Talk:Bob Woolmer

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Broken Bones[edit]

I took out a bit about him breaking a bone in his neck after falling while vomiting. Its only on sky sports, unattributed andn hasn't been picked up elsewhere - which I think we use as the bar for adding to the speculation section. Spartaz Humbug! 21:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article still says "He broke a bone in his neck during a fall in his bathroom", which is sourced from the Bloomberg article. This seems like speculation on Bloomberg's part - the police have announced no such thing, and their subsequent announcement that they're treating it as homicide by strangulation contradicts Bloomberg's theory. This Scotsman article specifically says "If Mr Woolmer had a broken bone in his neck it is a very, very strong indication that something external like a ligature was applied very tightly or he was throttled ... This would not happen just by falling down. ". Similarly our Hyoid bone article says "In cases of suspicious death, a fractured hyoid is a strong sign of strangulation", something that's backed up by medical literature such as this. So what I propose is:
  • we say a bone was broken in his neck (ref The Australian)
  • we don't say it was due to falling, which we do now
  • we don't (yet) say it was the hyoid (because I can't find a source which specifically identifies it as being that bone, although the BBC said this morning that it was, and that's the inference drawn by the Scotsman's expert)
  • we do link to the Scotsman which relates the bone to the suspected strangulation
Darryl Revok 00:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. And the talk page material previous to this section should be archived. The previous discussions (which took place before the murder inquiry was announced, and in the period when media speculation was rife) are now irrelevant, and the article needs a big rewrite to bring it up-to-date. Carcharoth 01:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable Sentence[edit]

To me the following line connects two distinct happenings in a way that may mislead the reader - I think the statements should be seperated.

"On 22 March, Jamaican police confirmed that a murder investigation has been launched due to the circumstances of Woolmer's death, specifically that he had died of asphyxia as a result of manual strangulation[28]. It has also been reported that the Pakistan cricket team has been fingerprinted and interviewed."

To me it implies that the Pakistan cricket team may be implicated in the murder. This would be speculation. I realise that implying speculation is a bit of an unclear point but I think that given the situation the sentence could be misleading. [[Guest9999 02:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

Not for me, but the sentence needs to be possibly updated anyway due to reports that both the Irish and West Indies teams (who were staying at the Pegasus were also finger printed at the same time. The statement is still true and needs to be there, but if others feel that it implicates Pakistan players in anything, perhaps a slight wording change or quote addition is in order. "Eliminate from enquiry" kinda thing.

Not a murder yet[edit]

BBC World just said there's a huge number of rumours in the air about the death, but officially it's not a murder investigation yet. What's the article's source for claiming that it's officially a murder investigation?

The Austrlaia media says the report released to day indicates a broken neck and evidence of strangulation, and that is was most definatly murder. But I don't have any sources yet...--Dacium 03:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess there is no longer any dispute but if people are still uncertain BBC World just spent nearly a whole 30 minutes talking about his murder Nil Einne 03:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinews[edit]

Wikinews has related news:
Wikinews has related news:

This should be on the article page. 70.55.88.134 03:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BOB WOOLMER's KILLER CAUGHT[edit]

http://www.cricketworldcuplatest.com/news/bob-woolmer-s-suspect-killer-already-arrested-by-j-11769.html

Read it and then edit the article accordingly

Dinesh Menon 07:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Dines[reply]

Yes, there is nothing constructive in that article, also rumors like these adds on to the enormous pressure the Cricketing fraternity is already facing....



Mercenary2k 06:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no real proof there; I think we should wait for fact. Flyguy649talkcontribs 06:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
police will reveal identity of suspect before the sri lanka vs india game. Mercenary2k 06:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see no harm in waiting a few hours until there's more solid information -- remember Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newswire. Any other opinions? Flyguy649talkcontribs 06:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you stop to think about it, it is pretty amazing to have an encyclopedia that updates itself (so to speak) so quickly. I can see in my mind the print of an old Britannica in my hand, constantly changing form as if an a Harry potter movie. Weird....what will the future tell here? --203.212.137.112 07:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's my understanding Britannica (the online edition) is in fact updated fairly fast although they probably not to the level of detail and perhaps not quite the speed (definitely within a few hours tho I think) of wikipedia. However we do cover many things at a greater level then Britannica anyway so while we do have to take care to remember this is an encylopaedia, we should also remember we're not Britannica. I completely agree though, this is clearly a rumour at this time and unfit for an encyclopaedia... Nil Einne 07:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that as an encyclopedia, being correct is more important than being first. Incidently, BBC World are reporting the unconfirmed reports airing on Pakistani TV that there has been an arrest. Hopefully true; we'll know in a few hours. Flyguy649talkcontribs 07:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reports of an arrest are being denied; see for instance: [1] —Raven42 08:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sitara-i-Imtiaz[edit]

Could we have some mention of this in the article? Seems to be worth a mention, but I'm not sure where it should be placed. http://content-www.cricinfo.com/pakistan/content/current/story/286699.html Kaushik twin 08:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, pop it in the section about his death as a posthumous award. Spartaz Humbug! 10:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite[edit]

Now we know that Woolmer was murdered, we need to rewrite the article and try and try and come up with a single section with a single timeline. The murder is the big story and we should therefore try and play that and put the speculation in context. Is there general agreement with this approach? Anyone fancy taking this on? I'm going to be busy today so it will be tomorrow before I can have a hard look at this. Spartaz Humbug! 10:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Unfortunately I'm busy too. It's a mess right now though. Should say something like this (in longer form). "Woolmer died. Thought initially to be natural causes. Immediate speculation that he had been murdered. Police later said death was being treated as suspicious, but not necessarily murder. On 22nd March their investigation showed he had been murdered by strangulation." The speculation section should no longer be separate, but should be merged into the general flow of events, since murder is now confirmed. Nssdfdsfds 11:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The murder is the "big story" today, but this is not a news website: it is an encyclopedia, and this is an article about Bob Woolmer, the person, not just about the manner of his death. While his death and subsequent the murder investigation is clearly important, so is the fact that he was a successful first-class and Test cricketer, and then coach. I suspect that the death/murder investigation may need to be hived off into a separate article before long, to avoid it overwhelming the rest of the article. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the stub section at 2007 Cricket World Cup could be expanded? but then it would overwhelm that article as well... Probably both articles need summary sections pointing to a main article. But what to call it? In some ways, giving this its own article makes Wikipedia appear more 'newsy' and 'sensationalist', not less. Carcharoth 13:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right now its big news and the article reflects that. In a year, this part of the article will be short and to the point - people will lose interest in expanding it and those still editing will be working to summarise and bring the article into balance. That's the beauty of wikipedia - that the content of articles changes over time and this can reflect different levels of interest as well. leave it be for the moment and let nature take its course. Spartaz Humbug! 16:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with what you say, as it makes a lot of sense. But if by leave it be, you mean don't spin off stuff into a new article, it's now too late for that... Carcharoth 01:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nice. It seems to have started as a copy-paste of this article, which is sort of plagiarism. It has the identical hidden message, too. That article shouldn't exist. Too late now. Let it go for a few days, probably and then merge it? Flyguy649talkcontribs 02:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"9 March It is unclear if Woolmer's subsequent murder is connected to the tear-gas attack."
I don't know, I think you could get a good case for an AfD, if that's the quality of that article. "His last name is spelled with oh-oh - it is unclear whether that prefigured his murder." Shenme 04:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal[edit]

There is a proposed merger of Death of Bob Woolmer into this article. Please go to Talk:Death of Bob Woolmer#Merge Proposal to discuss. Flyguy649talkcontribs 17:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus was to keep separate for now, and re-evaluate in the future when the content has stabilised. Flyguy649talkcontribs 18:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Photo[edit]

Can't we get a better photo - this one is really dreadful! It would also be nice to have a photo of him during his playing career, which is how I prefer to think of him. Deb 21:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccuracy[edit]

The article states he was found dead in his hotel room, when in fact he was found unconscious and died later. I'm not the only one to have spotted this surely... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Foxesman (talk • contribs) 10:32, March 31, 2007 (UTC)

I believe he was found without vital signs, taken to hospital, and pronounced dead there. I suppose we should check the facts and fix. Flyguy649talkcontribs 16:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

citizenship?[edit]

What nationality was he? 213.202.188.48 08:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

British Citizen. PaddyBriggs 15:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not murder[edit]

The BBC reports that "A UK newspaper has reported that Jamaican police are to announce that Mr Woolmer died of natural causes."

I guess it's best to wait for the official announcement. There is already a reference to an article in the Gleaner suggesting that this finding is likely. --Tony Sidaway 11:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of Page Merger (June 07)[edit]

Now that the death has been confirmed as natural causes the spin-off article becomes somewhat moot and should be merged back into this one, trimmed to avoid undue weight and rewritten to reflect the death was natural causes, the bungled police investigation prompted widespread media speculation and millions of words of inaccurate comment were written. Including the salient dates we can do this in at most 2 paragraphs. Spartaz Humbug! 13:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely think that the information should be merged and deleted, but I also think there's no rush. Even the announcement of natural causes will have some fallout, and I think it will be best if we move slowly and deliberately with the merge. I suggest that those who are willing to undertake the pruning write a draft of the merge section either in the Woolmer article or in a sub-page, and in a couple of weeks review it before proposing deletion of the murder investigation article. Anchoress 13:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with merge. I don't mind proceeding slowly per Anchoress, but honestly we don't need to wait two weeks. Let's give it a week. Flyguy649talkcontribs 14:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its been a week. shall we proceed? Spartaz Humbug! 08:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Go for it. But don't go ahead with the actual merger as yet. Instead let's get the first (BIG) step out of the way, which is to refactor the entire murder investigation page to a properly formatted and succinct encyclopaedic article that doesn't suffer from prose line and speculation. Once we get that past consensus then it will be ready for a simple cut and paste merger. Try to merge before this and we will have a huge mess. --Monotonehell 10:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(outdenting) The investigation was a pretty big news story for some months, spawned various rections, and perhaps even illustrates larger issues like post-colonialism, so I could imagine writing well more than a paragraph or two (or not, per Wikipedia:Recentism). I quite agree with Monotonehell about reducing the proseline/timeline and general tidying, but other things (such as why the police took so long for their about-face) might warrant expansion if/when more information comes to light. In that vein, see the very good article The murder that never was (Sunday July 1, 2007, Observer Sport Monthly). As for the merge, I'll make that an abstain - I could either see trying to refactor the investigation page into shape, or just throwing it out and re-adding whatever is worth keeping. Kingdon 19:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Coming back to this a few months later it was a bit silly to do it before the inquest was held. There could still be significant developements. --LiamE 23:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bob Woolmer. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:04, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bob Woolmer. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:24, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bob Woolmer. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:34, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction?[edit]

As I understand the term open verdict, this seems as a contradiction: "In November 2007, a jury in Jamaica recorded an open verdict on Woolmer's death, concluded that Woolmer died of natural causes." Fomalhaut76 (talk) 19:35, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bob_Woolmer&oldid=1208103889"