Murder of Milly Dowler 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.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that murdered British schoolgirl Amanda "Milly" Dowler has a charity, an award-winning garden and a sweetpea named after her?
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
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
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hampshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hampshire 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.HampshireWikipedia:WikiProject HampshireTemplate:WikiProject HampshireHampshire
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Surrey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Surrey 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.SurreyWikipedia:WikiProject SurreyTemplate:WikiProject SurreySurrey-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom 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.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom
I changed the word "nude" to "unclothed": this was reverted by User: David_J_Johnson. I was looking for a neutral term - other than nude - and perhaps if "unclothed" seems prissy, perhaps "naked" might have been better. In my opinion (and in others', too) there is a significant difference between "naked" and "nude": see, for example, Kenneth Clarke's book "The Nude". The opening words are
The English language, with its elaborate generosity, distinguishes between the naked and the nude. To be naked is to be deprived of our clothes, and the word implies some of the embarrassment most of us feel in that condition. The word "nude," on the other hand, carries, in educated usage, no uncomfortable overtone. The vague image it projects into the mind is not o f a huddled and defenseless body, but of a balanced, prosperous, and confident body: the body re-formed. In fact, the word was forced into our vocabulary by critics of the early eighteenth century to persuade the artless islanders [of the UK] that, in countries where painting and sculpture were practiced and valued as they should be, the naked human body was the central subject of art.
Whatever else one might think about the death of Milly Dowler, it is unlikely that one might be able to say that she was "comfortable" without her clothes. This dichotomy of Clarke's has been challenged, but the challenges have not been in the context of victims of violence. Nudity (to Clarke and to me) is usually a voluntary state, and to me it seems demeaning to the victim of a murder to use the word - I fully accept I may be old-fashioned. In a spirit of enquiry, I checked through Val McDermid's excellent murder stories: the author never uses the word "nude" to refer to a dead body. She uses "naked" every time. So I will change the word again, to "naked", and hope that David Johnson will comment here to explain his own preference, before reverting a second time. Thomas Peardew (talk) 19:22, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, RM, and thanks. But I think making alterations only where there's a prior consensus would be a bit restrictive, though. And a quick scan through David_J_Johnson's contributions to this article (25 of them) shows all of them to be either reverts or undoes: none of the text was contributed by him, and I would have thought that this alteration was pretty uncontroversial. Wiki text isn't written in stone. Thomas Peardew (talk) 19:44, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with The Rambling Man's comments above. The prior change to my revert and subsequent comments do seem rather arrogant and devoid of consensus for altering the long-standing text. That is not "a bit restrictive", but the way the encyclopedia works. Also, I would be grateful to Thomas Peardew not to assume that I would revert for a "second time". I do not edit war. However, I am happy with a change to "naked" and just hope that the editor learns from this. Regards to all, David J Johnson (talk) 20:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly should Thomas Peardew be learning from this? Can you clarify that? In what possible way is changing "nude" to unclothed" an arrogant act? I have to sit on the other side of the fence and think that Peardew's change was perfectly justified, uncontroversial and needed no prior consensus. When it was reverted they did the exact right thing and brought it up on the talk page. Their behaviour has been exemplary and the very definition of WP:BRD. As they point out, given David J Johnson's behaviour of constant reversion with - let's be honest - inadequate edit summaries (an edit summary of "Correct previous" is utterly unhelpful at best ambiguous, and at worst misleading as it implies that the change was incorrect, when it clearly wasn't) it doesn't seem unreasonable to assume that they would revert the change should it have been made again. I agree that there is some arrogance here, but I'm not sure it's from Thomas Peardew. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:21, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
