Talk:Shooting of Stephen Waldorf

Needs some clarifying.

The article sugests that he Killed him self in 1984 but that he is still alive. Are we to assume he failed to kill himself when he hanged himself or is the hanging a lie?(86.31.187.246 (talk) 23:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC))

The article states that Martin killed himself but that Waldorf is still alive. Robert Brockway (talk) 15:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

As one of the police officers directly involved in this incident, I have an in-depth knowledge of the case. David Martin did indeed commit suicide by hanging. I have changed the page to reflect this ColneyBoy (talk) 09:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Questions

Who was Stephens? Was she really Martin's girlfriend? Why was Waldorf in a car with Stephens? Were they friends? Was he editing her film? Format (talk) 05:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

She was his girlfriend on and off. Waldorf didn't know Stephens . She knew Purdy. Purdy was driviing Stephens to view a flat that Waldorf was moving out of and she may have wanted to move into. She didn't have a film for him to edit. Waldorf was working for The South Bank Show At the time and had just met Purdy after work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.147.57 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Nick Cooper's deleting the facts

The six main witnesses to the incident are the three Police and the others. The three Police are not going to be frank about their spectacular mistake. The civilian driver ran away, terrified. Waldorf was distracted by serious injuries. Miss Stephens has no reason to lie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.252.249 (talk) 11:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

We're not saying she is lying. We're saying she hasn't presented any reliable sources, which you need on Wikipedia. Geoff B (talk) 13:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Open Fire

We have an anomaly with regard to the film. I've just created an article based on the information from IMDB which suggests it was aired on 11 December 1994, while this article says 21 November. Does anyone know what the actual date was? TheRetroGuy (talk) 19:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Neither is right. It was actually screened on 12 November 1994. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

WEST HAMPSTEAD

If my memory serves me right, David Martin had arranged the meeting in the (now closed) Nag's Head pub in Heath Street Hampstead from where he fled into HAMPSTEAD Station (London's deepest station), down the stairs, onto the track toward Belsize Park station, where he was arrested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by G4GRS (talk • contribs) 14:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Dumping ground

Ingleton: "perhaps the worst period so far for the British police , so far as weapons are concerned"; "this terrible tragedy continues to be cited by opponents whenever the question of arming the police comes up" &mdash HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:30, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

How did he end up there?

So how did Waldorf end up in the same car as Martin's girlfriend? In general, the article gives us the policemen's perspective on the events of that day, but it does not give any account by Waldorf of his day until the shooting. 62.73.72.3 (talk) 02:34, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Cross dressing, ey guvna

Why does it matter that he was a cross dresser enough that it's in the first paragraph Inspectorhound37 (talk) 10:51, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed - it seems to be unnecessary and biased language, especially when there is not a single citation in the introductory section... I will remove now. Willmskinner (talk) 14:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I think that the problem is that the word 'cross dressing' has become too associated with a sexual practice or gender identity, which makes it a little misleading in this case, since it seems that he simply sometimes dressed as a woman in order to disguise himself during his criminal activities. Other than that, the body of the article does make it clear, with sources, that he did 'cross-dress' in this literal sense.--62.73.72.3 (talk) 15:28, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

No citations in the introductory section?

It seems surprising to me that this article was elevated to FA status while having zero citations in the intro section, since this is often the only section people read... Willmskinner (talk) 14:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@Willmskinner see MOS:LEADCITE. Nthep (talk) 15:42, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@Nthep interesting, I was not aware of this guideline - but that section states that "... biographies of living persons... and controversial subjects may require many citations" and that any claims whose "verifiability... is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation...". It seems to me that a cases of police violence are very frequently controversial, and some of the subjects involved may still be living, so this article should err on the side of more citations in the lead, rather than less. Willmskinner (talk) 17:26, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@Willmskinner You'd have to ask the editors and reviewers of the article, but my guess is that they took the line of - if the content of the lead is repeated in the body and the content in the body is suitably and adequately cited, then it isn't necessary to repeat those citations in the lead. Nthep (talk) 17:30, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. The lead us a summary of the rest of the article. Everything is referenced in the body. That's pretty standard for featured articles. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Detective Constable Finch's verbal abuse of Waldorf

HJ Mitchell seems to object to stating that Finch specifically used the insult "cocksucker" shortly before he tried to shoot Waldorf in the head. This primarily comes from an edition of BBC Panorama (9 Dec 2001) in which Waldorf was interviewed. I would note that he also recounted what Finch had said to him at the latter's trial in 1983, as reported in 'The Scotsman of 13 October that year (page 1):

"[Waldorf] thought he was paralysed and had lost the feeling in his legs. He vaguely remembered a man in a visor and crash-helmet calling him a 'cocksucker'..."

One can recognise the reluctance of most newspapers to include the detail at the time, but we do have two reliable sources for it. The character of Finch also uses the term in the 1994 ITV dramatisation, albeit as he is pistol-whipping the injured Waldorf. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:27, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I haven't said I'm reluctant to include it, I said I didn't include it when I wrote the article because it's contradicted by other sources. But now you've raised it, I'll go back to those sources and reevaluate my decision. It'll be a few days before I can do that so I've left things as they are. The only thing I removed from your most recent edit was an Easter egg link. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Contradicted by what other sources? We have two sources for it, and - as noted above - it was included in the 1994 dramatisation, which would have been produced with more than one eye on UK libel laws. Nick Cooper (talk) 20:08, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I think it was Kirby's book. But I'll go and check when I can get to it. In the meantime we can keep your version, and if there is a contradiction we can discuss how best to address it. I'm very confused by your revert of my simple MoS fix. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)