Talk:Kevan Thakrar

Kevan Thakrar has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: October 26, 2024. (Reviewed version).

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.

Biography

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Death Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death 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.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Claim to notability

When I encountered this article, the first sentence of the lead paragraph said the subject ... is a convicted English criminal. However, he does not appear to be particularly notable as a criminal in his own right, but only as an accomplice to the murders and attempted murders committed by his brother. Labeling this person as a criminal without this label being supported by sources indicates that Wikipedia is editorializing. As the word "criminal" is often perceived as having a negative connotation, its use in an article is not impartial, so needs a cited source to be able to verify the claim. However, whether the sources support labeling the subject as a "criminal", or not, that is not his claim to notability in any case. Rather, it is the fact he has been mistreated while imprisoned that makes his case notable. I have rewritten the first two sentences and combined them to remove the biased language and present the subject from a more neutral point of view. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 01:36, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Issues with accuracy.

This page appears to be a supporters’ article for the person in question. The article contains inaccurate information about the person mentioned. Sources referenced do not support the assertions claimed. For example this page starts by stating that the person was convicted under joint enterprise for the actions of his brother. This insinuates that the person was not involved in the original crime. However the sources referenced include this person as an active participant in the offence, even if his brother was the principle offender. Hence the subsequent conviction. However this is not mentioned.

Later on the article states that the person in question was ‘attacked by three prison guards’ however none of the sources state this. The subsequent finding of not guilt was due to medical evidence in relation to the effects of PTSD. There is no mention of this person having been attacked by the three prison officers who were in fact attacked by this person. The sources show the not guilty verdict was due to this person’s state of mind.

Further down the page’ the person is references as being in ‘solitary confinement’ however this person is not in fact in ‘solitary confinement’ but in a ‘Close Supervision Centre’. The term ‘solitary confinement’ is in fact the term used by campaigners/supporters once again, and is not a neutral reporting of the facts.

None of these facts are accurately reported in this Wiki page and any attempts to aline this page with the facts reported by the sources are reverted back by the page creator. 2A02:C7C:5386:3800:8043:614B:3D5D:F2A0 (talk) 22:15, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this to the talkpage, to respond:

"For example this page starts by stating that the person was convicted under joint enterprise for the actions of his brother" - Guardian says "Kevan Thakrar, 36, who is serving a life sentence for murder and attempted murder after being convicted on a joint enterprise basis in October 2008"

"attacked by three prison guards" - thanks for that, I think I assumed if he was not guilty of attacking the guards, they had attacked him, however the BBC says "Kevan Thakrar, 24, admitted lashing out at the guards with a broken bottle at Frankland Prison, County Durham, but claimed it was in self-defence ... Thakrar, from Stevenage, Hertfordshire, was cleared of two counts of attempted murder and three counts of wounding with intent at Newcastle Crown Court. ... He claimed he attacked the officers in self-defence in a "pre-emptive strike" following ill-treatment and abuse at the high-security prison, the jury heard." - I've changed this

"The sources show the not guilty verdict was due to this person’s state of mind" - where do the sources say that?

"Further down the page’ the person is references as being in ‘solitary confinement’ however this person is not in fact in ‘solitary confinement’ but in a ‘Close Supervision Centre’" - you are arguing without evidence against the UN special rapporteur on torture and Amnesty International, as reported here. The BBC says "an inmate being denied any association with other prisoners, allowed just two half-hour visits a month, and being allowed out of his cell for just one hour per day" Mujinga (talk) 22:41, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see below in relation to the attempted murder ‘PTSD’ defence:

https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/kevan-thakrar-grip-paranoia-before-1406242.amp

‘Kevan Thakrar was in the grip of severe depression and was suffering Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) when he lashed out with a broken bottle of hot pepper sauce he had fashioned into a weapon, the court heard.’

‘The 24-year-old inflicted terrible wounds on officers Craig Wylde, Claire Lewis and Neil Walker at Frankland High Security Prison, County Durham, in March last year.’

This article gives a run down of the attack and provides a different perspective from the Guardian article. It also restates the PTSD defence provided in court. This is also an explanation of the attack as shown on the CCTV evidence.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/prisoner-who-stabbed-warden-broken-157418?int_source=amp_continue_reading&int_medium=amp&int_campaign=continue_reading_button#amp-readmore-target

As far as Kevan Thakrar’s involvement in the murder offence for which he was convicted under the joint enterprise principle, please see the remarks of the Court of Appeal (by Lord Justice Stanley Burnton, His Honour Judge Pert QC, and Mr Justice Roderick Evans) which provides a more factual summary of the offence. https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5b46f20c2c94e0775e7f150d/amp

‘ 64. For reasons we have already mentioned, there was strong evidence supporting Kevan's participation in the killings.’ 2A02:C7C:5386:3800:8043:614B:3D5D:F2A0 (talk) 23:10, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you both please summarize your points below? Please keep your statements brief, with references to relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines as needed. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 23:41, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion

3O declined per my comment below. voorts (talk/contributions) 11:50, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’m happy with the changes that have so far been made by the other editor. I ask they take note of the further sources of information provided to balance the article. Thanks. 2A02:C7C:5386:3800:E521:4C16:8DC:79C3 (talk) 12:00, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Viewpoint by Mujinga: ....

Wikipedia:Third opinion says "Before making a request here, be sure that the issue has been thoroughly discussed on the article talk page. 3O is only for assistance in resolving disagreements that have come to a standstill. If no agreement can be reached on the talk page..." - we are nowhere near that point. I haven't even asked 2A02:C7C:5386:3800:8043:614B:3D5D:F2A0|2A02:C7C:5386:3800:8043:614B:3D5D:F2A0 if they have a conflict of interest yet. Mujinga (talk) 11:15, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I asked for clarification because I wasn't quite sure what was going on here. At this point, I'm going to decline the request for a 3O. If the discussion comes to a standstill, either party can of course request a new 3O. voorts (talk/contributions) 11:49, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion by voorts: ....

Continued discussion

Hi 2a02:c7c:5386:3800:dd1c:a635:c5c4:2048. First off can I ask if you are the same person as:

2a02:c7c:5386:3800:8043:614b:3d5d:f2a0
2a00:23c8:ac9d:a601:9d6c:327:6163:b836
2A02:C7C:5386:3800:E521:4C16:8DC:79C3 ?

It would seem like you are. Your latest edit introduced the Daily Mirror as a source, it's a tabloid and not really to be trusted here in my opinion, so I removed it. I find it interesting that the same edit deleted without explanation the sourced information that Thakrar claimed he was a "victim of a racist bullying campaign by the prison guards". Do you have a conflict of interest here? It might be worth reading Wikipedia:Conflict of interest which begins by saying ... "Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships. Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest. Someone having a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a judgment about that person's opinions, integrity, or good faith."

I know you didn't add the courtcase information referred to above, but just so you know, that wouldn't be useful for wikipedia per WP:BLPPRIMARY: "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." The PTSD claim was made by a psychologist in court, so I've added that information. We could add that the ex-governor was critical of the verdict and an "editor of national prisoners magazine" was in turn critical of him. What do you think? Mujinga (talk) 17:22, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Passed. It is a wonderful world (talk) 18:42, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Kevan Thakrar/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Mujinga (talk · contribs) 21:14, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: It is a wonderful world (talk · contribs) 22:07, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This one's pretty grim but short enough to finish before I go to sleep!

Hi @It is a wonderful world: thanks for taking this one, I've replied to yourr points. Mujinga (talk) 18:15, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, all have been adequately addressed, so I will pass! It is a wonderful world (talk) 18:41, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prose clock

Lead

after his brother Miran murdered three men: I think it should be clearer that Kevan was with Miran when he murdered.

clarified Mujinga (talk) 18:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Murders

which had been -> "he had"

rewritten Mujinga (talk) 18:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Link "submachine gun"

done Mujinga (talk) 18:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

found guilty of helping him to escape: Is there a specific charge this can be linked to?

source justs says "guilty of assisting an offender."

Link "Southwark Crown Court"

done Mujinga (talk) 18:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think link "life imprisonment" so a reader can read further into the seeming contradiction between "life" and "35 years"

linked above Mujinga (talk) 18:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prison

Shouldn't "CSCs" just be "CSC" in this instance?

good spot! changed Mujinga (talk) 18:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

he denied: Is "appealed" a better word here?

i don't think so, since an appeal would be what you do if already convicted. instead, he denied the charges Mujinga (talk) 18:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps link "Durham" and "Milton Keynes"

Durham done, MK already done Mujinga (talk) 18:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thakrar was held in Close Supervision Centres: Abbreviate to "CSCs" for consistency

done Mujinga (talk) 18:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Link "Incarcerated Workers Organising Committee"

to what? aha! Incarcerated Workers Organizing Committee with a Z - done Mujinga (talk) 18:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

his judicial review of being in the CSC for 749 consecutive days was heard: I assume this had an outcome?

not yet I don't think, but that's not too surprising as it can take years Mujinga (talk) 18:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources Y

Health/formatting Y

Reliability Y

One journal, and all the rest reliable news sources.

Spot check Y

[1, 2a]: Y

[6, 7a]: Y

[15]: Y

[16]: Y

Scope Y

Appears that no important information is omitted

Copyvio Y

13.0% on Earwig, no too close paraphrases detected.

Stable Y

Media Y

None, unfortunately.

Captions Y

Tags Y

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.