Talk:R v Coulson, Brooks and others

This article was nominated for deletion on 7 November 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Notability

The article may be short at present, but this is a major trial currently hitting the headlines in Britain, it can easily be expanded given a little time, and is likely to do so. PatGallacher (talk) 18:40, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Care with using opinions

In editing this article editors must take great care not to go further than reporting what is said. The items reported must not be interpreted, even though it is human nature to do so in the interests of a 'better article'. We must ensure that facts that are cited in reliable sources are reported, and that every fact has a reliable source.

I have just edited an edit which showed a purpose to a statement by prosecuting counsel. I have done so because the purpose shown was not a part of the matter referenced. The matter was not evidence but was opening remarks to the court. Such remarks are made by each side and intended to seek to influence jurors, are covered by court rules, and are oratory, not hard fact. We may report the facts of the statements, but not the presumed intention behind them. Fiddle Faddle 10:55, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from your change at the beginning of the sentence, I don't agree. In my edit, the quote in the citation from the prosecution counsel was clearly summarised. While I drew on the rest of the Sky article, clearly a legitimate reliable source, I was posting "the facts of the statements" as Edis presented them. If reporting restrictions apply, as you claim, reliable sources would not exist. Philip Cross (talk) 11:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You mistake my comment about rules of the court for reporting restrictions. Barristers have rules within which they must work.

In turn, we have Wikipedia rules within which we must work. Our role is solely to report facts cited in reliable sources. We may not analyse those facts to extract an opinion. That is WP:SYNTH among other things. My copyediting and my statement above are congruent with our rules whatever the rules any external person may be bound by. There is a certain irony in our rules being perhaps slightly tighter in this regard than the court, where a barrister may put supposition to the jury in both opening and closing remarks to them. Fiddle Faddle 12:01, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Name of article

It's getting slightly confused whose trials are covered by this article, I propose to move it to "R v Coulson, Brooks and others". PatGallacher (talk) 18:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, but perhaps in the long term we can find an easier to remember title, such as "2013–14 United Kingdom phone hacking trial" or something similar. Also, for when the time comes to expand this, the BBC have a useful page on this topic here. This is Paul (talk) 08:29, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]