Talk:Killing of Andrew Harper

Requested move 25 August 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved (non-admin closure) ~SS49~ {talk} 12:34, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

---

Killing of Andrew Harper → Death of Andrew Harper –

The important rule here is WP:Criteria

1)Recognizability - the proposed title is equally as recognisable as the current one.

2)Naturalness - the proposed title is more natural that the current one, since "killing" implies that it was not an accident, which has not yet been determined.

3)Precision - the proposed title is more precise since the actual circumstances of Harper's death are not known, whilst "killing" implies that it was not an accident.

4)Conciseness - the proposed title is more concise as it is shorter (22 characters including spaces vs 24 for the present name)

5)Consistency - Most other articles related to the deaths of UK police officers (e.g., Death of Keith Blakelock, Death of Ged Walker, Death of Jack Avery, Death of Michael Swindells, Death of Raja Ahmed, Death of Phillip Walters) are named "Death of X". The ones that aren't are the ones where murder has already been shown (e.g., Murder of Yvonne Fletcher and Murder of Sharon Beshenivsky). FOARP (talk) 10:03, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support per nom; especially points (3) and (5). (As nom will know, I had already suggested this change at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Andrew Harper.) Narky Blert (talk) 16:08, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Location

The location of this incident is more accurately Ufton Nervet (the nearest village and the parish in which the A4 junction is located). All news sources seem to give Sulhamstead as the location, which is not correct (but WP:V!). Any reliable sources giving Ufton Nervet as the location of the incident would be useful. MIDI (talk) 10:53, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Recently-released dashcam footage from the police car shows the police driver referring to the fact that the A4 junction is "just down from [Sulhamstead]". Sulhamstead is a good ref point for police in the area as it's the home to TVP's training centre, and goes a little way to showing the junction isn't in Sulhamstead. MIDI (talk) 21:03, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

FWIW the dashcam footage shows that the police car came upon the SEAT on Admoor Lane at 51.428091°N 1.131767°W / 51.428091; -1.131767, a bridge/culvert over a small tributary of the River Bourne. It appears to show that the police car was heading towards Bradfield Southend from the A4 (having travelled via Lambden's Hill) and the SEAT heading in the opposite direction. MIDI (talk) 16:26, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Suspects' names

See also: Talk:2020 Forbury Gardens stabbings § Suspect name

The names of the suspects (and the individual arrested, charged, then released) have previously been included in this article. It was decided, citing WP:BLPCRIME, that the names should not be included. WP:REVDEL has been invoked to support this. If you believe the names should be included, please do not add them to the article but rather use this section to discuss so we can gather consensus. A similar discussion, with WP:RFC, is underway at Talk:2020_Forbury_Gardens_stabbings#Suspect_name. MIDI (talk) 19:59, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

@Jim Michael: in this edit you ask: "Where does it say that consensus is needed to add the names of those convicted?" Well, if an addition of content is challenged, WP:BRD suggests going to talk, and not re-reverting as you did. Is that clear enough? Especially as we already have this topic here with no consensus to add the names. Please restore the status quo and put your argument here. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:20, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I only reverted the removal of the names once. The lack of consensus to add the names was before the manslaughter convictions. The reasons for excluding the names only applied in the absence of the convictions; the convictions mean that the arguments for excluding the names no longer apply. It's standard practice to include the names of those convicted of serious crimes on articles in which it's relevant & reliably sourced. The names have been published by many mainstream UK media outlets. It goes against our usual practice to exclude them. Jim Michael (talk) 21:11, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Jim Michael: in the status quo article the names weren't there. An editor added them earlier today and I reverted per WP:BRD as I didn't see what value they brought, and suggested a consensus was needed to add them. You then reverted back to the non-consensual version - against BRD. We don't need a reason to exclude them, that's the status quo. What we need is a policy-based consensus to include them. Perhaps you could start the ball rolling on that by explaining what value you think they would bring to the article, supporting your argument with the relevant Wiki policies. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:28, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

The value the names bring is that they're the names of the people convicted of committing the killing which is the subject of this article. We don't need a consensus to include them, we'd need one to exclude them. The status quo of excluding the names was based on them being mere suspects/defendants - when they were convicted, the reasons for excluding the names ceased to apply. WP:BLP's subsection People accused of crime says to consider not including material that suggests a person has committed or is accused of committing a crime, unless convicted. In this case, they've all been convicted. Under the subsection Privacy of names, it says to consider excluding names of people not directly involved in the article's topic. These people are certainly directly involved - they've been convicted of committing the killing. I have not & would not reinstate the street names of the addresses of anyone involved. Jim Michael (talk) 09:46, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@Jim Michael: we don't currently have a consensus to add those names and per WP:NOCON: "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." -- DeFacto (talk). 15:45, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

You're the only editor who - after the mainstream media widely publicised the manslaughter convictions - has said that the names should be excluded. Multiple people have added the names to this article since the media published them, so that's a form of consensus. It's usual practice to include the names in crime articles for which RS have reported that people have been convicted. I didn't add the names before the convictions were published & understand the case for excluding them when convictions haven't occurred. Jim Michael (talk) 16:00, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Criticism of the law?

So has there been no criticism of the law? It seems to me a law that decides some peoples lives are more worth than others would potentially be controversial. ★Trekker (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2022 (UTC)