Talk:Yvonne Fletcher

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Yvonne Fletcher article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article is part of a WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's articles related to crime in the United Kingdom. For guidelines see WikiProject British crime and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
A	This article has been rated as A-Class on the quality scale.

Contents 1 Joe Vialls – pros & cons 2 Joe Vialls: crank site? 3 Calm consideration 4 Cranking it up 5 Conspiracy theorist 6 Disputed "Controversy" section 7 How about reducing it?

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)