Talk:Tottenham Outrage/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Tottenham Outrage. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
The payroll
Many years ago the late Edgar Lustgarten reconstructed this outrage as a radio programme. He concluded with the comment that,
"The 80 pounds wage roll was never recovered". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.93.199.154 (talk) 12:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Spelling
"Helfeld" also appears as "Hefeld". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk • contribs) at 09:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Ethnicity
Every source used in the article to mention the perpetrators' ethnicity states that they were Latvian. Not a single source asserts that they were Jews. Despite this, one recently-created account has repeatedly removed their description as "Latvian", adding an unsourced assertion that they were "Jewish immigrants". The editor's only other edits consist of reverting my own edits, and adding unsupported or weakly-supported ascriptions of Jewish ethnicity to other historical figures. Can we please put a stop to this game of "Hunt the Jew", and stick with reliably-sourced information? RolandR (talk) 13:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- Actually most sources say they were Jewish and Latvian. - SchroCat (talk) 17:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Funeral size in lead
I don't know if it's just me, but I think the sentence in the last paragraph of the lead, A joint funeral for the two murder victims—Police Constable William Tyler and Ralph Joscelyne, a ten-year-old boy—was attended by a crowd of up to half a million mourners, and included 2,000 policemen.
, would be better if we replaced "up to" with "as many as". Grammar-wise, it seems similar to me to "fewer than" vs. "less than", but I didn't want to make the change if I was mistaken or would be adding an Americanism to an article written in British English. What do other editors think? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 00:50, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- "as many as" seems to me to contain a POV that "up to" doesn't. "Up to" also gives a little leeway on the possible numbers, given contemporary sources differed on a figure. - SchroCat (talk) 10:41, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
The off-duty policemen
We haven't mentioned any off-duty policemen before, so "the" off-duty policemen is confusing. If we are referring to Tyler and Newman then why not name them and describe them as off-duty at first mention. If they are a second group from the station, then how about "several off-duty policemen"? TwoTwoHello (talk) 18:00, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- I've tweaked to show "several" off-duty police. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:04, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Conversion
In 'The Chase' section, 10 metres is converted as 9 yards. Surely, that's backward, in a sense. Should it not be 9 metres (10 yards)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.182.158 (talk) 16:57, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- Quite right. It was because of the coding in the conversion template which rounded 8.2 up to 10. I've stripped that out and we're left with the 8.2 distance. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:06, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
"Committed suicide"
Why is "committed suicide" preferred to "shot himself" for Lepidus, in the key to the map showing the route of the chase? Like "Where Helfeld shot himself", it's more accurate and informative. 86.187.161.109 (talk) 20:36, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- Because it is possible for someone to shoot themselves, and live. If someone "committed suicide", as is the correct terminology for this period, they kill themselves. CassiantoTalk 20:43, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- How does that rationale work for Helfield? 86.187.161.109 (talk) 20:48, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- It's fine for both: the verdict of the inquests for both was that it was suicide. - SchroCat (talk) 20:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- What a strange verdict that was for Helfield. He survived his shot and was hospitalised, where he later underwent surgery and contracted meningitis. One might easily argue that the meningitis killed him. I think it would be incorrect to change that key to read "Where Helfeld committed suicide". It's obvious that his attempt at that location failed, even if the inquest jury eventually concluded a suicide. But I don't see why "killed himself" or "killed themselves" could not be used just as easily in this article as "committed suicide". 86.187.160.229 (talk) 21:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- We could put many things, but the consensus at the current FAC is that "committed suicide" is the correct term. As for the verdict being strange, the jury knew what they were talking about when dealing with the laws of 1909 (when suicide was a crime). - SchroCat (talk) 21:20, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, I imagine the jury were encouraged to pass this verdict as it was the only crime for which he could be "convicted", posthumously. The lead section makes it sound quite simple; but Helfield's suicide was botched. I see the argument that "committed suicide" is historically accurate for 1909. But I also think there could be some room for style choice. 86.187.160.229 (talk) 21:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- It was a jury in an inquest: they were not looking at "conviction", but on the cause of death, so they were asked about the cause of death, nothing else. We reflect the sources in stating "committed suicide", and the stylistic argument that was raised in the FAC came down inn favour of "committed suicide" as preferred to any other terminology. - SchroCat (talk) 22:36, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, I imagine the jury were encouraged to pass this verdict as it was the only crime for which he could be "convicted", posthumously. The lead section makes it sound quite simple; but Helfield's suicide was botched. I see the argument that "committed suicide" is historically accurate for 1909. But I also think there could be some room for style choice. 86.187.160.229 (talk) 21:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- We could put many things, but the consensus at the current FAC is that "committed suicide" is the correct term. As for the verdict being strange, the jury knew what they were talking about when dealing with the laws of 1909 (when suicide was a crime). - SchroCat (talk) 21:20, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- What a strange verdict that was for Helfield. He survived his shot and was hospitalised, where he later underwent surgery and contracted meningitis. One might easily argue that the meningitis killed him. I think it would be incorrect to change that key to read "Where Helfeld committed suicide". It's obvious that his attempt at that location failed, even if the inquest jury eventually concluded a suicide. But I don't see why "killed himself" or "killed themselves" could not be used just as easily in this article as "committed suicide". 86.187.160.229 (talk) 21:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- It's fine for both: the verdict of the inquests for both was that it was suicide. - SchroCat (talk) 20:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- How does that rationale work for Helfield? 86.187.161.109 (talk) 20:48, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Just my irrelevant Two cents worth:The difference is distinguishing intent: He shot himself leaves ambiguity. Was it accidental?2A02:8084:26E0:AA00:AD1B:CE1B:D755:8ACB (talk) 22:30, 8 December 2020 (UTC) Committed Suicide: Not accidental