Talk:Murder of Yvonne Fletcher/Archive 1

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

Joe Vialls – pros & cons

One external link and it's to a conspiracy site? I don't think so! If it was one among many AND clearly marked as to what it was, maybe, but like that - not reasonable, heavy PoV. Removing it. 138.37.188.109 10:03, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The reference to markswoman was reinstated because the official line is that she was targetted deliberately (in her role as a WPC, not personally). The shooting was not accidental, and Libya accepted this. Darkaddress 18:41, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)

Who's official line? Certainly not the British government's. Mintguy (T)

Whatever its faults, the website by Joe Vialls is very informative. It has photos, maps, video and audio of the event: http://joevialls.altermedia.info/zionist/yvonnefletcher.html

This site is a crank site fully of bogus "evidence". This guy also claims that Pan Am 103 was blown up by "Zionists"

[1]. I really don't think it is an appropriate link for this article. Mintguy (T) 16:42, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have have removed the reference to "conspiracy theories." This phrase is always used dismissively -- it is a pejorative phrase. Talk about PoV.

Even if you think Joe Vialls is crazy, alternate views per se should not be dismissed without argument

There's alternative and then there's crazy. References to zionists in things concerning Isreal yes. Claiming zionists shot dead a British police officer outside the Libyan embassy no. People who spout things like this are either mad or anti-semites, often both. This is like attributing a murder obviously commited by Isrealis/Jews and blaming it on Arabs/Muslims acting as part of a conspircay that probably involves cloning, shape-shifting lizards and black helicopters.


Joe Vialls: crank site?

As stated above the external link I just removed which is a crank site. Please look at the root page and some of the other sub-pages of this site. For example the site suggests that the Asian Tsunami was infact part of some huge conspiracy by the west and Zionists. http://www.vialls.com/subliminalsuggestion/tsunami.html -- adding links to such sites does Wikipedia no good whatsoever. Jooler 17:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Neither is Wikipedia best served by editors' taking extreme positions without acquainting themselves of the facts: have you visited the Joe Vialls article, I wonder Jooler? Vialls could easily qualify for the epithet of "crank" in terms of the total number of conspiracy theories he espoused. But the three he concentrated upon were: Yvonne Fletcher, Lockerbie bombing and Martin Bryant. In my humble opinion Vialls has shed an inestimable degree of light upon all three of those stories. None has yet been resolved. Vialls' seemingly outlandish views may well, in time, prove to be correct. Meanwhile, I'm reinstating the external link that Jooler (and Jhamerman) have previously removed without justification.Phase4 22:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Calm consideration

Are you serious!? This is simply not acceptable. Do you think it justifiable to add a link to his site from the Asian Tsunami page, or from the Pam-Am Flight 103 page? You'll note that on the Joe Vials page it says "he was regarded by some Australians as "barking mad"." Jooler 22:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Calm consideration is what is required. Please take time to reconsider.Phase4 22:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Cranking it up

The site contains original research and is not a reliable source. It's nothing more than a crank conspiracy theory and has no place on wikipedia. --GraemeL (talk) 13:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
GraemeL is conflating a number of separate issues:
a. to say that an external link contains original research is not necessarily detrimental to that website. Clearly on Wikipedia, NOR is the rule. But we are not talking about WP here;
b. whether the site is "reliable" or not, is not a question that GraemeL seems uniquely qualified to pontificate upon;
c. the subject heading says "crank" site. The dictionary definition of crank is an eccentric person. This begs the question of how a website can be personified thus;
d. the dictionary defines "eccentric" as deviating from established convention; and,
e. if Joe Vialls is categorized as a conspiracy theorist, he was a bloody good one! Long may his theories provoke a normally supine establishment into displaying spasms of alarum and despondency!Phase4 21:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorist

The original research and reliable sources policies both apply to external links. Please read up on policy. The Joe Vialls article actually refers to him as a conspiracy theorist in the introduction. --GraemeL (talk) 22:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Not an authoratitive source, proposes a new theory which has little consensus, doesn't belong in the article. It's as simple as that AFAIC. No need to debate it, it's downright obvious. --kingboyk 22:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I think this article need review to see how much of Joe Vials' (or other's) conspriracy theory has seeped into it and how much is based on genuine evidence. Jooler 22:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
This discussion has become somewhat disjointed and out of sequence. I've had enough of unsupported assertions and am bowing out.Q.E.D.Phase4 23:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
How about including the link in the External Links section, with the description of it (ie <no wiki>[website address THIS BIT]</nowiki>) saying soemthing like "a webpage devoted to the consiracy theory that Yvonne Fletcher was killed by the CIA and Mossad"? Given that the Controversy section is in the website, a link is not IMO innapropriate. Batmanand | Talk 12:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me that we are getting carried away with this idea of a crank site. There is no linked crank site. In fact, the first link in the "footage" section is a Joe Vialls sequence of objective video film that is unobtainable elsewhere. If this is what is objected to, it is difficult to see how a video film can be labelled a crank site.Phase4 23:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Disputed "Controversy" section

User:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg deleted the long-standing "controversy" section on the grounds that it was unsourced. Disputing the deletion, User:65.113.124.99 reinstated the section. I support the latter over the former.Phase4 20:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the controversy section again. This is because nothing in it has been sourced externally. There needs to be external links to credible sources for this to be included. "Credible" sites would include BBC news sites and TV documentaries. Find the link first before reinstating the controversy section. --One Salient Oversight 05:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I have reintroduced, expanded and wikified the controversy section.Phase4 13:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I notice that Phase4 has moved all discussion prior to December 2006 to an Archive file. Does he/she have the right to do this? I ask because this contributor appears to be the main proponent of the bizarre conspiracy theory that British, US and Israeli intelligence services killed WPC Fletcher and the pre-December discussion comments were mainly sceptical of this view point. Or am I just developing my own conspiracy theory? :) 210.246.16.14 09:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The fact that last year's "Controversy" section discussion has been archived, and nothing has been said on the subject for the past four months, should not hinder further discussion here. What would you like to add?Phase4 14:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

My own testimony has been laid before the police, and may be relevant. I was trained as a TAVR infantry officer not long beforehand, but did not take up my commission, and passed in front of the Embassy shortly before the shooting, en route to my office nearby. The Embassy was in the corner of the square, which was an open railed-off garden in the centre. On the opposite side of the road to the embassy, ie on the corner of the central square spilling somewhat off the pavement onto the road was a small protesting group of ten or twenty people, mostly women dressed in an arabic style. A mutual taunting match between them and the staff seemed to be going on, and I do not know what I spotted, but I sensed it was dangerous and left the square immediately, passing behind St James' Church in the direction of Picadilly as a group of police came the other way. One police woman, a pretty girl, was sucking an orange, I think it may have been Yvonne, and as I passed them I commented the protest was under way, careful now.
If I had to say where I would have looked for a shooter, I would have said the first floor, most of the other windows had youngsters hanging out of them. It is particularly relevant to my mind that the Libyans who left after the siege were both older and fewer in number than those originally engaged - I can only presume that those responsible took their leave in the chaos which must inevitably have followed the shooting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.129.223.44 (talk) 15:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

How about reducing it?

Could a serious case be made for reducing (not deleting) the controversy section? It is poorly written and laid out; it does not contain serious evidence that Western or Israeli intelligence organisations killed WPC Fletcher and in its present form it serves only to promote the sort of conspiracy theory that Wikipedia should have matured beyond. At the very least its length is excessive when matched with the description of events, outcome and implications for Libyan/British relations.

The problem is: what do you take out? If you remove Tam Dalyell's parliamentary report, then the section is emasculated. Better, surely, to leave things as they are!Phase4 01:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Odd

It is suprising that three bullets hit eleven people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.170.8 (talk) 10:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Its not surprising at all. It was into an urban area, believed from an elevated position so when the rounds hit the tarmac they ricochet and the brass jacket on a 9mm round usually separates from the lead when it hits tarmac. There would have been brass, lead and spall (fragments of the road) bouncing all over the place. DETCORD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.129.137 (talk) 15:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Article title

Why is this article entitled "Yvonne Fletcher", with a redirect from "1984 Libyan Embassy Siege" rather than the other way around? The article contains virtually no biographical information about Yvonne Fletcher, but appears to be primarily about the siege (as you would expect) - therefore the current title is illogical. 86.161.227.100 (talk) 15:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there are better titles for this article. Personally, I would favor "Death of Yvonne Fletcher". Fletcher is famous for a single event and unremarkable in other ways - to put it bluntly, she is only notable for being shot and the subsequent diplomatic fallout this shooting caused. If she had not been shot, there would not be an article on her. The article title should primarily focus on the shooting and not the victim. It should be consistent with articles such as Death of Jean Charles de Menezes, Death of David Kelly, Death of Baby P, Death of Ian Tomlinson, etc as these also cover notable deaths of everyday people 87.113.253.187 (talk) 15:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
"Death of..." is a better format, as it was the event that precipitated the seige, rather than being something that happened during the seige (something which a number of sources erroneously claim). Nick Cooper (talk) 16:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Moved to Murder of Yvonne Fletcher; she was not notable, but her murder was. Jim Michael (talk) 22:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Place of death

I have amended her place of death from St. James's Square to Westminster Hospital. Whilst she of course shot in the square, she did not actually die until an hour later in that hospital. --TBM10 (talk) 23:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

WPC?

What does the WPC stand for? The article doesn't say, nor does the WPC link. Nibios (talk) 02:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Woman Police Constable. Will clarify in the article. --TBM10 (talk) 10:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Who shot WPC Fletcher?

In light of the Daily Telegraph speculation that another Libyan has been named as the shooter (August 2011), this has to be balanced with the ballistics controversy section. I, like anyone else, would like to see justice done and the killer(s) brought to justice but the latest source, the Telegraph, is an "establishment" newspaper. I am not into conspiracy theories per se but the fact the initial autopsy report stated the gunshot wound was from 60+ degrees is a notable discrepancy/margin to the official inquest testimony which stated the angle was now on ~15 degrees. This would either suggest at best a profound example of professional incompetent or at worst a cover up. But as neither reason has ever been formally addressed, to me suggests "let sleeping dogs lie". Furthermore it was never possible to match the bullet that killed WPC Fletcher to any of the others fired that day. This was was not CSI. A TV documentary used an image to show that if the bullet entry wound was 60+ degrees she would have had to be doing a backwards limbo pose to have been shot from a lower floor at the embassy to achieve the entry angle. Thus, due to the improbability, suggesting the shooter's real vantage point was much higher. As noted, how the conclusion came to be changed is a matter of conjecture.

Personally I think there is a lot more to this story than the audience-share seeking press is interested in. It also means that conclusions on who killed WPC Fletcher are just that speculation. Until of course a case is brought to court and the evidence can be tested and rebutted by expert witness testimony. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.46.6 (talk) 10:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

WPC Fletcher was shot by an SAS sniper. The protest was a sham organized by the CIA to get the police present. The assination was intended to justify subsequent action by the US gainst Libya.81.131.43.164 (talk) 19:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Abdulmagid Salah Ameri

I have redirected Abdulmagid Salah Ameri to this article, per, eg this. --Mais oui! (talk) 22:27, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Image removal

I cannot believe it, the usual wiki-peons have removed both historical images from this article without doing their damnedest to keep them!!

It seems quite clear to me that there are two kinds of people on Wikipedia, those who genuinely want to believe they are making the world a better place by the promulgation of knowledge and the other kind who only justify their existence by being bloody-minded Rules lawyers.

I justify my contempt by saying where was the WP:GF, WP:BOLD or dare I say it, WP:IGNORE all the rules (If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it).

So it begs the question, why wasn't there any attempt to keep the images. They were certainly uploaded with the best intentions and for a genuine reason: to inform and illustrate the death of this brave police officer!? But instead they were deleted without a thought or a care. Or even a discussion. When a deletion is called for why is their first no attempt to keep these images? There would be no complaints if that was the case!

It seems to me that certain rules are more important to peons than the global contribution made by Wikipedia to the fundamentals of knowledge. What happened here has really, really pissed me off because it just reiterates my view that Wikipedia might profess to for something higher (an open access encyclopedia) but in reality it is only basest and ignorant values that "truly" make any difference. 86.160.193.114 (talk) 12:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Without being able to see these images (as they are now deleted) my guess would be that the image police have trashed them because, although it would be OK to use them, the correct rationale had not been used. Such enforcers will usually delete rather than try to find an appropriate rationale or indeed even try to contact the unloader etc. If you know what the images were you could try putting them back but with a rationale that would satisfy the watchers!--Egghead06 (talk) 12:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Murder of Yvonne Fletcher. 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) 04:54, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Hard to follow location of events (esp. siege)

So I'm not sure how fixable this problem really is. I found it very difficult to keep track of what was happening in England and what was happening in Libya. An excellent writer might be able to help a bit, but maybe the basic problem is just that the actual events are happening in both places, and the burden is on the reader to piece it together.

Still, let me share the specific frustration that I had, because I think that one should be fixable.

I see at the end of the first paragraph that among the sequelae was "an eleven-day siege of the embassy". That sounds interesting. So I go looking for that. Ah hah, there's a section called Siege: 18–27 April 1984. That must be it.

It starts out talking about someone named Miles (have to go to the previous section to figure out who that is) who was allowed to leave the British embassy, and that the siege in Tripoli was lifted. Wait a minute. Which embassy is under siege? I go back to the top; it looks like it's talking about the Libyan embassy in London rather than the British embassy in Tripoli. But at this point I'm not quite sure, and the surrounding text is not entirely explicit about it.

So I go back to the "siege" section and try to work it out. Were there two sieges, one in London and one in Tripoli? Well, there was definitely one in Tripoli. So was there also one in London? Hard to be sure. The text from the intro section sounded like it but didn't explicitly say. The remaining text in the "siege" section makes you solve a puzzle to figure it out. The British government requested access to the People's Bureau — do I remember where that is, London or Tripoli? Not really. I can go back and look it up, risking losing my place. Oh, Fletcher's hat was in the square. Fletcher's the one the article's about, right? And she was in London, and presumably her hat was not flown to Tripoli. So got it, there was a second siege in London.

Does the reader really have to work this hard? I wouldn't think so. Maybe add something to the first paragraph of the introduction clarifying that the eleven-day siege was in Tripolilater edit: sorry, "eleven-day siege was in London", and in the "siege" section, say explicitly that there were two sieges, so the reader doesn't assume there was only one and get lost trying to figure out where it was. That would help for a start. Some really good writer might be able to do even more, and if my account of where I got lost helps that writer, then it was worth typing it. --Trovatore (talk) 19:11, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

If you drop half way down the article from the lead, then yes, you will have missed out much of the crucial information. If you read it in toto then it's all rather clear. – SchroCat (talk) 19:16, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Well, of course there is only so much that can be done, but ideally the article would be written to allow readers to look up the specific events they're interested in without getting lost. --Trovatore (talk) 19:18, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
It is. It's chronological (which is the obvious and common sense way to approach it), and if you look at any article on WP by dropping in part way through, you are likely to be confused by missing out the stuff that's gone before. – SchroCat (talk) 19:22, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
It would take quite a bit of time to read the entire intervening text. Not all readers who are interested in learning about the "siege" necessarily want to spend that time. I made a couple of specific suggestions about how to make the article more useful; do you have anything to say about those? I'm actually not sure that having read the intervening text would help much with the specific problems those are meant to address. --Trovatore (talk) 19:26, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
If you can't be bothered to read the intervening text, you're only ever going to have a partial view of the subject (again, that's the same for any article, book, news report, etc). If you do manage to read the text in full, you'll see that the 11-day siege was in London; the Tripoli siege lasted a day or so. - SchroCat (talk) 19:29, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Look, are you interested in improving the article, or in criticizing readers for their reading style? I have always read books from the middle out rather than front-to-back; it's worked out pretty well for me so far. Do you have any objection to specifying in the opening paragraph that the eleven-day siege was in Tripolioops again: London, or to mentioning explicitly in the "siege" section that there were two sieges?
Side note here -- how is 18–27 April "eleven days"? It looks to me like nine days, or could be ten by inclusive counting, or if it was from the early morning of 18 April to the late night of 27 April. I don't see how you get to 11 at all. That could also be a barrier to the reader trying to match up the intro text with the "siege" section. --Trovatore (talk) 19:41, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
The article is written for people to read. If you happen to read from the middle on, or arse-about-face, then you can't expect it to work for you as well as it does for others. I see you're not even reading what I have written and are reading past me; let me repeat so that it actually gets through: "the 11-day siege was in London; the Tripoli siege lasted a day or so". If you can't even read a three line comment without taking the information on, then I'm not sure that mixing up the article and restating facts over and over just in case someone wants to start reading at a random point in the article will be of much assistance. Either way, from the context in the lead, it is blindingly obvious that the main (11-day) siege was in London. (And 17-27 inclusive is 11 days, according to my maths – your mileage may differ). – SchroCat (talk) 19:51, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Oh, I did read that. I had already figured out that the 11-day siege was in London; my initial post details how I worked that out. I am suggesting that it might be possible to make it easier to figure that out, for the next reader who also wants to know about the "siege" but lacks the time or interest to read all the intervening material. --Trovatore (talk) 19:53, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
OK, now you've changed your comment after I had already responded to it. When you do that, please give some indication of the fact, so that it doesn't look to third parties as though I hadn't read it the first time. --Trovatore (talk) 19:59, 17 April 2018 (UTC) To practice what I preach, this comment was added after SchroCat's comment of 19:57, below. --Trovatore (talk) 20:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict), yet again. It was an ec, and no, if I change something again, I won't bother giving an indication. This thread started with little constructive in it, and it's got more ridiculous since. - SchroCat (talk) 20:04, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Then they can read the lead, which gives a perfectly adequate summary of the main points of the subject. If people willingly miss out half the information, then it's not up to us to keep repeating facts on the off chance they start reading at the point we mention a fact for the nth time. SchroCat (talk) 19:57, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Is there someone I can talk to other than SchroCat? --Trovatore (talk) 20:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Only if people join in, and I think there will be little sympathy for someone who can't be bothered to read the article, but still wants to complain about not being spoon-fed. – SchroCat (talk) 20:04, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't want to be spoon-fed. Nevertheless it is good writing practice to keep the reader up-to-date on context. Even a reader who has read from the beginning can get lost. A writer who knows the story inside and out may have trouble noticing whether the text risks losing the reader, and should pay attention when a new reader points it out. --Trovatore (talk) 20:08, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
It certainly looks like you want to be spoon-fed. If the article is read from start to finish, it's bloody obvious what happened, when and where. If you drop into a different section and miss out several steps of the chronology, then of course you're going to get confused by not actually understanding what has happened in the previous steps. This is obvious for books, news reports, magazine stories and WP articles. I'm not entirely sure why this is such a difficult concept to grasp. - SchroCat (talk) 20:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't understand why you have trouble with the idea that readers may not want to read the whole thing, to find out about the particular thing they're interested in. Is it necessary to know the whole chronology, to know where the siege happened? It doesn't seem to me that it is. Of course you will get more out of the article if you read the whole thing, but the question is, is that extra benefit worth the reader's time? Only the reader can decide that. It seems a bit ungracious to insist that only readers who are willing to consume the article in your preferred way are to be served. --Trovatore (talk) 20:17, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
I do understand (at the risk of repeating myself): it's why we have a lead section that contains all the main points of the subject. - SchroCat (talk) 20:21, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
However, a reader who is interested in going into detail on the siege, but not on the intervening chronology, risks being confused by the issues I raised in my initial post. --Trovatore (talk) 20:22, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Not if they a. Read the lead; and b. Have a brain. If you don't read the lead properly and you decide to miss most of the information, of course you're not going to have the full picture. Having said that, we can't write articles just for people who need all the facts repeated in each stage – we do expect readers who come to a text-based encyclopaedia to actually try reading. I think this thread had little constructive to begin with, but even that small amount evaporated some time ago. – SchroCat (talk) 20:26, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
When I read the lead, I certainly came away with the impression that the siege was in London. But when I went to the "siege" section, it no longer seemed so clear, given that the first sentence was about a siege in Tripoli, and there was no explicit mention that this was not the siege referred to in the section heading. I do have a brain, and I was able to work it out. But it was more work than I think it really ought to have been. I have stated my concerns calmly and in good faith, and you have mostly preferred to criticize my style of reading than to consider whether there are possible improvements to the existing text. --Trovatore (talk) 20:35, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
It is unlikely that any article will work best if you do not read it in full. That's not criticising your style of reading, just pointing out the blindingly obvious fact that if you can't be bothered to read the text, you will miss important parts of information. – SchroCat (talk) 20:41, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
If I skip the chronology of the events prior to the siege, I certainly expect to miss out on important facts about the events prior to the siege. Nothing anyone can do about that; that's just the consequence of my time optimization. And I reasonably expect that this will impair my understanding of the reasons behind the actions of the various parties. However, I don't really expect to be confused about where the events took place.
I feel that I have given specific and actionable suggestions that would improve the experience for readers who similarly want to learn more about the siege, without learning all the details of the intervening events. --Trovatore (talk) 20:47, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

And the 'suggestions' are not good ones. We deal with events chronologically, and we cannot repeat facts in every section just because someone wants to miss parts of the article. Repeating facts over and over is a sign of very poor writing. – SchroCat (talk) 20:53, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I sense that you are somewhat personally invested in the writing. Maybe you did most of it? Don't get me wrong; the writing is generally good. But good writers listen to criticism. I have pointed out specific and real problems in specific places. --Trovatore (talk) 20:58, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
No, you have pointed out what you think are problems, but that are not. This article went through a thorough peer review and an in-depth FA review very recently, and absolutely no one had any of the issues you describe from your esoteric reading style. - SchroCat (talk) 21:03, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Congratulations on the FA. I have said what I have to say. Perhaps someone will take it into account; perhaps not. --Trovatore (talk) 21:18, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
For the record, I was confused by this too, but I also don't feel like going to war over it, which is why I haven't commented until now. I guess it is what it is. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 16:13, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Expelled/Deported

GigglesnortHotel, although we use expelled, it is the same effect as deported, although there is a difference. Have a look at our own article "The term expulsion is often used as a synonym for deportation, through expulsion is more often used in the context of international law, while deportation is more used in national (municipal) law". We are right to say the they were "expelled" in international law. – SchroCat (talk) 17:36, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

SchroCat It doesn't make sense to me to remove "deported" for "expelled", while simultaneously wikilinking "expelled" to the article on deportation. I put in "deported", it was removed with the edit summary that diplomats are expelled, not deported [2]. Then why are we wikilinking expelled to the Deportation article? It should be one way or the other. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 18:17, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
As per the above: the act of removing people from a country is the act. If it is done under national law (removal of illegal immigrants, for example), it is called deportation. If it is done under international law (with diplomats), they are expelled. The article at Deportation makes it clear that the same act is called different things, depending on whether it is under national law or international law. - SchroCat (talk) 18:30, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Ok. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 18:56, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

"As at"

According to the grammar sites I have found, "as at" means "at a particular point in time, a snapshot" so it is not correct to use as a "Britishism" replacement of {{As of}}. The template usage mentions nothing of English variants. It is standard across the project. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 09:38, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Nope. "As at" is correct in this use. In future, please try to remember WP:BRD and don't edit war just because you think you're right. - SchroCat (talk) 09:40, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
WP:RS in my support: https://ontariotraining.net/word-choice-as-at-versus-as-of/ @SchroCat: you are welcome to provide RS in your own defense. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 09:40, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
A Canadian style guide? Not good enough - SchroCat (talk) 09:41, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
So Canadians use "as at" differently than the British? I would also invite you to prove that "as of" is not used in British English. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 09:42, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Canadian English is not a specialism of mine: British English is, and I know how to use it correctly. My copy of Fowler's Modern English Usage would tend to support what we have in the article. - SchroCat (talk) 09:44, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Can you quote it? Cambridge says "as of" is international: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/as?q=as+at#dataset-british — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 09:46, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
That's nice for them. "As at" is correct, and does not need to be changed. - SchroCat (talk) 09:47, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
On the contrary, per WP:ENGVAR we must take advantage of commonalities and use them wherever possible. Chambers lists "as of" and omits "as at" entirely: https://chambers.co.uk/search/?query=as&title=21st 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 09:49, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Not when the commonalities are wrong. I'm sorry if this is difficult for non-British speakers to comprehend, but "As at" is entirely correct as we have it. The OED shows "As of" to be US English. - SchroCat (talk) 09:50, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
So you say, but as we say here, [citation needed]. Every single source I have consulted says that the usage of "as at" refers to an instant in time rather than an ongoing situation. Our understood usage of {{As of}} is that the situation is known to persist beginning at the stated time. You have not disproven that definition. You have not disproven usage of "As of" in British English. You haven't done jack except edit-war because you think you are right. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 09:54, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
I've already pointed you to a relevant style guide. - SchroCat (talk) 09:56, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
And you couldn't even bother modifying the template to suit your tastes, which could be done perfectly easily, but you stubbornly defend an inferior version for no good reason except possibly WP:OWN or WP:IDHT. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 09:57, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the insults - much appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 09:58, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

−

My 5c worth. It would be, 'as at' if the remainder of the sentence was '..had been'. As the remainder is, '..has been' then to my mind 'as of' would be correct. I don't consider this an American/British diff, it's about tense. Neils51 (talk) 10:00, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I regret and apologize for my belligerence. Now a bit calmer, I have realized that I actually own a 2009 edition of Fowler, despite assuming the contrary. So I have scoured the "as" entry as well as a Google Books copy, and I cannot find reference to either "as at" or "as of". So: a page number? 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 10:18, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I'd agree with Neils51 point above. Otherwise change the sentence to "No one has ever been convicted of Fletcher's murder." as a shorter and less clunky compromise, until there is some development. 89.206.152.226 (talk) 11:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
I have all four editions of Fowler on my shelves, and will consult them and other style guides when I get home (probably tomorrow). But for now, I can assure the questioner that "as at" is perfectly normal English in England, and "as of" is regarded by some as a rather clunky Americanism. Tim riley talk 12:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Those are valid points, but even if we stipulate them as true, it remains to be proven that the definition of "as at" is compatible with the meaning of "as of" as it is used by Wikipedia in a case such as this. My sources indicate that it is not.
In recognition of the fact that this dispute is larger than one article, I have opened a discussion on Wikipedia talk:As of#"As at" for wider consensus. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 15:17, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Height

Just out of curiosity (although it would fill in a gap), do we know why the Met accepted her into the force when she was (strictly) 1.5" too short? —SerialNumberParanoia/cheap shit room 11:43, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Good question: none of the sources adequately explain why (I suspect she was very good and they made the allowance based on that, but I can't find confirmation. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:22, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Lead sentence

Hi! I've reverted back to my copyedited version of earlier today. The original version had four separate clauses and repetition in "murder" -> "fatally wounded" (of course she was fatally wounded if she'd been murdered). I'd welcome input from other editors here, but the original version is simply not workable. Also please take note of MOS:BOLDAVOID. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:53, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@SchroCat: Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:54, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Please don't continue to edit war.
Your version was utterly sub-standard, as I outlined in my edit summary. To reiterate, "Metropolitan Police officer Yvonne Fletcher" is a very, very poor use of a false title. Fletcher was a WPC, a rank that no longer exists, as male and female are now PCs. – SchroCat (talk) 05:58, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
@SchroCat: I'm completely open to the idea that my formulation isn't the best possible, but yours is lengthy and confusing to read. Can you propose an alternative? For example: "Yvonne Fletcher, a Metropolitan Police officer, was murdered on on 17 April 1984 by an unknown gunman inside the Libyan embassy in London." FWIW I've pinged WP:GOCE and Tony1 for their thoughts as well. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
This version looks ok. Not an easy opening sentence to word so it's digestible. Ed, your proposal could be contrued as meaning she was murdered inside the embssy. Tony (talk) 06:11, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Tony1, sorry but I reverted your recent edit as it broke the referencing (there are sources given as 1999a and 1999b by the same author that you removed). I'll go back and manually do the rest of your edit, which was ok, but the referencing point is an important one. - SchroCat (talk) 06:19, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Tony1: A fair point. I'm still not sold that the sentence isn't needlessly complicated, but will step back to let others get a comment in (should they want). One more alternative could be taken from the TFA text: "Yvonne Fletcher, a Metropolitan Police officer, was fatally wounded on 17 April 1984 by a shot coming from the Libyan embassy on St James's Square in London." Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:22, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Murder_of_Yvonne_Fletcher/Archive_1&oldid=1219397476"