Talk:Killing of Jean Charles de Menezes

Killing of Jean Charles de Menezes was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 7, 2005	Peer review	Reviewed
July 21, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
September 3, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
August 9, 2009	Good article reassessment	Delisted
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 22, 2011, July 22, 2015, and July 22, 2018.
Current status: Delisted good article

Brazil: History Low‑importance

	Brazil portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brazil, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brazil and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrazilWikipedia:WikiProject BrazilTemplate:WikiProject BrazilBrazil articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the History of Brazil task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Death Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Enforcement Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Fatima Manji (6 August 2014). "Government Wiki edits downplay high profile killings". Channel 4. Retrieved 7 August 2014.

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.

Discussions:

Not moved, 15 March 2021, to Killing of Jean Charles de Menezes, see discussion.
Moved, 9 November 2024, from Shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes to Killing of Jean Charles de Menezes, see discussion.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Source (journalism)#"Off the record"|off the record]] The anchor (#"Off the record") has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Archive discussion

July 2005 - December 2005 - Created 27 February 2006

February 2006 - December 2008 19:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Systemic analysis

A systemic analysis of the incident has recently been presented by Dr. Dan Jenkins, Director of Sociotechnic Solutions Ltd. See: Jenkins, D., (2009), "A Systemic look at the Stockwell shooting", "The Ergonomist" (Newsletter of the Ergonomics Society), No. 470, August 2009, pp 12 - 13 (ISSN 0268-5639).—Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinevans123 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

now also: Jenkins, D.P., Salmon, P.M., Stanton, N.A. and Walker, G.H., 2010, A systemic approach to accident analysis: A case study of the Stockwell shooting, Ergonomics, Vol 53, No. 1, January 2010, pp 1 - 17 (ISSN 0014-0139 print, 1366-5947 online). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.110.141 (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Common Travel Area

"While the Common Travel Area has, for most of its history, involved an open or relatively open border, this has never meant that someone who had legally entered one part of the area would be automatically entitled legally to enter another part."

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Common_Travel_Area#Other_nationalities

This is how I always thought it was, yet I cannot find any quotes/info. The link in this article just refers to the news article, but there is no other source to verify... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.6.244.121 (talk) 14:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition the item is misleading because it gives the impression his presence was legal whereas he was working at the time. He had no valid work permit even if he was allowed to be in the country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.38.12 (talk) 21:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brazilians are not Visa free nationals in either Ireland or the UK, therefore the 3 month period does not apply. There is an attempt to 'whitewash' the legality of his immigration status. "According to the Home Office, he arrived in Britain on 13 March 2002, on a six-month visitor's visa. After its expiry, he applied to stay on as a student, and was granted permission to remain until 30 June 2003. The Home Office said it had no record of any further correspondence, but added: "We have seen a copy of Mr Menezes' passport, containing a stamp apparently giving him indefinite leave to remain in the UK. On investigation, this stamp was not one that was in use by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate on the date given." This pretty much says he was using a forged or counterfeit ILR stamp in his passport.--Nozzer71 (talk) 12:31, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this relevant? Being an undocumented immigrant is not a capital crime, nor is it why the police pursued him. LadyLeitMotif (talk) 14:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as a "capital crime" in UK law so that statement is meaningless. The fact is that he had no work visa or ILR so he was working illegally in the UK. This was relevant to the investigation because they needed to consider if his immigration status may have influenced the way he reacted when confronted. The outcome of the investigation is well known and it's clear that his immigration status didn't have a bearing on the tragic events of that day. It doesn't change the fact that he was working illegally though and we must maintain NPOV. 101.98.183.94 (talk) 09:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move per request (as altered to "death of"). His death and surrounding matters, rather than his biography, dominates the subject matter.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Charles de Menezes → Shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes — Let's make no pretence about the subject of this article, which is the controversial death at Menezes at the hands of British police, and the aftermath; it's not so much about the unspectacular life of Menezes - note that there is a little less than two paragraphs about this individual - so it is by no stretch a meaningful biography despite the huge amount of international press coverage. It ought to be moved per WP:ONEEVENT. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support, though I'd prefer Death of Jean Charles de Menezes, which is the usual practice in these situations, e.g. Death of Ian Tomlinson, Death of Jeremiah Duggan. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Death of.. ' is fine by me, too. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Death of Jean Charles de Menezes. SilkTork *^YES! 21:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing Mr de Menezes led about as 'unspectacular' a life as many Wikipedia editors do. I don't particularly object to the suggested move, though I would say that some people coming to this page might be wanting to find out details - for instance, the issue of his legal right to be in Britain at the time (which played a role in some of the false suggestions about him having run from police), or the false rape allegations - which are part of his 'biography' rather than a specific article about the shooting. So those elements of the article should stay.--Lopakhin (talk) 10:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He was working in the UK and he did not have a working visa - irrespective of how he arrived in the country or when. This is relevant as it may explain why he ran from the police. Please lets stick to the facts on Wikipedia and not start rewriting history..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.253.4.7 (talk) 15:06, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support move to "Death of..." Main topic of this article is clearly the incident and its aftermath not the person. What little biographical information is included seems to be there to be the incident and its aftermath in context rather than an attempt at a biography. Nothing about this persons previous life is notable except in the context of the incident. Dpmuk (talk) 14:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Eyewitnesses

I made [1] as saying the error were fabrications is misleading. In fact the source doesn't use the word 'fabrications' or anything like it at all and reading, as I expect it highlights the problems with eyewitness in a resonable fashion. Many eyewitness may genuinely believe something which is incorrect for a variety of reasons it isn't just a simple matter of makings things up as 'fabrications' seems to imply. Feel free to reword it as appropriate. I do consider this is important, I was once in a discussion with someone on an unrelated matter who was convinced that punishing eyewitnesses who's testimony was later demonstrated to be unlikely to be true would somehow make the problem go away and wasn't apparently able to understand the problem with eyewitnesses goes far beyond people makings things up, despite my attempts to explain them. Sadly such myths about the reliability of eyewitnesses persist. Nil Einne (talk) 15:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is important to recognised that the eyewitness testimony given from all quarteres differs greatly. There is an inherent bias, fuelled by a combination of bad press and conduct of the Menzes family - against the police in this whole article when in fact, the jury itself was split between actual truths (8/2 split). What is clear is that the jury accepted almost all the eyewitness testimony that made hte police look bad, but rejected any eyewitness testimony that was based upon actual fact. The Jury also managed to completely ignore the innacuracy of earlier eyewitness testimony, but readily accepted later eye witness testimony despite uncertainty and disagreement between witnesses. The article does not refelct that and the seciotn I added under ticket barrier has been removed without explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.197 (talk) 13:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. The problem is Menezes family's conduct - it's not the police that killed him then lied about the circumstances. And eyewitness testimony that lays bare UK police brutality and incompetence is by necessity 'true'. Aren't you an impartial Britard piece of shit jingoist? Editing from a police department, perhaps? 177.98.140.154 (talk) 01:28, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why is no mention made of the "photoshopping" of his picture by the police to increase his resemblance to Osman?86.44.142.197 (talk) 11:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Photoshopped Picture.

At then inquest, it was discovered that a picture presented by the police of de Menezes, had been photoshopped to enhance the resemblance between him and the suspect Osman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.142.197 (talk) 11:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not if you read the Daily Mail article that this article cites. --Bermicourt (talk) 17:03, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That presents something of a problem since The Daily Mail is no longer considered a reliable source by Wikipedia. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/08/wikipedia-bans-daily-mail-as-unreliable-source-for-website Flanker235 (talk) 00:38, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Channel 4 News (ITN) report on this and and other Wiki articles

It was reported on the above of this date that this page (and others) have been edited from government-owned computers. Does anyone know anything about this? Smokey TheCat 18:06, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Government Wiki edits downplay high profile killings". Channel 4. Retrieved 06/09/2014. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

Merp607 (talk) 01:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be a good idea to mention this in the article. Danrok (talk) 01:25, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, as the words "mountain" and "molehill" spring to mind. The article is predicated on the idea that there must be something "sinister" behind the edits, rather than in all liklihood being the opinions/actions of an unconnected individuals who edit from their place of work. It also makes the mistake of assuming a single editor on on IP, as opposed to a far more likely multiple of users/editors. If we looked, we could probably find a fair few Channel 4/ITN employees editing from work.

The IPCC edit specifically linked to dates back to 19 September 2007, and anyone looking at the page of the IP's editing history can see it in context. The same applies to their addition of this questionable comment on 19 September 2006, swamped in the IP's edits of a plethora of pages about football and animal rights. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:11, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The report by that particular investigative (and general) reporter and her assistant for Channel Four News (ITN) is simply incorrect to assert that Jean Charles de Menezes was not an illegal immigrant based upon the Stockwell One report from the IPCC, which was probably faulty. Immigration is not usually a direct remit of the Police; thus it is also not under the direct purview of the IPCC. The IPCC has no power to declare and pronounce (or "clear") by their own authority in a report whether a person is or has been or a deceased person was or had been a "lawful (legal) immigrant" or an "unlawful (illegal) immigrant", as they had attempted to do in Stockwell One. The IPCC could only claim that Jean Charles de Menezes was not an unlawful (illegal) immigrant based upon the (misleading) premise that he had not been duly convicted of the relevant immigration offences arising from obtaining full-time self-employment as an electrician, by virtue of (by misrepresenting his immigration status, by possessing and presenting, and otherwise using) his Brazilian passport with on one of its pages a forged (out-dated) stamp which gave himself the indefinite leave to remain. "Ultra vires". -- Urquhartnite (talk) 22:34, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Death of Jean Charles de Menezes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just added archive links to 14 external links on Death of Jean Charles de Menezes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Death of Jean Charles de Menezes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}). This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:59, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just added archive links to one external link on Death of Jean Charles de Menezes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150722215437/http://article.wn.com/view/2005/12/10/Charges_Eyed_in_British_Mistaken_Shooting_y to http://article.wn.com/view/2005/12/10/Charges_Eyed_in_British_Mistaken_Shooting_y

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}). This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 2 external links on Death of Jean Charles de Menezes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6180137.stm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090122183417/http://www.stockwellinquest.org.uk/hearing_transcripts/dec_04.pdf to http://www.stockwellinquest.org.uk/hearing_transcripts/dec_04.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}). This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:46, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 8 external links on Death of Jean Charles de Menezes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:56, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't police stop him sooner?

If the police who were following him thought he was a terrorist, why did they allow him to board a bus? Jim Michael (talk) 07:39, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hit the Floor

Kai Burghardt has attempted to add a short film to the Media section of this page, and supported it with a Vimeo link. This leads to a rather amateurish pseudo-animation that opens with a borderline conspiracist fashion, and is filled with numerous factual errors, some of which may be attributed to its German origin, although that's not an excuse. Kai Burghardt has claimed in an edit summary that, "[director Kays] Khalil has graduated with “hit the floor” and it gained publicity therefore is noteworthy." They have offered no evidence to back up this assertion of notability. If we in included every partisan self-made video (of which there are obviously scores) about the subject uploaded to YouTube, Vimeo, etc., it would swamp the article and devalue Wikipedia. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:57, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Nick, please note that the film's been shot in 2006. The team had the knowledge as it was publicly available during the respective phase of research. We would have to eliminate mentions of lots of documentaries after their release, as new research has falsified some statements made in them. The film was available in organized commercial distribution since 2007. It was shown on the 53rd short film festival Oberhausen. It aired on public TV in 2007. And Khalil's upload in 2010 shouldn't diminish that. And watch your mouth: Saying his work's an “amateurish pseudo-animation” doesn't help anyone. The film was part of his thesis, man. Khalil's earned a university degree with it. I also referred to the IMDB. I don't know the IMDB's policy, which title's can be entered, but I don't think my home videos wouldn't have any chance. Kays (talk) 17:50, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's full of errors that would have been recognised as errors in 2005, let alone 2006. It starts with a load of pseudo-conspiratorial babble (filled with errors and false claims), and then follows it with a version of events that it riddled with the most basic factual inaccuracies (e.g. misnames Tube stations, names "stations" that do not actually exist," grossly mispronounces place-names, etc.). You acknowledge that it was a student film, which does not confer any special credibility. Neither does getting it put on IMDB (if not putting it on himself), for which the bar is ridiculously low. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Death of James Ashley which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 08:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 15 March 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Most participants in this discussion have rejected applying Wikipedia:Naming conventions (violence and deaths) on this article. (closed by non-admin page mover) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 02:38, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes → Killing of Jean Charles de Menezes – "Shooting" is vague term which can imply that he survived - he didn't. Unreal7 (talk) 10:57, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go with "London Police murder of Jean Charles de Menezes". Don't bury the lede in a title if possible. Macktheknifeau (talk) 15:02, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Murder has a specific legal definition that the article and the sources do not support. As far as I can tell no one was ever charged with murder in relation to this case. NonReproBlue (talk) 02:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Fine as it is. No good reason for a change. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I gave a reason - it's a vague title. Unreal7 (talk) 17:06, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
By that same logic "Killing" is a vague title because it can imply he was killed in a way other than by shooting. Personally I think "Shooting" is less vague. Are there any pages on Wikipedia titled "Shooting of..." that discuss someone who survived? As far as I can tell, there are not. NonReproBlue (talk) 02:34, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@NonReproBlue: Shooting of Stephen Waldorf is one example from the same city. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:48, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected. It still does not seem to be a common naming convention though, and the majority of "Shooting of" articles relate to deaths by shooting. NonReproBlue (talk) 04:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Oppose. That he was shot is more specific than he was killed and indeed implies that he was killed. The first two pages of a google search for "Jean Charles de Menezes" -Wikipedia finds 14 reliable sources that use either "shot/shooting" or "killed/killing" in the title, abstract and/or lead (and 1 that uses neither) - 10 use "shot" or "shooting", 3 use "killed" or "killing" and 1 uses both, showing "shooting" is the more common name (see sources below). That the "killing" title doesn't exist as a redirect also argues towards "shooting" being the common name. Thryduulf (talk) 11:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of the 14 sources

BBC: "Pinned down and shot" [2]
BBC: "a man who was shot by police" [3]
The Guardian: "De Menezes was a 27-year-old electrician who was shot dead by police" [4]
IPCC report: "the shooting of. Mr Jean Charles de Menezes" [5]
Police Authority.org: "Jean Charles de Menezes was shot by MPS officers" [6]
Evening Standard: "He was killed at Stockwell Tube station" [7]
MuCulloch, J. "The Killing of Jean Charles de Menezes" (title) "was shot and killed by police" (lead) [8]
Amnesty International: "The killing of Jean Charles de Menezes" (title)[9]
Tribune: "Jean Charles de Menezes was shot dead at Stockwell station" [10]
O'Driscoll, C.: "Fear and Trust: The Shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes" (title) " the July 2005 shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes" (body)[11]
Vaughan-Williams, N: "The Shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes: New Border Politics?" (title) "The shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes in Stockwell Station" (body) [12]
Daily Mirror: "shot him dead" [13]
Socialist Party: "shot to death by police" [14]
The Week: "the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes" [15]

Oppose. "Killing of" is not a likely search term and is editorial in implying misconduct; although there was misconduct in this case, the title does not allow for the kind of nuance that would be necessary. "Shooting of" is ambiguous because it could be taken as implying that the victim survived (cf. the non-fatal "shooting of" by the same police force in the same city I linked above). The article should be moved back to Death of Jean Charles de Menezes, the title at which it was stable for over a decade before it was moved eight months ago as the result of a little-trafficked RM on the talk page of a different article. Explanations and discussion of the cause and manner of death and the reason for its notability belong in the lead section, not the title. All other plausible titles and search terms (including "killing of") should be created as redirects if they're not already. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:54, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Necrothesp. The present title is a standard English Wikipedia form per Category:People shot dead by law enforcement officers. Examples include Shooting of James Ashley, Shooting of Mark Duggan, Shooting of Azelle Rodney, Shooting of Harry Stanley or Shooting of Yassar Yaqub. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:10, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just pointing out that these were all titled "Death of" until last July's RM on Ashley. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:20, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There was indeed a minor consensus at Talk:Shooting of James Ashley#Requested move 3 July 2020, with three votes in favor of "Death of..." → "Shooting of..." and one vote against. However, the nomination consisted of a lengthy and comprehensive examination of English Wikipedia's use of its numerous "Shooting of..." main title headers and made an argument in favor of consistency. Thus, it would be counterintuitive to single out for renaming this one header, rather than making a mass nomination to rename all fatal "Shooting of..." headers to "Killing of..." or to the all-inclusive "Death of..." or, possibly, to the slightly longer form "Fatal shooting of..." —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 23:23, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Wikipedia's policy tends to favor "Killing of...". Please see WP:SHOOTINGS. Is there a reason to make this an exception? 03:34, 17 March 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walrasiad (talk • contribs) 2021-03-17T03:34:39 (UTC)

The use of main title header "Shooting of..." would not be an exception. Category:People shot dead by law enforcement officers lists numerous headers bearing the form "Shooting of..." As for the use of "Shooting of..." in this specific case, it would be instructive to click "show" in the collapsed "List of the 14 sources" above. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 03:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The page linked here clearly says "This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." and the RFC that created the chart clearly states that there is "not the level of support that is necessary to create a guideline". I would guess this is due to the contradictory results included in the "Precedents" section. NonReproBlue (talk) 05:21, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support per the flowchart at WP:DEATHS. 162.208.168.92 (talk) 20:15, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The flowchart clearly says it is only to be used when there is no common name. It has been shown above that the common name in reliable sources for this event is "shooting". Thryduulf (talk) 19:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The examples you listed above show that RS use both "killing" and "shooting" when referring to this event. I don't think it's out of line to say that both are common names. 162.208.168.92 (talk) 23:05, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I would personally prefer Death of Jean Charles de Menezes as it avoids the POV of "an acceptable mistake" vs "an unlawful murder" depending on which side of the fence you sit. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:14, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
N Killing sounds like a first degree murder, whereas the cop who ultimately killed JCM could’ve just as well decided, despite the shoot to kill permission, to fire a non-lethal shot. Death of Jean Charles de Menezes is probably a better move target. ‑‑ K (🗪 | ✍) 11:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Forthcoming series

From observations of CCTV, (then) SO19 Firearms Team Leader, labelled 'Ralph' in IPCC documents of the enquiry, is seen carrying a Heckler & Koch G36C (compact) variant. During filming, a character is seen carrying a Heckler & Koch MP5 instead. As part of the production, the aftermath of the bus bombing carried out earlier is recreated, much to the dismay of survivors of the actual incident.^[1] ^[2]^[3] Sources considered unreliable for the main article, yet contain facts, are left here instead. Mingebinge2 (talk) 10:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mingebinge2 are there any better sources than tabloid outrage? The Sun and the Mail are always outraged about something; it's how they sell papers. Something more highbrow would be good. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:09, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell I know, which is why those links are relegated to here, so linked if interested, but not cluttering up the main article. The press situation can best be described as emerging, that is because the production has been known about since earlier in the year, and the actual filming, which has already been going for a month, appears to have stirred up interest only now, as previously there was little. The source for the outrage appears to be from a single group of sources, that is, those who were directly affected by the bombings, who are unhappy about the production recreating that incident without their involvement, so naturally the tabloids were the first port of call for voicing that, outside of social media. As and when something more high-brow turns up, I will of course update. For the sake of timeline information, pre-production on this was for many months, filming started at the beginning of October, the bus bombing was recreated the first week, the last two weeks of October had the Stockwell scenes and this month continued that, scenes shot day and night due to the film set being the actual station, which is quite busy. Mingebinge2 (talk) 21:38, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate you keeping an eye out. The production might end up meriting an article of its own eventually and it's definitely worth at least a mention in the articles on the events it depicts, when we some better-quality source material to work with. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:49, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm linking articles from both The Telegraph and The Independent. Mingebinge2 (talk) 22:20, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Furious London 7/7 survivors slam 'barbaric' Disney as it films shocking scenes recreating fatal bombings for TV drama". The Sun. Retrieved 4 November 2023.
^ Chown, Aaron. "The remains of a bus used as a prop on a film set on Spa Road, in Bermondsey, south London, during filming about the London bombings on the 7 July 2005". Alamy.com. Retrieved 8 October 2023.
^ "Moment innocent Jean Charles de Menezes was mistakenly shot dead by police is recreated for Disney + drama: Actors run into Stockwell tube station as they film scenes for 'Suspect' which retells 7/7 terror attack and aftermath". Daily Mail. Retrieved 6 November 2023.

Requested move 9 November 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Moved as an uncontested request with minimal participation. If there is any objection within a reasonable time frame, please ask me to reopen the discussion; if I am not available, please ask at the technical requests page. Valereee (talk) 13:14, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes → Killing of Jean Charles de Menezes – Per WP:Deaths. I am aware this was previously proposed in 2021, however, this was before WP:Deaths was properly a thing. Also, one of the main defense's of the proposal not going ahead at the time was because similar articles used "Shooting of". However, a number of these examples have since been changed to "Killing of". Such as, Killing of Mark Duggan, Killing of Azelle Rodney, and Killing of Yassar Yaqub. Inexpiable (talk) 20:00, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. TRCRF22 (talk) 21:23, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support, common practice. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:16, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Murder of Jean Charles de Menezes If there's a conviction regarding the killing. Otherwise, i support to move the "Killing of" instead. 103.111.100.82 (talk) 20:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[1] "Furious London 7/7 survivors slam 'barbaric' Disney as it films shocking scenes recreating fatal bombings for TV drama". The Sun. Retrieved 4 November 2023.

[2] Chown, Aaron. "The remains of a bus used as a prop on a film set on Spa Road, in Bermondsey, south London, during filming about the London bombings on the 7 July 2005". Alamy.com. Retrieved 8 October 2023.

[3] "Moment innocent Jean Charles de Menezes was mistakenly shot dead by police is recreated for Disney + drama: Actors run into Stockwell tube station as they film scenes for 'Suspect' which retells 7/7 terror attack and aftermath". Daily Mail. Retrieved 6 November 2023.

[1]

[2]

[3]