN (though not under the vigil-related blurb proposed). I was just pointing out the current standard of debate on ITN would result in such curt and knee-jerk responses, most of which are not factually accurate. Unknown Temptation (talk) 18:55, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Nottingham?

I keep seeing references to Nottingham in the news. What is the relationship please? There must be one and it's not explained in the article. Thanks. 92.6.127.33 (talk) 21:16, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

There have been vigils in Birmingham, Bristol, Cardiff, Edinburgh, Leeds & Nottingham. Jim Michael (talk) 21:24, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

The Nottingham vigil is reported here and is described as being held "peacefully and without incident." Martinevans123 (talk) 21:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

History of the Metropolitan Police

How much info in regard to this case should be on that article? Jim Michael (talk) 19:12, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd suggest that's a question for Talk:History of the Metropolitan Police. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:27, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2021

Sarah Everard twitter profile @saraheverardRIP Source https://twitter.com/SarahEverardRIP?s=09 Ramiz speaks (talk) 04:11, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Sarah Everard twitter profile updated Ramiz speaks (talk) 04:11, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Sarah Everard twitter details Ramiz speaks (talk) 04:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: that's not her twitter profile, and even if it was it would be completely inappropriate to include for an article like this. Volteer1 (talk) 04:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Vigil/police in lede

@DeFacto You removed the lede section per BRD, so I'm starting a discussion here. I'd love to hear exactly what you disagree with in my version. Your edits introduced a narrative that is only being presented by the police, not reliable sources, so I though that going with a neutral descriptor like "disrupted" was better than presenting the police's view of the situation as if it were truth. Sam Walton (talk) 18:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

If we mention the Clapham Common vigil in the lead (which we should, as it's a big part of these events) then we must mention the police response (or the criticism thereof). I have just reworded some content added to the Clapham Common article – see diff – would something along these lines work here? I have tried to summarise both POVs (i.e. a criticism and a defence). MIDI (talk) 18:31, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

That broadly looks good to me, though I think it misses giving any description of what the police's response actually was, which is why my version here included the word "disrupted" and mentioned arrests. Sam Walton (talk) 18:39, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Samwalton9, I only removed the contentious part. The police gave the reasons for their actions and these need to be neutrally presented to balance descriptions of criticism. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:46, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@DeFacto: Sure, but neutrally presenting their opinion would mean accurately quoting them and presenting those reasons as their response, not presenting them as fact. Your version stated, in Wikipedia's voice, that the police "had to intervene to protect pubic safety", which is clearly not a neutral presentation of the information. Here's an attempt to merge MIDI's version with mine. How does this look?

Vigils were held for Everard across the United Kingdom on 13 March. Police officers disrupted the London vigil, arresting four attendees. The Metropolitan Police were criticised for their response, with Mayor of London Sadiq Khan describing their intervention as "neither appropriate nor proportionate". The Metropolitan Police responded by saying that they were forced into a position where "enforcement action was necessary".

Sam Walton (talk) 18:51, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Samwalton9, "disrupted" is not neutral, it is pejorative. The police are tasked with enforcing Covid lockdown regulations to protect the public, and that needs to be mentioned as the main reason for their actions. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:06, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@DeFacto: Any suggested improvements? How about 'interrupted'? Sam Walton (talk) 20:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Samwalton9, I suggest:

Police officers said they had to intervene to protect pubic safety at the vigil, after hundreds of people had gathered in close proximity in contravention of Covid lockdown health protection restrictions. Four people were arrested. The police actions were criticised, including by Members of Parliament, for how they interacted with the gathering. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:18, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

One Helen Ball said that, not police officers, and police actions don't exactly interact with the people, the police officers themselves do. Should say alleged contravention, presumed innocent. Lockdown is possibly redundant to "health protection restrictions", maybe pick one? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:11, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Response of police to reports of indecent exposure

This edit removed the mention of the inadequate police response to the reports of indecent exposure (in fact there were two), allegedly involving the suspect, three days before Everard's disappearance, with the edit summary "nothing to do with the event that is the topic of this article". And the indecent exposure reports have now been removed altogether. I'm not sure about that rationale. I suspect that people think, as The Times does, that if the police had responded more properly to these reports when they occurred, the kidnap and death might never have happened. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:11, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Martinevans123, can a link be provided for the source supporting the assertion that The Times thinks "that if the police had responded more properly to these reports when they occurred, the kidnap and death might never have happened". -- DeFacto (talk). 19:54, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Quite possibly. But The Daily Telegraph says here, in it's sub-headline: "If he had been identified as a suspect in an allegation of indecent exposure it is likely Wayne Couzens would have been suspended from duty." I was also a little surprised with your removal here of the fact Everard's name was mentioned in the House of Commons during the annual debate for International Women's Day, with the edit summary "per WP:COATRACK". So now we have mention of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge being "filmed walking around the vigil site in Clapham Common" but nothing whatsoever of the reaction in Parliament? This seems quite unbalanced to me. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:04, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Martinevans123, with respect to the subject of this thread, which article from The Times were you thinking of then? And speculation, particularly in headlines isn't very useful. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:56, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I think the fact that the Met referred themselves to the IOPC suggests that wasn't just idle speculation by The Telegraph I'll look for that Times article, but it's not always easy when these articles keep changing their headlines. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:45, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

The indecent exposure reporting and IOPC referral and investigation need to be included - if reliable sources are connecting this to her death and his arrest, then so must we. It is not appropriate to exclude this based on personal preference. Removal of a discussion of the case in Parliament also appears to be based on personal taste rather than policy. Fences&Windows 00:59, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Fences and windows, indeed, as I suggested. Can you point us to any reliable sources "connecting this to her death and his arrest"? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with the inclusion with such limited sourcing of one Telegraph and one Times article. It IMO clearly violates WP:BLPCRIME especially since we are naming the suspect. If it becomes a significant issue leading to well covered additional charges against the suspect, or a significant widely covered criticism of the police's handling of the case, we can reconsider. But until then, no. While it may seem a bit weird for someone accused of murder, we still have to careful consider any details we are including. Ultimately we have to go by sources but frankly while I know next to nothing about policing in the UK, I would assume like any country with a slightly decent regulation of their police, referral to the IOPC happen all the time, as they should. So the suggestion this was referred to the IOPC therefore it much be significant doesn't wash. Nil Einne (talk) 11:11, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

There is extensive coverage of the indecent exposure allegation and the IOPC referrals and investigations, all within the context of the investigation of Sarah Everard's death; these are not all the available sources. The media, the Metropolitan Police, and the IOPC have all explicitly connected the indecent exposure allegation and investigation to the investigation into Sarah Everard's death. There are now five IOPC investigations, one into the indecent exposure allegation. The sources report this: we need to follow them. Fences&Windows 12:49, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Fences and windows, which of those do you think connects the way the police handled the first incident with the death and his arrest? I've read through them and all I see is, in effect, two offences with the same suspect and with the police actions being investigated, being discussed in the same article. Nowhere do I see the implication that if the police had acted differently in relation to the first incident that the outcome of the second might have been different. In other words, they are two independent incidents. This article is about just one of those incidents, and the other has no apparent relevance in this article. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:34, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

The Telegraph explictly links the two, but that is not actually relevant. All of the sources, and the Metropolitan Police, and the IOPC, directly link the indecent exposure allegation with the investigation into Sarah Everard's death. This is not incidental trivia. By insisting that the sources must draw a causal connection, you are imposing an inappropriate editorial judgement and not following the sources. We may not engage in original research, but the sources may. DUE weight requires us to mention the allegation. Fences&Windows 00:23, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I wholly agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:02, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

With the high level of coverage this is now receiving, I withdraw my objection to this on BLP grounds. I make no other comment about whether we should include it. Nil Einne (talk) 13:51, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Bold for redirect name

Sarah Everard is a redirect to this page. Should her name in this article be in bold, per MOS:BOLD?--- Possibly (talk) 06:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and it's the way it's usually done for these types of articles, see e.g. Kendrick Johnson, JonBenét, Kyle Rittenhouse, etc., so I've changed it. Volteer1 (talk) 07:11, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

No, it is not the name of the article, and it is not a biography. WWGB (talk) 07:21, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

What? It's a redirect, it should be in bold as per MOS:BOLD. This is how it's handled on every other "Death of..." article, I'm not sure why you think this should be an exception. Volteer1 (talk) 07:32, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

The relevant guideline is WP:R#PLA which provides that we follow the "principle of least astonishment" and "make it clear to the reader that they have arrived in the right place". Well, anyone clicking Sarah Everard will arrive at Death of Sarah Everard and will be left unastonished about their destination. A bolding will in no way better inform the reader following the redirect. Exaggerated claims like "how it's handled on every other "Death of..." article" are easily refuted; see Death of Jeffrey Epstein, Death of Muammar Gaddafi, Death of Joseph Smith etc. WWGB (talk) 08:21, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

They all have articles written about them, Jeffrey Epstein doesn't redirect to Death of Jeffrey Epstein, it's instead wikilinked in his article. Again, it's the way every single article of this kind I could find is dealt with: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. It's not "exaggerated", I literally can't find any counterexamples. Even in the "principle of least astonishment" sense, it's useful to delineate the fact that this is the only article about them (rather than a biography). Regardless of that, I see no reason to violate consensus without reason. What makes this article exceptional? Volteer1 (talk) 08:30, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

No. As the name is in the article title anyway, it is very clear why that redirect lands here. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:36, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Murder of Breck Bednar has no bolding, while Death of Luke Borusiewicz does? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:20, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Looks like the bolding for Breck Bednar's death was changed a few months ago, but see above, that's generally not the case. Volteer1 (talk) 09:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Ah yes. EEng's edit summary was "articles need not start by barfing out their own titles". But he also removed the bolding. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:09, 15 March 2021 (UTC) p.s. Murder of Rachel Nickell another example.

For the record, I sure I removed the bolding without thinking about whether it really should or shouldn't be there -- and I really don't know the answer to that. I'm sure you guys will figure it out. EEng 15:40, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• If an article is about an event involving a subject about which there is no main article, especially if the article is the target of a redirect, the subject should be in bold. That's straight from MOS:BOLD. It's also the way it's done in the majority of "death of" articles where the person wasn't notable before their death. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:55, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2021

Under incident and inestigation is ”On 16 March police continued to comb woodland in Kent and specialist divers searched water for Everard's mobile phine.” Last word should be phone. 185.89.54.141 (talk) 18:19, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done Corrected, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Location categories

@Martinevans123: – I understand the logic in removing (and support the removal of) categories that aren't verifiable – i.e. ones that suggest or imply where the death occurred, as per your edit summary – BUT I think that Category:Clapham should be included; the scope of this article (including the fact the lead-up events and the subsequent vigil(s)/protest(s) all happened in Clapham) is such that I think it's a logical and verifiable category for this article. MIDI (talk) 13:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I won't object. Certainly the focus of the most notable of the "Responses" seems to have centred on Clapham Common. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:27, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

As Martinevans123 won't object, I'm putting the category back in. In view of the continuing uncertainty over exactly what happened, when, and where, it seems to have at least as much claim as Category:Borough of Ashford. Even if the death didn't occur in Clapham, the events that led to it appear to have begun there. Incidentally (but not entirely relevantly), I note that Category:Clapham already contains Murder of Jody Dobrowski, a case that bears several coincidental similarities to this one. Eric Pode lives (talk) 16:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

That case seems very much more straightforward, as the location of the assault was clear from the start? And there were witnesses who intervened. And the victim did not go missing for several days. Just sayin' Martinevans123 (talk) 16:54, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Sheffield?

Small point, but: the article says that the vigil in Sheffield went ahead despite police interference, but this is false - the planned vigil didn't happen, and the cited article doesn't make reference to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.250.124 (talk) 19:07, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

... but we have a photo of something happening in Sheffield. True, there are only 5 people in the frame, but the source file on flickr calls it a socially distanced vigil, and says there were 100+ participants, with the police in attendance. Eric Pode lives (talk) 19:51, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Death project banner

Extended but somewhat tangential discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Someone keeps adding a template with pictures of human skulls to the top of this talk page. This is the page to which our help pages direct friends and relatives of the deceased, if they wish to suggest updates or changes (because we say they have a CoI). Where has consensus to add such images to this page been agreed? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:21, 13 March 2021 (UTC) If the skull image is collapsed (as it is) then who would be offended? WWGB (talk) 12:35, 13 March 2021 (UTC) His objection to that is that, for some readers, the banner is open for a split second during page loading. This would, according to him, offend people who are very sensitive about death, who inexplicably choose to view talk pages about the deaths of people as well as fatal transport incidents. Jim Michael (talk) 12:58, 13 March 2021 (UTC) Once again, you attempt to speak for me, and show yourself as incapable to doing so correctly. To reiterate what you have egregiously failed to take account of in my OP: "This is the page to which our help pages direct friends and relatives of the deceased, if they wish to suggest updates or changes" Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:01, 13 March 2021 (UTC) Maybe the skull image could be made an optional part of the project banner format, for those Talk pages where editors object? But that discussion belongs elsewhere, I think. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:54, 13 March 2021 (UTC) Several discussions which have included that point have been had, over the years. There has never been consensus to remove or change skull image. Jim Michael (talk) 13:07, 13 March 2021 (UTC) [ec] The image displays before it is collapsed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:59, 13 March 2021 (UTC) I never see it. It's probably a function of (at least) which device you use and size of the Talk page. Would it help if the Death Project banner was moved down the list? I'm pretty sure there are no rules about ordering. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:07, 13 March 2021 (UTC) Some readers see all the banners in their open position for a split second as the talk page loads. The order of the banners has no effect on that. This is one of the several unreasonable objections to the banner by one editor who has repeatedly removed it from talk pages for years. This matter has been part of several of the many discussions had over the years on this matter. There has never been anything close to a consensus to remove or replace the banner's image. Jim Michael (talk) 13:14, 13 March 2021 (UTC) If the device is too small to show all the banners, how can it not have an effect? Would it not be better to try and reach a compromise, rather than keep this battle going on article after article? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:17, 13 March 2021 (UTC) As you know, for years you've been removing the extremely appropriate Death project banner from talk pages of articles which are clearly within its scope. The image of a clean, whole skull which you have an unreasonable objection to is extremely appropriate for its banner because a skull is a universal symbol of death. You've been part of many discussions over the years in regard to the image & the banner on various talk pages as well as on the Death project. There has never been anything close to consensus for the image to be removed or replaced, nor for it to no longer be placed on talk pages of relevant articles. Your claim that consensus is required to add project banners is clearly wrong & would be impractical. You claim to be removing the banner on behalf of people who are excessively sensitive about death, but obviously those people wouldn't choose to visit the talk pages of articles within the project. Jim Michael (talk) 12:45, 13 March 2021 (UTC) As you know, the larger image displays before it is collapsed. I note that you make no claim - let alone offer evidence - that there is consensus to display the image on this page. Your assertion about what I claim to have done is false. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:59, 13 March 2021 (UTC) You know that consensus isn't required to add applicable project banners - it would be ridiculously time-consuming & impractical. You know that this article - who's first word is Death - is clearly within the scope of the Death project. People who are sensitive about death would obviously not choose to read articles that are about deaths of people, fatal transport incidents etc. You've said that you know of recently-bereaved readers who've complained about being offended by the image of the clean, whole skull on the banner, but you offer no evidence of that. Jim Michael (talk) 13:05, 13 March 2021 (UTC) I guess we should all be grateful it's not used over at Talk:Death metal? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC) [ec] If there is not consensus to have the image on this page, it cannot remain. This is core Wikipedia policy. To again reiterate what you have egregiously failed to take account of in my OP: "This is the page to which our help pages direct friends and relatives of the deceased, if they wish to suggest updates or changes" Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:13, 13 March 2021 (UTC) I have taken account of it. My point stands - people who are very sensitive about death would not choose to visit such a page - whether they're recently bereaved or not. Consensus has been reached & maintained on the Death project in regard to its banner's application. There isn't consensus to remove the banner - it's usually you alone who repeatedly removes it from talk pages. Jim Michael (talk) 13:24, 13 March 2021 (UTC) You introduce the qualifier "people who are very sensitive about death" as though it had any relevance. "Consensus ... on the Death project" is not relevant here. And still you offer no evidence of consnesus to include the images on this page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:56, 13 March 2021 (UTC) The vast majority of people have no problem with the image of a clean, whole skull. Only those who are unusually sensitive about death could have an objection to it. Consensus on the Death project - of which you've long been aware - is very relevant. Each project decides its scope & hence which types of articles should have their project banner on them. You're repeatedly claiming that consensus is needed to place a project banner on a talk page. However, there's no evidence of any such rule or guideline & it would be unworkable. Project banners are added to talk pages all the time. It's common for a talk page to contain several. Having a discussion before adding each one would be ridiculously time-consuming, causing unnecessary delays, when the projects' scope & hence application of banners is decided by each relevant project. Jim Michael (talk) 17:56, 13 March 2021 (UTC) If I were a family member or friend I might want to read this page before making or requesting an edit, whether I was "sensitive" or not. I think User:Fences and windows was making this point earlier. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:16, 13 March 2021 (UTC) But if you were very sensitive about death-related matters, you wouldn't read such an article or talk page. Jim Michael (talk) 13:27, 13 March 2021 (UTC) As it is clearly not Sarah's skull, why would a (straw) friend or relative be distressed or offended, unless they were an ostiophobe? WWGB (talk) 13:24, 13 March 2021 (UTC) Indeed - especially as it's a clean, whole skull - not a bullet-riddled, smashed or bloody one. Jim Michael (talk) 13:26, 13 March 2021 (UTC) I hadn't realised those were possible alternatives. How very bizarre. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:29, 13 March 2021 (UTC) I'm pointing out that the skull is clean & whole, so it's not a gruesome/upsetting/offensive/inappropriate image. It's extremely appropriate, because a skull is a universal symbol of death. That's been pointed out by several editors in the many discussions had over the years in relation to this matter. Jim Michael (talk) 13:32, 13 March 2021 (UTC) Ah yes, universal. Like Einstein being "universally acknowledged to be one of the two greatest physicists of all time"? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:36, 13 March 2021 (UTC) Symbols of death says: The human skull is an obvious and frequent symbol of death, found in many cultures and religious traditions. During at least one of the many discussions that have been had about this matter, alternative images including a headstone & the grim reaper were suggested by other editors, but each received little support. Jim Michael (talk) 14:41, 13 March 2021 (UTC) Ah, so not universal. Although we all know that WP:WPNOTRS. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:49, 13 March 2021 (UTC) I'll change universal to obvious, frequent & well-known, but my explanations remain valid. Discussions on this matter during the 2010s & early 2020s have indicated little support for an alternative image or no image. Jim Michael (talk) 15:38, 13 March 2021 (UTC) Only one person has supported the use of skull images on this page, and even they have not claimed that there is consensus here to use them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:27, 15 March 2021 (UTC) No, you can clearly see that a few of the commenters here disagree with your objection. You've repeatedly removed the project banner from many talk pages every year for several years. You've initiated many discussions about this matter. Instead of accepting that you're wrong, you persist - and now you claim that consensus is needed in order to add it to each talk page of articles which are within its scope. Drop the stick, you've been beating this dead horse for too many years. This article's first word is death, yet you're repeatedly removing the Death banner. In addition, you repeatedly use the plural - skull images, yet you know that the banner has only one image of a skull - a clean, whole one. Jim Michael (talk) 10:36, 15 March 2021 (UTC) Good idea, at least for those where someone objects. It's also the first word here - did you miss that one? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:38, 15 March 2021 (UTC) That's about a manga series, whereas this article is about an actual death. Jim Michael (talk) 10:51, 15 March 2021 (UTC) I'm saying there's no "first word" rule, even informally. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC) What specifically are you saying is a good idea? Also, does it apply when the objection has no reasonable basis? There are a small number of editors who repeatedly insist that criminal cats & banners not be on articles of terrorists & terrorist acts - though of course in each case they only remove them from those of one specific ideology, thereby clearly showing which ideology they have a strong bias in favour of. Should they have their way when they're in the majority of the small number of people discussing those particular articles? These have included someone who persistently praised suicide bombings as "self-sacrificing attacks". Jim Michael (talk) 10:43, 15 March 2021 (UTC) That "consensus is needed in order to add it to the talk page of an article where someone objects". If consensus is against Andy here, then so be it. At the moment it's unclear what consensus is. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:48, 15 March 2021 (UTC) Consensus has never been in his favour in any of the many discussions he has initiated about this matter over the years. You think we should have this argument on many more articles over the years because of one editor repeatedly removing the same banner from talk pages of articles which are clearly within the project's scope? Jim Michael (talk) 10:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC) The discussion here should focus on this Talk page, not on any one editor. If you think he's being deliberately disruptive, you need to go to a different forum? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:58, 15 March 2021 (UTC) He's been doing it for years & always in regard to the same project banner - there's no doubt about his long-term persistence. I'm pointing about that this discussion has been had many times on talk pages & the Death project - it's ridiculous to keep repeating it. This matter was settled years ago - what forum are you saying this matter be taken to? You think we should have this discussion every time this one (otherwise good) editor removes the banner from a talk page of an article that's within the scope of the Death project? Jim Michael (talk) 10:59, 15 March 2021 (UTC) It doesn't look like it's "settled" to me. I'm saying that, if the disruption is as widespread as you say it is, and you cannot reach a compromise here, you need to take your discussion to a different forum where sanctions might be imposed on Andy. Personally I'd be happy to see consensus established at each and any Talk page where an editor objects to the image. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:09, 15 March 2021 (UTC) It's clear that it is - I know it's been going on for years. It's only one editor objecting to only one image on one banner. You'd be happy to see dozens or even hundreds of discussions on talk pages - one for each talk page on which the same editor removes the Death project banner from articles which are clearly within its scope?! Jim Michael (talk) 12:56, 15 March 2021 (UTC) It's not "settled" insofar as Andy hasn't stopped? But that's a somewhat hypothetical prediction you make. If you think the possibility is a strong one, perhaps you should suggest a preventative topic ban? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:26, 15 March 2021 (UTC) It's settled in as much as consensus has been reached & repeatedly confirmed that the image stays on the banner & the scope of the project is unchanged. One editor going against that isn't a legitimate dispute. There's nothing hypothetical about it - it's a long-standing problem. Habitually for years, he has frequently removed the Death project banner from many articles which are clearly within the project's scope - often several times from the same talk page. He usually says he's doing it to 'remove inappropriate images of skulls', to make it sound like adding the banner is wrong & he's removing something bad that shouldn't be there. He doesn't need a topic ban - he merely needs to no longer remove the banner from articles which are within the project's scope. Jim Michael (talk) 02:10, 16 March 2021 (UTC) If Andy does not like the skull image, he can start a discussion or RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Death. That's where the matter belongs. Dragging this topic through individual death talk pages is repetitive and time-wasting. WWGB (talk) 02:31, 16 March 2021 (UTC) As I said, discussions have already taken place about this matter on that project. There has never been a consensus to remove or change the image mentioned, nor to change the scope of the project in relation to it. That hasn't deterred him from repeatedly removing the banner from a huge number of talk pages of articles that are clearly within the project, nor from starting discussions about the matter on many talk pages. This is merely the most recent of hundreds of banner removals & many discussions. He's now making the claim that consensus needs to be reached before the banner can be placed on talk pages of articles within the project. I agree that it shouldn't need to be discussed & the banner should be on talk pages of relevant articles without being repeatedly removed. All that's needed is for him to stop removing the banner from articles that are within the project's scope & the problem is solved. Jim Michael (talk) 12:26, 16 March 2021 (UTC) Despite the walls of text above, and the various untruths ("a few of the commenters here disagree with your objection", "only one editor objecting", "hundreds of banner removals"), there is still no consensus to display a skull image on this talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC) ...and this despite blatant canvassing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:14, 17 March 2021 (UTC) I was also surprised to see "hundreds of banner removals". What's your latest count Andy? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:33, 17 March 2021 (UTC) You know that it's usually you alone who removes the banner. I know for certain that you've been doing it for years & I've personally reverted your removal of the banner from dozens of talk pages of articles which are clearly within the project's scope. As you know, consensus isn't needed to add the banner to a talk page of an article that's within the project's scope. It would be an impractical waste of time which we're not going to do just because of your unreasonable objection to it. As you also know, raising the matter on the project's page is far from canvassing. It's the correct place to raise the issue. It'd only be canvassing if I'd instead contacted editors who have a bias in my favour. Jim Michael (talk) 16:15, 21 March 2021 (UTC) Andy, the functionality to override the skull images [sic] in the template (with image=no) was implemented as a result of a discussion you instigated. Given this, what justification is there to remove the template rather than using this override parameter? MIDI (talk) 09:20, 18 March 2021 (UTC) He's been removing the banner from a huge number of talk pages for several years - in many cases several times from the same talk page. The vast majority of removals are by him. Jim Michael (talk) 16:15, 21 March 2021 (UTC) Jim Michael, if I add image=no to the template, would that be an acceptable compromise? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:01, 21 March 2021 (UTC) If you (or anyone else for that matter) removes it from the banner on this page, I won't revert it. However, I won't make such an alteration myself & I don't agree with it. Modifying the banner in this way has been done on several talk pages, despite it not being usual practice to do so. Despite such alterations not being reverted, the removal of the same banner from talk pages by the same editor has persisted for years - as you can see from the November 2016 discussion linked to in this section. It therefore won't solve this problem. Jim Michael (talk) 18:28, 21 March 2021 (UTC) Thank you. As far as I am concerned, adding image=no to the template will solve the problem here. If you need to continue the discussion, I suggest it's elsewhere. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:54, 21 March 2021 (UTC) I think this resolves this inasmuch as it's a solution to what appears to be the gist of the original post. Personally, I am unconvinced that this is really about consensus and I feel that suppressing the image amounts to little more than censorship because of offence or the presumption of causing offence to parties involved with the article subject – but as Martinevans123 has said, we've run our course here; suitability of the image, or the ability to suppress it, are arguments for the template talk page. MIDI (talk) 19:22, 21 March 2021 (UTC) Selective removal of a widely-endorsed image is nothing more than patronising nanny censorship with a strong whiff of MWWS. A cave-in to a sole crusader who should know better. Good work, guys! WWGB (talk) 00:54, 22 March 2021 (UTC) At best, this 'solution' merely prevents further removals of the banner from this talk page. Jim Michael (talk) 12:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Responses - media coverage

I feel it could be worth expanding the responses section to encompass the unusual scale of media coverage here. It seems to be very focused on the police response and the vigils at the moment which is definitely worthwhile but could use being broadened, Some sources/points:

• Vogue describes the media coverage as "extraordinary" while also commenting on a wider "societal fallout": https://www.vogue.com/article/on-sarah-everard-and-protesting-a-predatory-world
• The Evening Standard comments on the fact the news is being followed by millions and how it's provoked a major reaction via social media and elsewhere in terms of perceptions of public safety: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/women-social-media-sarah-everard-b923457.html
• Mention of virtual/doorstep vigils held across UK rather than just the Clapham vigil mentioned at present: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56384758
• Article on how the case has sparked a broader conversation on how cities can be made safer spaces for women: https://www.vox.com/first-person/22336089/sarah-everard-london-murder-safety-cities
• Mention of global uproar over the case and how it has turned a spotlight on possible institutional misogyny in the UK criminal justice system: https://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/news/2021/03/18/sarah-everard-killing-uk-police
• Commentary specifically on why this case might have attracted so much attention specifically - some good bits on this case conforming to a narrow paradigm and other cases with less "perfect" victims (in the words of the article) gaining less public sympathy/coverage: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/03/what-sarah-everards-murder-illuminatesand-might-obscure/618302/

I can't edit this and don't want to make an account at present but it would be great if someone could incorporate some of the above to make this section feel more complete. 137.83.244.222 (talk) 04:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

"held on suspicion" is misleading

The suspect was arrested at his home. He was not being "held" on suspicion of indecent exposure. This implies (very strongly) he was in custody. I don't know the exact legal situation - presumably he was "under investigation" for the indecent exposure? Definitely not "held" though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.103.187 (talk) 12:37, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

It's what the source says, however: "[suspect] was being held on suspicion of indecent exposure in a separate episode that appears to have occurred days before Ms. Everard’s disappearance." If there's a contradictory source, or if this is the only source that uses this sort of wording, please do add it here and suggest alternative wording. Thanks, MIDI (talk) 08:49, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

The second source from The Guardian says this: "PC Wayne Couzens has been arrested on suspicion of the kidnap and murder of Everard. He has also been arrested on suspicion of an indecent exposure involving another woman, and this is the incident that will be investigated by the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC). The alleged indecent exposure happened on 28 February, at a fast food restaurant in south London." My understanding was that he was arrested at his home and then detained and formally charged with kidnap, and then subsequently charged with murder the next day, while still in custody, when human remains were found. It's unclear to me exactly when the separate "arrest" or charge for indecent exposure took place. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I believe all that's correct. I think (I'm saying this to some extent from memory) that it was shortly after his arrest on suspicion of kidnapping (9 March) that the first public mention was made of the indecent exposure incident. Presumably it had technically been under investigation for some days (although there's also the suggestion that the initial police response had been inadequate), but we have no idea when Couzens was first identified as the possible perpetrator, or when any connection was first made between the two cases: nevertheless, he certainly wasn't taken into custody in connection with that incident. This 10 March BBC report of the arrest for murder (which we already cite elsewhere) says: "The arrested officer, who was initially held on suspicion of kidnap, is also being questioned about a separate allegation of indecent exposure." I think the IP therefore has a point. He was arrested, and held in custody, on suspicion of kidnapping; while in custody, he was also questioned (and otherwise investigated, and perhaps technically re-arrested) on suspicion of indecent exposure. I suggest that we change "he was being held on suspicion of that crime" [exposure] to "he was being questioned in connection with that crime", and add the BBC source. I'll leave it for 24 hrs for further comments, but if there aren't any I'll make that change. Eric Pode lives (talk) 18:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I have now made the change. Eric Pode lives (talk) 20:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Capitals

I've lost count of how many edits and reverts have been made to "Human Geography" (or "human geography"). My understanding is that in this usage "Human Geography" is a proper noun, because it's being used as the name of the course studied, and should therefore be capitalized. If it was just being used to describe the discipline, it'd be a common noun and therefore uncapitalized. Anyone care to comment? MIDI (talk) 09:24, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I think you are correct. But I've also asked a question here. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:21, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

The result of that inquiry appears to be that in this context human geography is a common noun. Primergrey (talk) 17:17, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Article title

In view of Couzen's guilty plea, reported here, the article title could now be moved to Murder of Sarah Everard, although he has yet to be sentenced. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:53, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree it should be moved and the language changed to reflect that he murdered her --TheHaloVeteran2 (talk) 11:51, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, this is pretty standard for these articles.LM2000 (talk) 11:56, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I have now moved the title. But the text needs to be adjusted. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:02, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

"responsibility for her death"

A somewhat academic question now, of course, as we know he was fully responsible for her murder, but what does "responsibility for her death" mean if not homicide? Perhaps there is some other article that could be pipe-linked there. Culpable homicide evidently not appropriate. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:09, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Martinevans123, with the hindsight we now have, maybe. But in the context of "On 8 June, Couzens pleaded guilty to Everard's kidnap and rape, and admitted responsibility for her death" and of the reports in the cited sources, it wasn't necessarily an admission that she died at his hands. It could have meant he felt guilty for leaving her in a situation which ultimately led to her death. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:53, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, wholly agree. We will probably never know what was said and how it was recorded. So the value of any link may not be that high, in any case. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:01, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Serving police officer cats?

Couzens was a serving police officer, so why are Category:People killed by law enforcement officers and Category:Police misconduct in England not appropriate here? Cressida Dick certainly thought it was relevant. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:17, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

'People killed by law enforcement officers' certainly seems directly verifiable and appropriate. I'm less confident about the misconduct one but don't have strong feelings. Sam Walton (talk) 20:26, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Martinevans123, I think 'People killed by law enforcement officers' is more for situations where being a police officer was somehow related to the circumstances of the killing. 'Police misconduct in England' sounds more like misconduct whilst on duty. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:42, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Well maybe. That's your interpretation. There's no advice on what the Category actually means, is there? I guess most incidents will occur when the officer is in uniform and on duty. Why should that rule out its use in other cases? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:14, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Martinevans123, perhaps the answer lies in our answer to the question: why do we have these categories for police officers, but not for paramedics, teachers, librarians and all other professions? -- DeFacto (talk). 21:42, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

So that's two questions I don't know the answer to. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:26, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

"People killed by law enforcement officers" seems pretty self-explanatory to me. He was a law enforcement officer, and he killed a person. If it was more restrictive than that we'd have a more specifically named category. I agree on the misconduct category though, that sounds more like on-duty issues. Sam Walton (talk) 22:30, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I would agree with that. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:33, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Samwalton9, I can't argue with that about the 'People killed...' category, and here isn't the right place to discuss why that category exists at all in that form anyway, so I'll go with that - for now. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:56, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Possibly because e.g. "Police violence is a leading cause of death for young men in the United States": [2] But I agree, best discussed elsewhere. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:07, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

He was a police officer, he killed a person, hence people killed by law enforcement officers is pretty clearly the case. And the reaction at the vigil was clearly police misconduct and to say otherwise is laughable. To then also say the inquiry is one-sided when the article makes mention of a blatantly biased internal police investigation is, let's be honest, a bad joke. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 09:55, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the above; both categories are relevant here. —Bangalamania (talk) 18:03, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether this information was known when most of this discussion took place, but the fact that Couzens presented Everard with his police ID and arrested her in a way that may have been indistinguishable from a legitimate arrest to her should make this conclusion uncontroversial in my opinion. TWM03 (talk) 22:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Off duty, ah that's ok then. Had he attacked and killed her in broad daylight, in the middle of Sainsbury's, I think the Categories would be equally relevant. Just my view. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:24, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Full name

It seems from FreeBMD that her full name was Sarah Rosemary Everard. But this has not been reported in any RS secondary sources, as far as I can see. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:59, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Yup – a quick Google search for "Sarah Rosemary Everard" (including quotes) yields just the WP:DAILYMAIL and mirrors of that one article... MIDI (talk) 11:22, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes. We know that DM is probably right here. But we are bound by WP:DAILY MAIL. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:43, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Couzens's Seat car

Couzens's car was a black Seat Exeo as mentioned in the KentonOnline newspaper https://www.kentonline.co.uk/deal/news/live-police-scour-woodland-in-search-for-sarah-243741/ It was lifted off his drive at Freemen's Way in Deal and put on a low-loader. The reg was shown on the Guardian newspaper https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/sep/29/wayne-couzens-timeline-footage-shows-movements-before-murdering-sarah-everard "Wayne Couzens timeline: footage shows movements before murdering Sarah Everard". This reg checks out as a black Sear Exeo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.187.164.98 (talk) 18:38, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

The other car, hired by Couzens and used to abduct Everard, is given as a "white Vauxhall", so there might be an argument to include similar details for the car used to transport her body? But we still have the note: "The model has been described as either a Vauxhall Astra or a Vauxhall Crossland." It seems surprising that this is not known definitively. Some sources describe the Vauxhall as "black and white", so that would probably be a Crossland, that can have a different colour top. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:16, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

References

"Fast food restaurant"

Should McDonald's be named as per e.g. SkyNews? That Sky article also says it was in Swanley, Kent, not in "South London"? The tabloids say he was "naked from the waist down", but not sure that's needed? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:50, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Both McDonald's and the location are also supported by the Evening Standard, and the Telegraph, as well as by a lot of the local press, so I'd say yes to including both. (The Mail Online interview with staff also mentions that it was in Swanley, but I know it's not a reliable source). I'd probably remove the BBC article there as it only seems to be a passing mention in their reporting.

Confusingly, The Guardian says: A man was accused of being naked from the waist down in a car in Kent in 2015, and of twice exposing himself at a London McDonald’s days before the murder. I don't think the "naked from the waist down" is needed either and seems a bit tabloidy ("indecent exposure" is succinct enough). And obviously, there's the location discrepancy there. --Bangalamania (talk) 12:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm also confused about locations and how many incidents there were, but on the second point, I think "naked from the waist down" does merit retention, because, if he was in his car, it would be debatable whether that was indeed "indecent exposure". The driver's lower body would have been invisible other than to someone actively peering through the car window, and the legal question would turn on the matter of intent. That margin of doubt may explain why the police chose not to pursue matters further in 2015. GrindtXX (talk) 23:23, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

The alleged incident of indecent exposure

I added a tag that was reverted here by The joy of all things with the edit summary "this is discussed in the above paragraph....". Which above paragraph is that? The article says ".. not take any action after the alleged incident of indecent exposure in 2015..." Why does this not read ".. not take any action after an alleged incident of indecent exposure in 2015..."? This seems to be the first mention of the incident in the article? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:53, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

So be bold and change it back, amend the text or whatever needs to be done to make it better. I won't quibble or start getting weird about WP:BRD. Happy editing. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 21:23, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I'll change that one word then, thanks. Yes, happy editing. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:26, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

The 2015 incident is in fact currently mentioned 3 times, in the last paragraph of "Legal proceedings", and then in each of the first 2 paragraphs of "Role of police", each time as if it's fresh information. Needs a bit of tidying. GrindtXX (talk) 23:06, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I can see one mention of "a report in 2015 of a man in a car in Dover, naked from the waist down". But not the words "indecent exposure" or any internal link. This was in 2015, not the one at Mcdonald's in Swanley? Weren't there two instances in 2015? I agree some tidying/ rationalisation is needed. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:37, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Agree this is all very confusing. Just to try to unravel what we've got so far:

• Guardian, 11 March: refers to an alleged incident of indecent exposure on 28 February, at a fast food restaurant in south London.
• Guardian, 9 July, 13.33: refers to an allegation of indecent exposure linked to Couzens reported to Kent police in 2015; also two allegations of indecent exposure in London in February 2021.
• Guardian, 9 July, 22.23: refers to Couzens being suspected of committing indecent exposure three times before murder; more specifically, in June 2015 Kent police received a report that a man had been spotted in Dover in a car naked from the waist down; and Couzens accused of indecent exposure in two other instances at a McDonald’s in south London three days before [Everard] was killed [i.e. 28 Feb].
• Sky News, 1 October: Couzens linked to indecent exposure incident at a McDonald's in Swanley, 72 hours before he kidnapped Everard (i.e. 28 Feb).

Other sources I've looked at don't add substantially to this picture. There's little doubt that "naked from the waist down" is being interpreted as "indecent exposure". So there appear to have been 3 incidents in all: one in Dover in 2015; and two in "south London" in February 2021. I suspect that Swanley was initially misidentified as south London (it's within the M25). The Swanley incident was at a McDonald's; perhaps the other "south London" incident was as well, or maybe even both were in Swanley (that's all very unclear). If anyone can add anything substantive, please do so. Otherwise, I may attempt some tidying of these details in the article later. GrindtXX (talk) 15:27, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the summary here. Yes, I'm sure the instance at McDonalds in Swanley was mistakenly reported as being in "South London". Martinevans123 (talk) 15:32, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

So how many incidents were there? The article still doesn't quite make sense. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:48, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I think there were fairly definitely three incidents; the uncertainty is over locations. One was in Dover in 2015; one was at the McDonald's in Swanley on 28 Feb 2021; and the third ... is unclear. The implication may be that there were two distinct incidents on 28 Feb, both at McDonald's, Swanley, within a short space of time: I think that's the most likely scenario, but I haven't seen it explicitly stated anywhere. The alternative might be that the third incident also occurred on or about 28 Feb, but somewhere else – perhaps "south London" proper; but in that case, I'd have thought it would have been more clearly identified as a separate incident, and the details stated. The bottom line seems to be that we don't know, so the article also has to remain unsatisfactorily vague. GrindtXX (talk) 18:35, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

The Daily Telegraph has ran a story today stating that the DJ Emma B, alleged she was Flashed by Couzens, and when she reported it, the police laughed at her. Emma B claims this occurred in 2008. The joy of all things (talk) 13:16, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Yesterday it was the drag queen getting groped in the pub in Deal. (And the current Yahoo News source also has: "It has also been reported in recent weeks that the former officer took a prostitute to a party and that an escort had once gone into a police station looking for him.") But these are all extra things. We still don't seem to know for sure when and where the three instances of "indecent exposure" occurred. It seems very unlikely they will ever be prosecuted, of course. They are just more evidence that the police didn't bother to check. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:59, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

References

"The Rapist"

The article says: "...and had been nicknamed "The Rapist" during his time with the Civil Nuclear Constabulary. This claim is sourced by the Evening Standard to UK tabloid The Sun. If no better source(s) can be found, I suggest this be removed. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:24, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

This from The Guardian states they (the police) found no evidence of him being called The Rapist. The joy of all things (talk) 13:45, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Well that's pretty clear. It should not be mentioned. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:48, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 13:49, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I have removed it. But I'm not sure that the existing Evening Standard source, which includes the claim in its headline, is any good. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

References

move most of paragraph to Background section?

In "Legal proceedings" section, there is a paragraph where i think most of it should be moved to Background section. Sentences in question start with "Couzens joined the Metropolitan Police (Met) in September 2018" and end with "nor had he gone through the mandatory two-year probation period with the Met before joining the PaDP". Ok to move those sentences to Background section? (They seem more background information, then Legal proceedings information) --EarthFurst (talk) 21:22, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Seems like a sensible suggestion; I have made the move. MIDI (talk) 11:55, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

False arrest?

Can we have some further discussion of whether it's correct to say that Couzens "falsely arrested" Everard – the phrase removed by Pincrete in this edit, on the grounds that the arrest "might have been many things (illegal?) but not false"; and with the change accepted by MIDI in this edit ("Justification for not using "false arrest" seems sound"). Couzens went through the motions of arresting her, including showing his warrant card, even though he had no authority to do so; and she presumably acceded to his wishes, at least in the first instance, because she believed he did have the appropriate authority. The BBC source cited says that he "kidnapp[ed] her under the guise of an arrest". This sounds to me like a texbook case of false arrest, defined by Wikipedia as taking a person into custody "without probable cause, or without an order issued by a court of competent jurisdiction". What am I missing? GrindtXX (talk) 20:17, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Alas, she was never "taken into custody". Martinevans123 (talk) 20:22, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

The main point of my edit was to restore the word "arrest", because the arrest is a crucial part of the sequence of events. While our original wording was "falsely arrested" (which echoes the BBC citation), I agreed with Pincrete's rationale, and saw that false arrest uses a few different turns of phrase – "wrongful arrest" and "unlawful arrest" – but not actually "false arrest" in the United Kingdom section, and was therefore not convinced that "false[ly] arrest[ed]" was the best choice of wording. MIDI (talk) 20:44, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't know how you economically say that essentially he abducted/kidnapped her (abduct is used in the first BBC source used) - "under the guise of an arrest". Pincrete (talk) 22:16, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Yup, clearly the optimal wording would involve putting across the point that Couzens performed an arrest on Everard, put her into his car, and in doing so abducted/kidnapped her. As things stand (and I know my edit contributes to this) the article only states she was arrested then driven to Kent, the text includes no real suggestion that these actions constituted her kidnap. I'm open to any suggestion that fulfils the inclusion of both arrest and abduction... MIDI (talk) 09:48, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

How about "(Couzens) handcuffed and kidnapped/abducted her claiming to her/under the pretence that he was arresting her for having breached COVID-19 regulations"?

The falsehood seems to be mainly the arrest ITSELF (she was never meaningfully "taken into police custody") and it is wholly academic whether she was actually breaking any regulations - this was his "enabling ruse". A false arrest seems to be what in the UK used to be called a "wrongful arrest" - ie an arrest without legal justification or authority. Couzens 'ruse' clearly goes way outside the usual meaning of that term. Pincrete (talk) 10:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I think we're getting there. It seems to me there were two distinct actions: (a) the pretence of making an arrest (showing his warrant card, telling her she was breaking the law, using the formal language of arrest, handcuffing her, making her get into the car); and (b) driving her to Kent. "Abduction" and "kidnap" both imply illegally taking a person to a new location, and so only really cover (b). We do need to mention the "arrest", while at the same time making clear that it had no legal basis. If you prefer to avoid any explicit mention of "false" or "wrongful" arrest, then (to modify your proposal slightly) I'd suggest something along the lines of "[Couzens] showed her his police warrant card before handcuffing her, claiming that he was arresting her for having breached COVID guidelines." GrindtXX (talk) 14:08, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I think your version is very clear and doesn't mis-use any terms. Pincrete (talk) 18:57, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

No further comment, so I'll take that as consensus and amend the wording accordingly. GrindtXX (talk) 13:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Naming Sarah Everard’s boyfriend

Just to note I wholly endorse keeping Sarah Everard’s boyfriend's name out of the article. Naming him adds no useful information - as an individual he was simply a second passive victim, with no role whatsoever - and whilst his name may be widely reported, we don't need to permanently 'cement' his name as linked to this event. Poor sod may already be, or may well become, grateful for such privacy as he is able to achieve. Pincrete (talk) 09:13, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Agree – per my rationale when I first removed the name (in case editors haven't seen the edit summary):

"WP:BLPNAME; we gain nothing by including the name. Pertinent guidline is "presumption in favor of privacy"; BLP says "The names of [...] any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject." I'm not convinced this was a) supported by a RS, and b) is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject."

Clearly the addition of the name was done in good faith but BLP is really important here. MIDI (talk) 10:16, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Appeal fails

Couzens' appeal at the court of appeal has failed, see here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62345010. I would add it into the article myself but I don't have a PC where I normally do editing from atm.--Phil of rel (talk) 09:56, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I have now updated the article. Thanks for notifying this. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:51, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Investigation?

A curious omission is any account of the basis for suspecting Couzens and the evidence that led to his arrest.Bill (talk) 00:04, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Not sure if Evarard was stopped on grounds of covid-19 regulations

The article says "Metropolitan Police officer Wayne Couzens told Everard that he was arresting her for having breached COVID-19 regulations". I was trying to check that this was true myself and so found myself looking at this page and looking at sentencing remarks. https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Wayne-Couzens-Sentencing-Remarks.pdf.

The conclusion from the judge was "It is most likely that he suggested to Sarah Everard that she had breached the restrictions on movement that were being enforced during that stage of the pandemic." whereas this article says

Metropolitan Police officer Wayne Couzens told Everard that he was arresting her for having breached COVID-19 regulations

I think this article as is the source it is citing (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-58739421).

I think we should change the wording by adding "it is likely that..." to the beginning of that sentence and using the sentencing remarks as the citation for the claim latter in the article removing the BBC source. Talpedia (talk) 19:17, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I have written to the BBC asking if they can correct their article. Talpedia (talk) 19:29, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

For context, I was writing outside of wikipedia and wanted to use the stronger claim (should it have been true). Talpedia (talk) 19:29, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I support this suggestion. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:39, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Mmmmm, what is engaged here is WP:OR, that is going back to primary documents (sentencing remarks) rather than using WP:RS's conclusions. A number of scenarios are possible here, including that the BBC may have got it "wrong" to the extent that they thought that what the judge says Couzens probably did is not materially different from what Couzens actually did - ie he used the authority of his police ID and some police procedural 'con' to persuade her to get into the car without much fuss - 'fuss' which could have alerted others and possibly saved her life. It is equally possible that the judge "got it wrong' or was being overly pedantic in distinguishing claims that were not examined in court, but which formed part of the prosecutorial narrative, from those examined and proven, or specifically accepted by the defence. It is very possible that the "covid regs ruse" admission came from Couzens himself via the prosecution, or that external evidence implied that this was the case, but the claim was neither specifically challenged nor accepted by Couzens' defence. Often, when a case is proven - the prosecutorial version of events becomes the 'establiahed version' in news media - although common sense obviously indicates that the fact that the main thrust of the verdict (that the accused DID commit the crime), does not necessarily mean that every aspect of the prosecutorial narrative was individually proven. Good media will usually qualify what is simply part of the prosecutorial narrative from what is specifically proven, but here the BBC may have found the distinction immaterial, or may have known that the "covid regs ruse" came from Couzens himself, or other evidence, and had not been challenged by defence. Possibly the difference is between "true by default" - because not challenged and "true because specifically proven" or accepted by defence.

I've more often been on "the other side" of such arguments ie keen to distinguish - sometimes lurid - prosecutorial narrative from what is proven or accepted. Technically the changes you want to make are WP:OR, but the fact that they don't materially affect the article (Couzens, abducted, raped and killed Everard, to a greater or lesser degree he used his authority and/or knowledge of police procedures to achieve this - whether it was the 'covid regs ruse' or some other means hardly matters), make me neutral about inclusion. For purely stylistic reasons (including that 'likely' is less often used in UK English in the way that it is used here), I may slightly change your text, but if another editor challenges it as WP:OR, I'm afraid they will be correct.Pincrete (talk) 09:29, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I have changed the text back. ‘Likely’ is what is in the source (sentencing remarks) and ‘it is believed’ is too positive for what the source says. In this instance, where the primary source is a judge’s remarks, (not the prosecutor’s remarks) we should go with the primary source. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:20, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't really think this is WP:OR. It's a very straightforward summary of a source. WP:PRIMARY might apply (point 3 about evaluative statements is interesting). Depending on your trust in the judiciary, the sentencing remarks might be considered a WP:SECONDARY evaluation of the facts of the case. Thinking about whether a source is reliable is surely not WP:OR. Is even "this source disagrees with other WP:RS and the sentencing remarks" WP:OR?

It's noticeable that other newspaper articles don't make this claim - so perhaps we delete the claim on the grounds of balance or replace it with "In his sentencing remark Judge X said". Are we actually going to trust a single sentence in a BBC article over the sentencing remarks to make a stronger claim that a sentencing judge and other reliable sources? If it was multiple scholarly historic works that described their reasoning, maybe. Talpedia (talk) 12:54, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm afraid it is OR, because you are concluding that the BBC (who presumably had access to ALL the facts), got it wrong, but that you have got it right (without knowing why the judge introduced that caveat ) as a result of your reading this one document. However the OR doesn't bother me very much, since the detail is largely immaterial.

I don't object to the "in his remarks" construction, but this would be very cumbersome in the 'narrative' of the lead. If other sources have other ways to refer to how Couzens affected the 'kidnap', we should use those sources. Omiting this would not be a good option IMO.

On purely stylistic grounds "It is most likely that he suggested to Sarah Everard that she had breached the restrictions on movement that were being enforced during that stage of the pandemic" is what the judge said and is standard UK usage, but saying "It is likely that X occurred" is not the same as saying "likely X occurred", which I believe may be fairly normal in US usage, but not UK, where it would be very informal use. We would ordinarily say 'probably' in the construction you want to use. Pincrete (talk) 14:23, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, I'd say that OR exists as text in articles, not as a thought process in your head. At least the OR that wikipedia bans.

I agree that there is value in simple reasoning regarding sourcing decisions and I would far prefer to follow a scholarly book or article if it existed.

When I looked at a few other sources they did not mention that Couzens made use of covid regulations - but I should perhaps make a full review of some sources. We could fall back on WP:DUE and say that since most sources don't say that Couzens used covid regulation with the exception of the BBC we should not mention this.

I don't have strong opinions about the wording surrounding "likely" other than I don't think the consensus sources supports a strong assertion that Couzens used covid legislation. My mind would be changed if we found other news articles making the stronger claim. Talpedia (talk) 14:56, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

On reflection, and reassessing the sources, it seems undisputed that he used his police ID to 'gain authority' while kidnapping her - I wonder whether using that in the lead is less problematic than the particular 'covid ruse'. The expanded form in the body could use the "in his remarks the judge said" construction. I think the reader inevitably asks "how did he get her to comply during the kidnap?", and unfortunately, "why do we say that is it only "probable" that he used covid rules as a cover?" Pincrete (talk) 19:29, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm happy with that :+1: Talpedia (talk) 19:35, 22 November 2022 (UTC)