This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Conviction of Michael Shields article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
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. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page contains misleading information of Michael Shields' trial. It almost looks like propaganda for signing the "Free Michael" Petition. In particular, it contains obsolete information about Graham Sankey's contradictory confession, and false statements about Bulgarian legislation system. - Please pay attention to this page!!!! and cite facts...
I will vandalize this page until it will base on pure facts published in english media institutions like BBC, Daily Telegraph.
Exactly, "It is therefore no surprise that he was later picked out by several witnesses.". Give me a break. It also doesn't doesn't mention inconsistencies in Shankley's statement, such as saying he hit a guy with a brick when the attack was carried out with a large paving slab. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.253.2 (talk) 10:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Agree fully with the above. Shields was identified by 9 witnesses, as well as the victim, of being the perpetrator.
Shankey, while safely back in the UK, said it was him. But his actual evidence contradicted most of the things they already knew. Then he retracted the statement.
Wikipedia isn't about opinions, but it could be conceived that the "admission" was just an attempt to help Shields case out. When it came to the crunch though, the admission to me did not stand up —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.128.223.67 (talk) 12:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Can this page not be tagged with a header about how it is clearly one sided? It seems to be an extension of the free Michael Shields movement. It isn't fair, balanced or even and implies heavily on certain sides of facts buit not others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.9.188.21 (talk) 07:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
This article is obviously violating the NPOV:
Thus I am putting the POV template. -- Goldie (tell me) 03:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, I think it's more or less OK now? --D.Prok. 09:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Goldie,
1. I removed the reference to the 'TV magazine' because it's not relevant to the case - it's the film's title that is. All other deletes were for the same reason: irrelevance. The article is called "Michael Shields" so I was trying to keep it to the subject.
2. I see full well that the article is overbalanced by the "controversy' info, so was going to change that by adding more info and references, but my immediate impulse was to at least whittle off the horrific bias the article presented to viewers (like you said - it was more of a recruitment flyer for the Free Michael Shields 'movement' than anything else), so mine was a sort of "first-aid" editing.
If you find even this to be more biassed than it was, and know what it should look like so it doesn't violate the NPOV convention - why don't you just edit this page, yourself, instead of waging this complaints war? You've got more pressing motives for this than I have - I'm not even Bulgarian. :-)
PS I'm new here, so am not sure if it's OK for us to discuss this on this particular page? Shouldn't we use our respective talk pages instead? --D.Prok. 11:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi guys, I've just done some work tidying this article and adding a few references. I've altered large parts of the prose to make everything more neutral. I should state my position; I am a Liverpool FC fan, but Shields has always sounded pretty guilty to me. I am not going to attempt to rewrite the entire article or balance the pro-Shields stuff by researching the case against him (because I don't have the time). I do however feel that I'm in a pretty decent position to mediate any arguements you might have with each other. Cheers, aLii 10:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Goldie,
I placed a message in your personal talk page, so I'd be glad if you e-mailed me soon.
Other points:
1) "The whole article is centered not exactly on a rather non-notable fan but on the controvercy around him."
Don't you think it would be proper to split this article into two separate articles then:
Otherwise it's sure to be centred on the controversy because it's due to the controversy the guy got his fame/infamy in the first place. :-)
2) "I can note the lack of neutrality but cannot balance the article by adding more information, as I do not have any."
Why don't you peruse the Bulgarian references I provided then? They're very intelligent, especially the court docs.
As for my "war" remark, it was prompted by the initial, rather belligerent, message of course: threats to vandalise the page continually etc. :-) I didn't know it wasn't you, I'm sorry.
3) "There are two subsections on the alleged "innocence" while the Bulgarian court POV is buried in the very bottom of the article and is not even formatted as a section"
"The edits of D.Prok. to the article have removed the link to the TV newsmagazine who have aired it (why?)"
"The section covering that same MP's speeches on the subject is deleted from the article despite being rather significant part of all media coverage."
"I consider Louise Ellman's position worth convering, as she is the most involved political figure."
I can hardly follow you here, I'm afraid.
First, you say that the article is imbalanced in that it provides too much coverage for the British point of view, while presenting too little info concerning the Bulgarian POV.
Then, when I try to repair the imbalance somewhat by removing superfluous, replicated or irrelevant info from the "overbearing" part, you're displeased, again. So what do you suggest? Adding some weight to the Bulgarian part instead? Well, I was going to do that later - but it's not you alone who are too busy, you know. :-) Added to which, you being Bulgarian, isn't that supposed to be up your alley rather than mine? :-)
As for my specific edits/deletes, I will discuss them in more detail below.
4) "The whole set of contributions of D.Prok. revolve around one-and-only article/POV"
Couldn't you clarify this point somewhat by specifying what "one-and-only article/POV" you're talking about? --D.Prok. 08:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Specific issues:
1)The "Forgotten Fan" documentary:
Goldie wrote:
"Neither people outside UK can verify that "Forgotten Fan" documentary, nor even Brits who haven't been in front of the TV set at a precise moment."
So what do you suggest, Goldie? Leave it out entirely and not mention it at all?
It's hard to verify ANY film, unless it's freely downloadable on the web, which this film unfortunately (or should I say "luckily", knowing how very biassed it appears to be) isn't.
My motive in leaving it within the article was that it was for the first time that I'd seen the claims listed in an orderly fashion - otherwise they're scattered higgledy-piggledy all over various forums and messageboards.
"Many of the points in the bullet list are strong accusations which have to be proved somehow."
I know, but as I said above, I let it remain because at least they're listed here in an orderly fashion - just for reference.
"The edits of D.Prok. to the article have removed the link to the TV newsmagazine who have aired it (why?)"
Why is the TV newsmagazine relevant? It's just a TV programme that shows ALL kinds of stuff - Michael Shields' case was just one of its many episodes.
The really relevant thing is the FILM'S TITLE - which I duly provided.
As for the film it could be shown in ANY programme on ANY channel - so why provide the names of all such channels/programmes, I really can't see.
2) "There are two subsections on the alleged "innocence" while the Bulgarian court POV is buried in the very bottom of the article and is not even formatted as a section"
I agree but who else but you as a Bulgarian could provide a better presentation of the "Bulgarian court POV"?
3) "I doubt the government will keep silence if the guy was innocent indeed, and that POV is not covered at all."
What POV is not covered?
4) "the same very vocal Liverpool MP re-aired the accusations during the European Parliament debate on 15-th of May 2006... The section covering that same MP's speeches on the subject is deleted from the article despite being rather significant part of all media coverage."
There'd been complaints that the article was overbalanced in its coverage, so I tried to remove superfluous and repetetive stuff from the "overweight" half.
What new info do the MP's speeches bring into the case in question?
None.
She just repeats the same old claims and accusations over and over again.
So why clutter the space with it?
"I consider Louise Ellman's position worth convering, as she is the most involved political figure."
Her "position" is just repeating the same old claims - so what's there to cover? Most of the claims are listed under the "Forgotten Fan" heading anyway. The only thing worth covering with respect to her is probably mentioning her name with an appropriate text like "she supports all these claims" or something. Otherwise I don't see why she should be given much space in the article at all.
5) "Also I cannot recall whether it was her, or the other Liverpool MP, but a lady spoke in the European Parliament on Bulgaria's accession (15-th of May, 2006) reffering to this same subject. Up to now the article is expressing only the one side, proving the Anglo-American focus."
Couldn't you make this a bit more clear, Goldie?
I'm afraid your logic eludes me here - I can't see any connection between these two sentences. --D.Prok. 09:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Alii_h,
You wrote:
Where on earth did you see such a "Bulgarian viewpoint"?
I spoke to a lot of Bulgarians, and none of them ever said their legal system was great - not many Britons would say that about their own legal system, either, as far is I'm informed.
But in this particular case their court DOES say that the guy is guilty, and hasn't changed its opinion throughout the trial and two appeals - that's saying something, isn't it?
There's no lack of good sources in this particular case - I've listed even some COURT documents that are available on the web. Or aren't court documents "good" enough for you?
I really don't see how "comments from notable people" are useful in this article unless they're law experts and have studied the materials of the case.
As for the "major news articles" - I don't know your definition of "major", but otherwise there're quite a few news stories cited in this article, aren't there?
And talking generally about these "news articles" - almost all British stories provide a very incomplete (to put it mildly) and garbled version of events, compared to the Bulgarian documents I cited.
==
In my opinion, what this article does lack is the CASE PARTICULARS FROM THE BULGARIAN COURT DOCUMENTS.
If people'd read them, I'm sure that most of them would have taken this issue off the agenda and wouldn't ever raise it again.
Because even the documents I cited sound robust and credible enough to me, providing a lot of info incriminating Shields and rebutting many claims by his supporters. --D.Prok. 09:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I reverted some of the changes:
All the Bulgarian court documents say: "a rugged, irregular-shape stone" roughly the size of a human head, so I really don't see why we should rely on obviously incorrect newspaper versions of "brick" or "paving slab" - one year into the case. --D.Prok. 10:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I have removed all uncited facts; as this is a biography of a living person, WP:BLP is in effect. I have also removed the POV tag, as the POV facts appear to be the uncited ones. Please, all, do not reintroduce uncited facts into the article. Proto::type 14:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Anyway, I've provided all the necessary references for the parts Proto found offending, so why do people persist in deleting these parts again? D.Prok. 08:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I can't work out how to edit a reflist but this is an English Language summary of the official court report. It would make a good link if anyone knows how to put it in. The Sofia Echo is a website for English speakers in Bulgaria and is a useful source of information.
I have erased some comments that are clearly biased and derogatory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.59.131.37 (talk) 14:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
"On 4 December 2006, a sell-out concert took place at the Liverpool Empire Theatre. Girl band Atomic Kitten reformed for the concert, which also saw The X Factor finalists Eton Road, singer Gloria Gaynor, comedian Ricky Tomlinson, Mike McCartney and The Searchers performing"
What does that have to do with anything? I am assuming it was a fundraising concert (although i'd be suprised if Gloria Gaynor had heard of the case!), if so please add a source and make it obvious what the concert was for. Pennywisepeter 16:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Scousers have a propensity to hold "fund raising" events for their own dubious causes... meanwhile the rest of the world just laughs at them! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.27.251 (talk) 23:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
It was doomed from the day it was written but now it's an affront to the standards and dignity of Wikipedia. I vote that it be deleted altogether. Robertcornell68 (talk) 11:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
On the contrary I came across this page thinking it would be innundated by Michael Shield's campaign team and was pleasantly surprised how neutral it was. It's nowhere near perfect but it is much better than I expected. These topics are a real test for Wikipedia, deleting/supressing them is not the solution. I do encourage people to research the Bulgarian side, I don't have enough time at present but here are some links to Bulgarian news sources in english for those who want to try. (first a hint for using them - try searching for Martin Georgiev rather than Michael Shields) http://www.novinite.com/search_news.php and http://www.mediatico.com/en/newspapers/europe/bulgaria/ --Dbdb (talk) 22:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
thanks, neutrality was non existant when i read it first, so rewrote whole bits of it: wasnt easy with merseyside based IP editors busy reverting every 10 minutes, only breaking away to abuse my talk page for disturbing their shrine with my 'agenda'>:(
main article problem was that it sounded like a biography (which it definitely shouldnt be) written by his legal team. think have enough sources from the above 2 already - thanks for the suggestionJw2034 (talk) 18:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
opening needs improvement. article is NOT a biography so it shouldnt start 'Michael Shields (Born...)', since he is not notable - its about the convictionJw2034 (talk) 18:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if Jw2034 is a sock puppet but they are reverting independent changes to this article.
I am very upset that I have been informed if I vandalise pages again on wikipedia I will be blocked. I felt the page contained inaccuracies and biasism and therefore I changed it. I didn't include any of my own thoughts on the subject as I wanted to keep it neutral. I pasted information from a dossier giving all the facts of the case, I also included Graham Sankey's confession. I feel these things are relevant to the topic and the information on wikipedia at the moment doesn't give much information on the case at all.
I am very disappointed that my trying to give more details of the case has resulted in Jw2035 threatening me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.14.122.51 (talk) 18:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
The information on there at the moment is innacurate and I really do not think it gives enough information on the case. I also think there is a bias against Mr Shields.
I included a dossier which if you read gives the reasons for Mr Shields and the reasons against Mr Shields, I don't see how in that case this can be considered biased. I also noted what the document was.
Mr Sankey's confession was publicly known and an important part of the case, it is neither pro Shields or against, it is part of the case.
If the information for the case is Pro Shields, then that's not down to me. I just put up facts, it was all verified information, which can't be said for the information on the page at the moment. I have an interest in miscarriages of justice and therefore read a lot about the case to try and give as much information as I could so people could form their own opinions.
As I said, I didn't include any of my own views as I didn't want it to be biased.
If you weren't happy with the changes, you could have edited or removed some of it but instead you rollbacked all the changes and told me I was vandalising the page.
Furthermore, the only warning I received from you was a final warning, I received no warnings before that.
I will be referring this to someone else as I think you are being very unfair and I am very unhappy about the information you have reverted the page back to.
While cleaning up the article I noticed some discrepancies between the article and the source material.
This has a citation but is not backed up by the cited source, and I can't find anything about a criminal past (although he did confess to the assault, he was never tried for it).
Perhaps this article needs a whole rewrite taking the entirety of current knowledge in to account. I imagine that the article has been confusing because the information wasn't released at the time of writing. Now is the time to correct this. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)Join WikiProject Athletics! 09:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
If you are an English hooligan, feel free to attack to anyyone whereever you go, you'll be pardoned and saved... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.3.224.9 (talk) 13:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Conviction of Michael Shields. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:55, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Conviction of Michael Shields. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)