Talk:Murder of Yvonne Fletcher/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title: Joe Vialls &ndash; pros & cons

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Joe Vialls: crank site?

message: ::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)
replies: text: Calm consideration is what is required. Please take time to reconsider.Phase4 22:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calm consideration 

message: ::::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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Conspiracy theorist 

message: 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)
thread_title:  How about reducing it? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Odd 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  "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)
replies: text: Moved to Murder of Yvonne Fletcher; she was not notable, but her murder was. Jim Michael (talk) 22:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title 

message: 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)
thread_title: Place of death

message: What does the WPC stand for?  The article doesn't say, nor does the WPC link. Nibios (talk) 02:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Woman Police Constable. Will clarify in the article. --TBM10 (talk) 10:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  WPC? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Who shot WPC Fletcher? 

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

message: I cannot believe it, the usual wiki-peons have removed both historical images from this article without doing their damnedest to keep them!!
*An aspie called User:Explicit deleted  claiming it was F6: Non-free media file with no non-free use rationale (TW)).
*Then another self-appointed jobs-worth named User:VernoWhitney deleted page  stating it was F7: Invalid fair-use rationale -- the image is sourced to commercial agency Rex Features and so absent actual evidence of public domain status fails WP:NFCC#2.
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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Image removal 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111024231833/http://abrushwithmadness.co.uk/ to http://abrushwithmadness.co.uk/
*Added  tag to http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/check/media/video/otdvideo/84/04/17/2681_17-04-84?size=4x3&bgc=6699CC&nbram=1&nbram=1&bbram=1&news=1
*Added  tag to http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/check/media/video/otdvideo/84/04/27/7197_27-04-84?size=4x3&bgc=6699CC&nbram=1&nbram=1&bbram=1&news=1
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:54, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: , although we use expelled, it is the same effect as deported, although there is a difference. Have a look at our own article "". We are right to say the they were "expelled" in international law. – SchroCat (talk) 17:36, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 . 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Ok. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 18:56, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Expelled/Deported

message: 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)
thread_title: Height