Talk:Murder of Yvonne Fletcher

Title of article

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Response to edit challenge

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

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)

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)

Okay, I note that you continue to be abusive. Abductive (reasoning) 09:43, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Clearly incorrect. She was shot around the curve, opposite what is now the Coach Health Club. Abductive (reasoning) 09:53, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Not according to the sources. - SchroCat (talk) 09:54, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The article isn't about the memorial, it's about her murder. - SchroCat (talk) 05:48, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Found it: The Times, 18 April 1984; pg. 2 - SchroCat (talk) 07:58, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Saleh Ibrahim Mabrouck - and timelines

This Telegraph article includes some significant detail that might be useful in the article.

The timeline seems confused, because information is often first mentioned at the point in the narrative that it was discovered, rather than when it occurred. Might be worth some thought.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough 11:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC).