Talk:Murder of Brian Bishop

Article style

I don't want to be rude, but this seems to read more like a memorial than an encyclopedic article. I don't think this case has the prominence in history that, for example, the Yvonne Fletcher shooting has, so I am questioning the value of its inclusion. I'm not saying that this article should necessarily be deleted, but in its current form it comprises of mainly unremarkable information. I also have a major problem with this line:

"The aim of the trust is to erect memorials to police officers killed in the line of duty, on the spot where they met their death, thereby acting as a permanent reminder – to the public they serve – of their sacrifice"

This language is too emotive - specifically the last bit. It is inappropriate in the context of a wikipedia article. Will be editing this. 194.202.43.43 16:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

sorry should have signed in first! Beerathon 16:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment.

The whole point about these Police Memorial Trust memorials is that they are not gravestones, but are positioned at the spot where the police officer concerned met his/her death. I am rewording the line that you think is emotive to bring it into line with the text in the Police Memorial Trust article.

The Yvonne Fletcher article is very much sui generis and cannot be compared in terms of notoriety with that of Brian Bishop. The latter's fatal shooting is however notable for coming just four months after Fletcher's, and for being the first trust memorial to have been sited outside London.Phase4 17:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Off the point

This article is about Brian Bishop. The following sentence:

'The trust's objective is to erect memorials to British police officers killed in the line of duty, on the spot where they met their death, thereby acting as a permanent reminder – to the public they served – of the sacrifice they made.'

is about the Police Memorial Trust. It is also, more or less, copied straight from the PMT's page. In the interests clarity and quality, and also to save wikipedia's server space, articles should not lose focus of their subjects, and should not repeat information from other pages. The use of an internal link should suffice in this case.

Further to this, I still believe the language is not well chosen. Words like 'sacrifice' and references to 'serving the public', are emotive and POV.

And finally, it is not a very well constructed sentence. It is clunky, and flows badly. Beerathon 12:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for merger

I concur with the opinion - with all due respect to a man serving the community, the only noteworthy part left is PMT monument. The rest applies to all people bearing the burden of being a police officer. As the PMT article is a small one to I propose this one to be merged in it. -- Goldie (tell me) 14:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm undecided about the current proposal to merge the Brian Bishop article with the PMT article. On the same basis, why not merge the National Police Memorial and Yvonne Fletcher articles with PMT also?Phase4 15:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

No reason for a merger whatsoever. Many murder victims have their own pages. Perfectly good as a standalone article. -- Necrothesp 16:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I've been through Yvonne Fletcher's article before making this proposal but to me it seems like apples to oranges. Her murder is the first policewoman down on duty, got much more publicity, contributed to tensions between two governments, and is even subject to controversy. I cannot understand "many murder victims" part - someone being just murdered does not become automatically notable. Unfortunately too many citizens across the globe are murdered every single day, and the goal of Wikipedia (as far as I understand it) is not to keep information about all of them. Certainly I cannot agree to put all of them under a common denominator. It seems that I am failing to convince you, and you still haven't changed my opinion. -- Goldie (tell me) 18:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

OK Goldie you've made a good point about Yvonne Fletcher. I don't understand what you meant by not agreeing "to put all of them under a common denominator", however. Surely, that's exactly what your merger proposal is designed to achieve. But what about my idea of merging the National Police Memorial into the PMT article, if the merger of Brian Bishop goes ahead?Phase4 19:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

"common denominator" was aimed against "many victims". For me the latter was just a shot in the universe. Everyone's murder is different, and here we see the difference between Yvonne Fletcher and Brian Bishop for example. Some victims are notable, others are less notable, while many unfortunately just fill the statistics. Sorry, I missed your merger suggestion as I haven't read the PMT talk but do agree. There is no problem in putting more than one {{mergefrom}} template in an article. I'll copy my objections against Yvonne Fletcher's merger there. -- Goldie (tell me) 20:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Believe me, a police officer being murdered is big news in Britain. It's a very rare occurence. Most domestic murder victims probably don't deserve their own pages, but murdered police officers certainly do. -- Necrothesp 00:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I truly believe you but I've tried to point out that the only fame for Mr. Bishop comes from the murder alone. Inclusion is a list of murdered policemen/women might be a solution. If it is rare indeed, the list ought to be short. Anyway I would try to reiterate that Wikipedia is not a memorial, and if there is nothing more besides being a public servant and rare murder victim Mr. Bishop cannot fit in my understanding of notability. -- Goldie (tell me) 21:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I fear we must agree to disagree. Wikipedia is not paper. If you remove Bishop then you must surely, for consistency's sake, remove all other murder victims unless they were notable as and of themselves. That's quite a few articles! All Jack the Ripper's victims for a start - they certainly were only notable for being murdered. Are you brave enough to propose that as well? Normally, I would say that murder victims should redirect to the article about the murderer. However, in this case, the victim is better known than the killer, so the article should be kept. -- Necrothesp 23:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Fully agree on both points - obviously we are lacking consensus, and all other murder victims should be evaluated against their real notability. Certainly all Jack the Ripper's victims fail on this subject and their encyclopaedic value is just in the list. I have no time for a crusade against all murder victims articles but would support any similar merger nomination. -- Goldie (tell me) 18:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

No consensus, therefore template removed.Phase4 20:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Omission

Was his murderer caught? Clarityfiend 20:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Brian Bishop's epitaph says his murderer was caught and sentenced. But the murderer is unnamed.Phase4 00:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Murder of Brian Bishop. 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/20060117114132/http://www.essex.police.uk/memorial/roll_bis.htm to http://www.essex.police.uk/memorial/roll_bis.htm

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 14:39, 8 February 2018 (UTC)