Talk:Murder of Yvonne Fletcher

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleMurder of Yvonne Fletcher is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 17, 2018.
Article milestones
February 17, 2018Featured article candidatePromoted
January 16, 2018Peer reviewReviewed
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on April 17, 2011, April 17, 2014, and April 17, 2023.
Current status: Featured article


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)Reply[reply]

  • 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)Reply[reply]

Lead sentence[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

@SchroCat: Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:54, 17 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
(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)Reply[reply]

"As at"[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
WP:RS in my support: @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)Reply[reply]
A Canadian style guide? Not good enough - SchroCat (talk) 09:41, 17 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
Can you quote it? Cambridge says "as of" is international: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 09:46, 17 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's nice for them. "As at" is correct, and does not need to be changed. - SchroCat (talk) 09:47, 17 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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: 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 09:49, 17 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
I've already pointed you to a relevant style guide. - SchroCat (talk) 09:56, 17 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the insults - much appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 09:58, 17 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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. (talk) 11:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]


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)Reply[reply]

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 [1]. 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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
Ok. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 18:56, 17 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hard to follow location of events (esp. siege)[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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) Reply[reply]
(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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

Title of article[edit]

Despite its title, the last sentence of the intro tells us that no one has been convicted of this crime.

Then it is not a murder ... yet. It is a homicide. I have made this point on a couple of articles about unsolved or unresolved killings here in the US, and I do not know if English law handles this differently (I wouldn't imagine that it does), but here the killing of one person by another or others is not officially a murder until someone charged with that offense is convicted by a trier of fact or pleads guilty (I do not know if "no contest" yields the same result even though the defendant gets punished as if they had pled guilty) in court. Only after a judicial proceeding resulting in those outcomes is the crime considered a murder, as in the convict is established to have acted with sufficiently sound-minded intent and without justification to have caused the death of the decedent.

A few years ago the AP Stylebook was changed to reflect this distinction. I do not know if the British media, at any level, similarly distinguish the two terms; I would hope that some of them do (by which I do not mean, of course, the Daily Mail).

So it just galls me to see the article titled this way. I have tried in the past to argue this point on other articles and met with a lot of resistance. But I have not wavered one bit from the certainty that as long as we title articles about unsolved killings "Murder of ..." because COMMONNAME, we are doing immense violence to BLP, NPOV and OR by essentially convicting unknown (or not) individuals of crimes they have not even been charged with.

I'm not asking for a move here, just for this issue to be considered by others in the case of this particular article. But since this appeared on the Main Page, I feel I need to do more than just grit my teeth. Daniel Case (talk) 20:33, 17 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The reliable sources describe it as a murder, which is the common term in British English. "Homicide", while recognisable in BrEng, has heavy American overtones, and is not a classification of unlawful killing in British law. - SchroCat (talk) 20:39, 17 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Office for National Statistics seems to have no problem with using it. Further down, it defines "homicide" thus:

The term "homicide" covers the offences of murder, manslaughter and infanticide1. Murder and manslaughter are common law offences that have never been defined by statute, although they have been modified by statute.

So if they've "never been defined by statute", how can we say there is any classification of unlawful killing in English law? Further down, the same page says:

a person who has been arrested in respect of an offence initially classified as homicide6 and charged with homicide, including those who were subsequently convicted

The footnote tells us that a homicide "may no longer be recorded as such if all the suspects were acquitted."
The Crown Prosecution Service also seems to have no problem using "homicide" in its guidance pages for prosecutors:

Murder and manslaughter are two of the offences that constitute homicide.

It seems two key British governmental agencies agree on this. Common usage does not, IMO, change the fact that it's prejudicial usage. We could call this article "Killing of Yvonne Fletcher" if people think that "homicide" is too American-sounding.
Again, I'm not saying we need to change it right now, just that the issue should be discussed. Daniel Case (talk) 05:05, 18 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It was discussed at the FAC, if you want to look at there. I'll say again (which is the most important point) that the reliable sources use the word "murder". When charges were brought against someone, it was the charge of "conspiracy to murder". You can do semantic dances if you want, but Fletcher was murdered (the reliable sources and the police say), and we reflect that. You've already said you've pushed this point elsewhere and met with resistance: do you think that maybe it's time to stop flogging dead horses? – SchroCat (talk) 11:32, 18 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, then, if it was discussed at the FAC (and I did read that discussion, which seems to have been short-circuited by the editor who raised the issue since he didn't want it tanking the nomination as he (correctly IMO) thought the article was FA-quality otherwise), I would have preferred to have been referred there first rather than have this discussion.

I do not see it as flogging a dead horse; the AP is right, and eventually Wikipedia will be too. Daniel Case (talk) 05:22, 19 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The AP have an opinion – neither "right" nor "wrong", and many other news organisations (and Wiki editors) obviously don't agree with that stance. – SchroCat (talk) 08:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Response to edit challenge[edit]

Please explain your reversions here: Abductive (reasoning) 09:27, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1. Don't go round making such idiotic accusations when things have been reverted for good reason
2. The article is about Fletcher's murder. Can you explain how the inclusion of her nickname enlightens readers as to her murder? It's not a well-known name, and was only used by her colleagues and not in a wider sense.
3. The earlier reversion was because of two things: unnecessarily changing spacing (there's no need, so don't it) and because you introduced the incorrect co-ordinates. That's sloppy. - SchroCat (talk) 09:32, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open to persuasion that it's relevant but the ibx is a summary of the article which is about the murder. Not sure what the nickname adds to a reader's understanding of the murder. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:36, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, I note that you continue to be abusive. Abductive (reasoning) 09:43, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When you continue to be abusive to me, with unwarranted accusations of ownership, I am not sure you have much of a leg to stand on. Stop with the baseless accusation and you'll see that it is not responded to. - SchroCat (talk) 09:48, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What's the source on the coordinates? The picture in the article seems to point to roughly the same spot as the memorial. Abductive (reasoning) 09:43, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I said in the edit summary, the co-ordinates are where she was shot, not where the memorial now is. - SchroCat (talk) 09:46, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Clearly incorrect. She was shot around the curve, opposite what is now the Coach Health Club. Abductive (reasoning) 09:53, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not according to the sources. - SchroCat (talk) 09:54, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could you provide the source? Or was she moved after getting shot to the position in all the photos? Abductive (reasoning) 09:58, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll have to dig up the sources again, where there was a map with the position shown. It was no-where near the co-ordinates you added, nor does it back your assertion that "The picture in the article seems to point to roughly the same spot as the memorial", which is patently untrue. - SchroCat (talk) 10:45, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, the coordinates I entered of the memorial are not those of the diagram or the site where she fell. But the coordinates previously in the article are also not those of the site; the source you mention is either wrong or misinterpreted. The exact site can be ascertained from the photos; it is on the outside of the curving parking space directly opposite 3 St James’s Square, at 51°30'28.2"N, 0°8'5.9"W. Abductive (reasoning) 18:02, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nope. Trying to guess from a photograph is OR (it depends where the photographer is standing as to what is visible in the background, so it's only your guesswork). Given the map was based on published sources, that trumps your guesswork. Either way, I'm glad you've finally admitted that the coordinates that you added to the article were wrong. The map and co-ordinates are either on or within a metre or so of where she was shot. Again, the published sources trump guesswork. - SchroCat (talk) 18:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Published source(s) that you cannot provide, using a map made by a Wikipedian "following request by SchroCat". The OR argument means the article should display the coordinates of the memorial from OSM, which is what you reverted. The coordinates currently in the article are off by 13 m from the actual site. Abductive (reasoning) 19:07, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You really are trying hard to make a mountain out of a molehill here, aren't you? 1. "Published source(s) that you cannot provide": who says I can't provide them? I have said that I will have to dig the source up again - that's a long way from "cannot provide". 2. Yes, I requested someone with graphics skills do up the map, and it was based on the information from the source. 3. No, no no: the memorial is not where she was shot. Even you have managed to admit this, and this whole brouhaha is widely over-exaggerating what you claim it to be. 4. You are unclear in your meaning here: 13m from what exactly? The memorial is certainly some distance from where she was shot, but I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. - SchroCat (talk) 19:31, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you think it is a molehill, why not look over your source(s) and see if perhaps I am correct? The current coordinates point 13 m away from the actual site she fell. You can see this best in this image. Abductive (reasoning) 19:41, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When I get a chance, I will, but certainly not just because you want instant answers. The photograph doesn't show what you want it to show - it depends where the photographer is standing as to the building behind in the background. That's why we don't go on the guesswork of your OR, but on better sources. Again, your 13m claim is based on nothing related to reality, just pointless guesswork. - SchroCat (talk) 19:51, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll bet that your source either points at or very close to 51°30'28.2"N, 0°8'5.9"W, or doesn't point anywhere. As for "pointless guesswork", that can be dispensed with if you were to accept the memorial as close enough. Abductive (reasoning) 05:14, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article isn't about the memorial, it's about her murder. - SchroCat (talk) 05:48, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Found it: The Times, 18 April 1984; pg. 2 - SchroCat (talk) 07:58, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]