Talk:Bob Woolmer murder investigation

message: Bob Woolmer was murdered in Jamaica. The tear gas incident was at the Hilton Hotel in Trinidad and Tobago. See Security beefed up at T'dad Hilton after tear gas incident Dave Smith 02:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

message: This info is already in the Bob Woolmer article. In fact, judging by the way the article starts out the same as the section in the original article, and includes the same hidden comment, it started as a copypaste from that article. Flyguy649talkcontribs 02:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Purportedly, because it's a news article. Not saying it's right - but bold words/phrases on the front page tend to do that. I expect a speedy merge after it drops off that radar. 60.226.133.172 02:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it really necessary to make a "Death of [INSERT PERSON HERE]" for every person that dies? I suggest a deletion and placed back into the original album article.Blindman shady 03:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to start the deletion debate once the article is off the main page. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does this page exist? 

message: Consensus has been reached to wait until this article has reached stability until the merger discussion is continued. Please do not add to this discussion until it is re-established in the future
Vote here on the idea of merging or keeping the articles like as is
* Merge we dont want articles on every persons death. Twenty Years 14:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely --Monotonehell 15:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're confused. Sadly, OJ Simpson wasn't murdered. -128.101.53.196 13:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  He was still a prominent sportsperson related to a high profile murder case, difference being, OJ was charged with murder rather than being murdered. Tri400 04:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: There's no US conspiracy here. The way it works is details need to be added to a parent article. If in the future there is enough interest in the subject that warrants a separate high quality article then and only then should it be created. Right now it's too early. Also it's best while there's so much interest in a subject, to NOT have editors efforts split in two places. Let's concentrate on making a quality encyclopedia article first. --Monotonehell 16:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *No, this isn't out of procedure. This is a discussion. If people agree to a merge, then a redirect is a logical part of the merger process. Flyguy649talkcontribs 17:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *Why AFD? We are discussing a potential merge; a redirect would be a logical consequence if the merge were supported. We all have opinions; let's articulate them and build a consensus. Please. Flyguy649talkcontribs 17:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text: This isn't a deletion proposal, why should the death of Bob Woolmer not be covered on Bob Woolmer's article with the rest of his life? --Monotonehell 23:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I would also like to add that in my opinion, Wikipedians are becoming increasingly argumentative in nature. I mean, c'mon, it is not a big deal.. is it? --Incman|वार्ता 10:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another fact to support my claim. --Incman|वार्ता 10:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge Proposal - on hold 

message: We're getting ahead of ourselves. It's best to have a section in the main article first. Then once the article has stabilised the decision can be made whether there need be a sub article for reasons of size, instead of ending up with a stub article. But the horse has bolted, there's no need for this merger proposal now. We should have either kept the section in the original article and then in the future decide to move that to a new article OR decide to start a second article now and in the future decide if it needs to be merged. I tried to get the former happening, but it was reverted. So we need to go the second route. In which case this merger discussion is premature. --Monotonehell 19:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Too late & too soon

message: Tri400 did what I was about to do. Until we have consensus the article shoudl stand, SqueakBox 16:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said above, having duplication means that edits are split over two articles. If in the future the subject warrants a separate article that is more than a stub then by all means let's make it. But right now we need to focus all the interest into one place. Quality over quantity. --Monotonehell 16:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree; both pages stay for now, unless or until there is a merge. Flyguy649talkcontribs 17:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  I have updated the main page with a 2 line summary from the death page. Jay 09:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I merged the non-duplicate and non-speculative information back into the Bob Woolmer article. I was in the process of going through the article and merging in any further information when the page was reverted. --Monotonehell 17:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest people edit only one of the places; I'll go out on a limb and suggest here for now. If we decide to merge, then it'll end up in the main article (where I believe it should be) anyway. Flyguy649talkcontribs 17:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well this is where the editing should be un til a discussion is complete. In [[Bob Woodward all we need is a summary of this article, SqueakBox 17:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll leave a hidden comment on the section of the main page directing edits here while we discuss. Flyguy649talkcontribs 17:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Either way will work. I just thought since this was a duplication of work that was already in progress in the Bob Woolmer article, and that this article was created more recently it was better to continue in the original place. The creation of this article was premature. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a newspaper. We need to write retrospective, verified and attributed articles, not reproduce all the media speculation out there. --Monotonehell 18:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text: This is a very fair comment, but it would also be wrong to let the controversy over his death take over the article about his life and career.  Deb 19:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason I created this article is that I feared the Bob Woolmer article was going to get too overcrowded about his death, and thought it was better to split it. With things coming out every day, I think the Woolmer death would be way to long on his own page, and therefore needed it's own death page. Davnel03 20:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the nature of a wiki though. When things are in the public's eye editors will add all kinds of unverified crap to an article that shouldn't be in an encyclopedia. But after a while, when the fury dies down, more rational editors will comb through an article and weed out the rash postings and refactor the thing. Depending on what comes of this, the article may be a long and complex story, or it might just end up a very simple "he fell over in the bathroom" (I doubt it but you never know). Either way, when it all comes to light it will be up to us to make a quality article of it all. --Monotonehell 20:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The circumstances surrounding Bob Woolmer's death are clearly very fluid at the moment. Until there is more of a conclusion about what has happened the details on this page are likley to be changed at regular intervals as events unfold. I am inclined to agree with those who say keep this page separate for the time being. Once the issues surrounding his death have been settled then it should be merged into the main article as it will be a more stable contribution at that point. Dave Smith 20:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article should stay while we discuss

message: Can some one please add (after rewritting) from following material. Source
Tennant, writing in The Times, also rubbished the speculation. "Rumours that Bob Woolmer was murdered because he was harbouring information on match-fixing or an association with corrupt bookmakers can be dismissed unequivocally," Tennant wrote. "As the co-author of his autobiography and its planned sequel, for which a publisher had still to be found, I can state that he had no intention of writing or publicising any such detail in either this or his book on coaching and sports science, which will be published in June." "He had no knowledge of Hansie Cronje's involvement in match-fixing during his time as coach of South Africa, and, if there had been any such approach to his Pakistan players, he would have told them to report it immediately to the manager or the Board of Control", Tennant wrote. "Doubtless he would then have informed the police himself. Above all, Woolmer was an honest man. He did not mix with dodgy individuals."  --- SAndTLets Talk 22:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death by bookmakers 

message: Can I remind editors there is to be no OR. Please don't add theories you came up with yourself, there is already too much speculation as it is. If you heard a theory from some reliable source, at least find that source. For example this part :
:There is now a theory that killers were disguised as hotel staff, entered his room in the morning, with his permission (since there was no forced entry or struggle) and killed him. 
The source mentions 'it's possible it didn't have anything to do with cricket, but why would he let strangers into his room?' It doesn't go on to say anything about killers disguised as hotel staff. (In itself this theory isn't actually particularly good  either. It may be true that murders have happened at the hotel before but why? I doubt they were random. Perhaps robbery gone wrong or something but there was likely a motive) Nil Einne 23:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "It doesn't go on to say anything about killers disguised as hotel staff." Yes it does, plus it says that diguised hotel-staff theory is high on the list.  Its obviously not a "theory that I came up with". "It may be true that murders have happened at the hotel before but why? I doubt they were random." I think the fact that Jamaica has one of the world's highest murder rates may have something to do with that. Hense im putting this thoery back into the speculation section, plus the other contributions i made with reference, which curiously dissapeared, and then the sentence later dissapeared due to "lack of references". Tri400 04:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The link you initially provided was to page 3. I presumed therefore it was either in page 3 or perhaps page 4. While I should have read the whole article, in future if you are going to link to a specific page, link to the page that contains the theory, not some other page. (And in response to what you said, again how many of Jamaica's murders are random? I doubt it's many. While I haven't modified the sectin you're adding, the problem is you are juxtaposing theories in ways not done by the source. Yes the source mentions the murders could have been posing as staff. It also mentioned previous murders and the possibility therefore it may have nothing to do with cricket. It doesn't suggest that maybe it was a random person from the street who disguised himself or herself as staff and murdered Woolmer. By linking the two together in the way your doing, intentionally or not you're making it sound like some people are saying maybe someone from the street just decided to enter into Woolmer's room disguised as staff and murder him for no reason) Nil Einne 12:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed theory 

message: I remind editors that as well as WP:OR, reports of rumours in the news services are just as taboo in an encyclopedia. Only verifiable information derived from official sources should be added. Beware that the media is full of speculation and hearsay mostly for the purposes of sensationalist infotainment. Please try to be more discerning with your additions. --Monotonehell 16:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mind your sources

message: Shouldn't this page be called Bob Woolmer's Murder rather than Death? The police, the doctors, and the post-mortem investigation has confirmed that he was murdered due to manual strangualtion. Changing the name of the page will also drastically reduce the opposition to the existance of this page, seeing the importance, popularity and significance of this event. Tri400 04:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's leave it at death until the thing is resolved. Otherwise we may be moving this article several times as new information comes to light. What the article is called has no bearing on the proposed merge. --Monotonehell 01:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bob Woolmer Murder 

message: This page doesn't even link up to the main page, either have someone fix that or we should consider moving now.Blindman shady 03:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it does; once in the top section, & of course in the merge proposal box. Ventifax 03:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read again, the main page. No link to Death of Bob Woolmer Just to Bob Woolmer. And theres no merge proposal on the main page.Blindman shady 03:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it does; see Bob Woolmer#Death during 2007 World Cup. Granted, it may be worth putting a link at the top. Flyguy649talkcontribs 04:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wait a second 

message: I'm really disappointed by the low information to speculation ratio in this article. Is there any consensus to fix this? --Spartaz Humbug! 05:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that no one really knows what's going on. All this article is right now is a listing of all the conjecture, speculation and hearsay that's been in the media since Woolmer's death, with a very slight smattering of the  reported facts. I'd comb through and remove all the purely speculative parts, but the last time I did that I was quickly reverted. Some editors don't seem to know the difference between verified facts (encyclopedic) and media hype (infotainment). Probably best just to wait until the official reports of the investigation are made public, and then see what fits and what doesn't. --Monotonehell 07:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is agreement there is a problem why don;t we just clean house? Anyone else want to pitch in or do we have a consensus? --Spartaz Humbug! 21:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *See the discussion in the Merge Proposal section above. Some feel it should be part of the main article, others don't. We've agreed to wait a while and revisit the merger. Flyguy649talkcontribs 13:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Information vs Speculation 

message: Is there any need to mention that police have confirmed at the current time they expect to be in this for the long haul? Or is it something which should be so obvious it's not necessary?  Nil Einne 17:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Long haul 

message: Timeline only goes until April 1st. More news is arriving every day - http://www.thestatesman.net/page.news.php?clid=5&theme=&usrsess=1&id=153826 .--HamedogTalk|@ 08:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please update 

message: Now that it's confirmed that this whole article is basically garbage, it should be deleted and only bare detail explaining the false murder claim should be given. It is wrong, given that he was not murdered, not at all, that this crap is given favour above all else about this poor man. 87.74.14.167 22:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * You're free to edit any unverifiable or point-of-view clamis in the article that you feel do not belong.  The article is about the investigation, however, so even if the investigation turned up nothing, the investigation did still happen...—Gaff ταλκ 22:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: *Agreed undue weight anyone? Time to move this back to the main article, substantially trim the content and rewrite it from the perspective that the police screwed up the post mortem events. This is an encyclopedia not a mirror of a newspaper's archives. Spartaz Humbug! 13:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge and delete

message: Seems no extant opposition. Spartaz Humbug! 18:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You (or someone with a lot of time to review and summarise it) really needs to merge before redirecting. Especially considering that the main article still has a Main article link to here. --Monotonehell 21:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I haven't got the time right now, - feel free if you want to reverse the redirect but it needs doing at some point. Spartaz Humbug! 21:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirected