Talk:Croydon Aerodrome robbery

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject British crime, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.British crimeWikipedia:WikiProject British crimeTemplate:WikiProject British crimeBritish crime articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

A fact from Croydon Aerodrome robbery appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 9 May 2019 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that only one of the gang that carried out the Croydon Aerodrome gold bullion robbery in 1935 was convicted, and the gold was never found?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2019/May. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Croydon Aerodrome robbery.

Wikipedia

Why so much gold?[edit]

The article describes remarkable shipments of gold: "KLM gold rush", "twelve special machines [meaning what, airplanes?], fully loaded with bullion", "as much bullion as a brisk passenger traffic would allow", "In one week . . . gold worth three-quarters of a million pounds". Why was so much gold being moved around? This should be explained. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 13:39, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are 2 questions here...

Generally, why was gold being transferred?
Why through Croydon?

I can't answer the first one, but insurance was cheaper by flight. It was deemed less likely to be robbed up in the air than on longer ship journey's and hence it became preferable to transfer gold by air, with Croydon being a large base for Imperial Airways and other airlines. FYI, there are at least 2 strong rooms at the airport, both quite large.Whispyhistory (talk) 19:00, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 9 May 2019[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved - consensus is that "robbery" remains the best title for this. — Amakuru (talk) 22:23, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Croydon Aerodrome robbery → Croydon Aerodrome theft – This was not a robbery (in a legal or otherwise sense) because no force was used against any person; it is properly characterized as a theft or, more specifically, burglary. None of the linked sources (except one) refers to it as a "robbery," so it's not a situation where the event is commonly known, even if incorrectly, as a "robbery." If "theft" is inelegant, I am open to other alternatives. (One of the articles refers to it as a "heist," which is not a legal term, of course, but "robbery" has a specific meaning that this event simply doesn't fit.) I considered just moving the article myself, but I thought a discussion may be helpful in case (contrary to my understanding) the event itself is commonly known as the "Croydon Aerodrome robbery" and to determine whether "theft" is the best word to refer to it. Nlu (talk) 15:40, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not "heist" anyway as it is a UK article. Philafrenzy (talk) 15:44, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would refrain from using theft as WP:NAMINGCRITERIA states that Naturalness is important, and as it may not be correct strictly speaking, most people will not know the difference. That being said, heist may work as it is also common vernacular (at least where I am from) used in this context AquilaFasciata (talk) 17:01, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Heist" sounds very wrong to my (British) ears. DuncanHill (talk) 17:06, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retain Croydon Aerodrome robbery. "Croydon Aerodrome theft" leads my mind to wonder who stole Croydon Aerodrome - and how did they do it? "Robbery" may need force to be classed as such in a legal sense, but in general English usage it doesn't. The OED defines it as "The action or practice of unlawfully taking property belonging to another, esp. by force or the threat of force". In other words, while it may be best used when there is force, it does not need force to be termed "robbery". (The OED describes "heist" as an American slang term, so that is best avoided). - SchroCat (talk) 18:30, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See Henry Hill regarding the Air France Robbery and the Lufthansa Heist - familiar to fans of Goodfellas. My gut says "heist" - but the very-British Great Train Robbery tilts the scales for keeping this a "robbery." BadMonkeyBad (talk) 19:24, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with SchroCat...makes sense and the newspapers reported it as a "robbery", although one could argue it is a burglary. Whispyhistory (talk) 19:28, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose renaming Croydon Aerodrome robbery article "Croydon Aerodrome theft" per SchroCat. The common usage of the word "robbery" to refer to this incident suggests that "robbery" is probably the best term to use in the article title if the choice is between "heist", "theft" and "robbery". As Whispyhistory and Nlu have pointed out, this event could be described as a burglary, so if the page really needs to be renamed at some point in the future perhaps it could be renamed to "Croydon Aerodrome burglary". Note however that at the time I am writing this comment, (oldid) the article does not contain the word "burglary", "burgle", "burglar" or related words beginning "burg-". —Ntmamgtw (talk) 18:42, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.