Talk:Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police

A fact from Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 9 April 2021 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the UK Supreme Court told the Chief Constable that the West Yorkshire Police are not allowed to knock over old ladies?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2021/April. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police.

Wikipedia

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.

Articles for creation

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 11 March 2021 by reviewer Gobonobo (talk · contribs).

Crime and Criminal Biography Mid‑importance

	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 articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Mid‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Enforcement Mid‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

United Kingdom Mid‑importance

	United Kingdom portal 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 articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Polic which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 14:06, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:48, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... ~~that the case Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police confirmed that the police generally owe a duty of care to members of the public?~~
- ALT1:... that the case of Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police may be an "unwelcome development for police forces dealing with budget cuts"?
- ALT2:... that the UK's Supreme Court told the Chief Constable that the West Yorkshire Police are not allowed to knock over old ladies?
- ALT3:... that Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police confirmed that there was no general rule that the police would not owe a duty of care to members of the public?

Created by Bibliopole5795 (talk). Self-nominated at 01:04, 12 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Looked at both citations and all, including the hooks. ALT1 is more interesting than ALT0 (Although both are in their own way), so I'm choosing that. However, Earwig's Copyvio Detector shows a 84.5% chance of similarly with the UK Human Rights Blog. Check here for reference and see where you can make the edits to avoid plagiarism issues. Ominae (talk) 02:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ominae: Thanks for your review. I've looked at the plagiarism detector, but the match appears to be because of the block quotes that are used in the article, which highlight the important parts of what the judges thought and are taken from the judgments (and cited as such). I'd looked at other Wikipedia pages on law cases, and they've also seem to make use of block quotes. The article also uses and cites the Human Rights Blog in the 'Significance' section. In light of this, would keeping the article in its current state be acceptable? Bibliopole5795 (talk) 00:39, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I think a new review is in order. Thanks for the answer. Ominae (talk) 02:23, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
comment only - Good to check that block quotes have quote marks. I think a few are missing - Victuallers (talk) 22:40, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Victuallers: Sorry, could you clarify what you mean? I included two block quotes in the article, and both of them have quotation marks? Bibliopole5795 (talk) 13:27, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the missing quotes identified by the copyvio detector and added a "citation needed". I think you ask a lot of the reviewer to not identify the specific clause you use to back up your hooks. I didnt intend to do a review but it took a while to unpick. I have just read the entire judgement and I cannot see the place where they specifically and unilaterally agree on a duty of care to the public. In fact there are clauses that specifically warn against this. If you add "generally" to the first hook then its a goer as I have added a ref to where I think this is true. The citation needed has to be taken care of and as the DYKadvice says "strongly suggest" that a source is provided next time. ALT1 IMO doesnt explain the context of the blog comment quoted or the law that is being clarified, but it is a correct quote. I would suggest that the main hook could be ticked if you agree with my evaluation. Victuallers (talk) 14:43, 31 March 2021 (UTC) ALT2 would need some else to tick Victuallers (talk) 15:27, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Victuallers: I've just had a re-read through of the judgment myself and I agree with what you said. I've re-wrote the first hook as ALT-3 to better fit what the judges actually said, in line with the quote you provided in the ref. As for ALT 2, I actually really like it and I think it might be better than what I originally wrote? I'd be happy to wait for another assessment to figure out which hook to use. Bibliopole5795 (talk) 01:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alt1 is OK and Alt3 is better, but the nominator likes Alt2. Can someone review Alt2 please?

Bibliopole5795, a number of paragraphs are unsourced. Can you please add sources where they're missing, and ping me when you've done so? MeegsC (talk) 14:12, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MeegsC: I've done it! Bibliopole5795 (talk) 00:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliopole5795 There is one minor issue. Can you add a reference after "The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court" and then I will promote it? SL93 (talk) 22:29, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- @MeegsC: Done! Bibliopole5795 (talk) 00:40, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]