User talk:Aatomic1/Sandbox

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User talk:Aatomic1/Sandbox

[1]

WP:NOT#memorial[edit]

The official policy of Wiki is WP:NOT#memorial:

Memorials. Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered.

I believe the inclusion of a list breaks neither the spirit nor the letter of this policy.

Letter[edit]

  • Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives.

These people were neither friends or relatives of mine.

  • Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered.

The subject of the article is the Birmingham pub bombings and not The Victims of the Birmingham pub Bombings. Notability guidelines...do not specifically regulate the content of articles

Spirit[edit]

What is my motivation for adding the list.

(1) It is not as a memorial to these people; it is to ensure a thoroughly balanced coverage of the event. In this particular article there were another set of victims namely the Birmingham Six (B6). I have (and wish to continue) to expand B6 and the many forks such as Griess test. However for truly balanced coverage it is right that the names of direct 'other' victims are available to the reader; there were over 180 bomb victims; there were 21 dead. No one is trying to add a list of 201 names. Everyone knows where to draw the line.

(2) BB has provided a list of articles without a list (just shows how useful lists can be). WP:NOT MEMORIAL is not the reason for non inclusion. The reason is that either the information is not available or that no one has cared to add the list. What would be more pertinant is where a list of the dead has been removed, either by consensus or as an application of wiki policy.

(3) BB holds up the below as exemplary ways to handle lists of victims

(4) I would further add that I am quite happy to expand the list into a narrative, as and when, verifiable references become available. I already have some verifiable bomb victim time-line stories. Others such as the storey below have not been verified.

(5) An urban myth I have heard is that, following the bombing a certain Irish man was off work for a while. In the then atmosphere of anti-Irishness his workmates suspected him of being a bomber and, on his return to work he was given a kicking. The real story was that his two sons had been killed in the explosions.

Other Opinions[edit]

To Do List[edit]

[1]

Reason

(relating to law) To void or suppress

Notes to myself[edit]

User talk:Aatomic1/doc User talk:Aatomic1/Sandbox

Victims[edit]

Other articles do not generally have them. See the categories in , and look at which articles could have a list of dead.

2*Warrington bomb attacks - inline list, but...two victims

2*Nahalat Shiva shooting - list, but...two victims. (Orphaned aricle)

3*5 February 1992 Urumqi Bombings - no list

3*Admiral Duncan pub - no list

6*World Trade Center bombing - no list

6*The ICRC hospital of Novye Atagi - list of six, but terribly written article to begin with

7*Matsumoto incident - no list

8 *Greysteel massacre - no list

8*1995 bombings in France - no list

9*25 February 1997 Urumqi Bus Bombings - no list

10*Shankill Road bombing - pointless list of dead, added by Aatomic1[2][3]

12*Sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway - no list

20*Khobar Towers bombing - list of dead, adds nothing

21*Alas Chiricanas Flight 00901 - no list

21*Tel Aviv bus 5 massacre - no list

24*Wandhama massacre - no list

26*Kizlyar-Pervomayskoye hostage crisis - no list

29*1992 Israeli Embassy attack in Buenos Aires - no list

30*Cave of the Patriarchs massacre - no list

33*Brahmaputra Mail train bombing - no list

40*Tarata bombing - no list

45*Jerusalem bus 18 massacres - lists for both attacks, make the article look terrible

45*Acteal massacre - list, adds nothing

46*1998 Coimbatore bombings - no list

51*Marchioness disaster - no list

52*Casualties of the 7 July 2005 London bombings - no list

54*Gonagala massacre - no list

55*Sopore massacre - pointless incomplete list of dead, adds nothing

56*Dehiwala train bombing - no list

62*November 1997 Luxor massacre - no list

85*1994 AMIA bombing - no list

91 *Central Bank bombing - no list

109*Palliyagodella massacre - no list

120*October 1995 Eastern Sri Lanka massacres - no list

140*Budyonnovsk hospital hostage crisis - no list

168*Oklahoma City bombing - no list

223*1998 United States embassy bombings - no lists

257*1993 Bombay bombings - no list

270*Pan Am Flight 103 - brief inline breakdowns

300*Russian apartment bombings - no lists

400*Massacre of police officers in Eastern Sri Lanka in June 1990 - no list

Pan Am Flight 103 and Oklahoma City bombing show the best way to handle lists of victims, an inline breakdown of who they were. A list of names is pointless.

Other[edit]

17*Dunblane massacre

Should details of victims be in our article?[edit]

Aatomic1 Notes

Xoloz [4][edit]

In principle, the addition of sourced material to the article can occur at anytime, subject to consensus on the article talk page[5]

EliminatorJR [6][edit]

I don't see the problem with inserting lists of the dead into the articles. I looked randomly at a few other terrorism-related articles, and found plenty with such lists...- so if we're going to remove lists of people killed in incidents (terrorism-related or whatever), then that has to extend everywhere and would involve the deletion of entire articles (i.e. List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre).[7]

W Frank [8][edit]

  • W. Frank 19:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
This is what the closing admin (Xoloz) said here, on his talk page today: [9]
"...your ability to add new sourced information is a fundamental principle of the wiki... as is other editors' ability to remove that information, if they provide a reason[2] for doing do. What you're describing is an editing dispute over whether the list of victims should be included in the article or not. Neither DRV, nor any of our deletion processes, are particularly relevant to your problem..."  
(aatomic1 added parenthethis)

Bastun [10][edit]

  • Following the DRV conclusion[11], I've added the names, along with two sources. Others may want to contribute other sources. BaStun not BaTsun 15:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Le sigh. That was what, 3 minutes? A question, guys - would ye object to the inclusion of a list of those killed in the Dublin and Monaghan bombings? Or to the inclusion of a list here written in more narrative style a la Bloody Sunday (1972)'s list? Bastun 16:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • So, the story so far... the information cannot be included because of WP:NOT#memorial[12]. That gets overturned. Then it cannot be included because it (in a separate article) was subject to an AfD[13]. That got clarified[14]. Now it cannot be included here (even though referenced) because of no consensus, NOT#memorial (again), NOT#indiscriminate (the only one there that could possibly apply is #5, news reports, but thats a very tenuous case), and NOT#directory (none of them apply). BaStun 18:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The consensus last time I looked was that WP:NOT#memorial did not apply to the inclusion of lists of victims, where appropriate, where their deaths made an event notable and where the list didn't dominate an article. BaStun 19:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Because at the time I thought WP:NOT did indeed apply to such lists and I've since been convinced otherwise. Agree with this being covered by the mediation request. BaStun (not BaTsun) 08:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Padraig [15][edit]

  • The decision was to discuss the issue here first and try and achieve consensus first.--padraig 15:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the ruling given
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Names of Omagh Bomb Victims – Deletion endorsed. The fact is that this list had no sources whatsoever. In principle, the addition of sourced material to the article can occur at anytime, subject to consensus on the article talk page. However, the restoration of this particular source-less draft would be useless, and a disservice to encyclopedic accuracy.
(padraig 15:51, 20 August 2007) (UTC) (Padraig's emphasis added)
  • I don't see what purpose a list of dead in the Dublin and Monaghan bombings article would serve, they were all killed in explosions like in this case.Padraig 16:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • What does a list of names add to this article, nothing. Padraig 22:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Brixton Busters [16][edit]

  • Absolutely. The DRV close[17] says that,
  • consensus is neeeded here first.

The list fails

Brixton Busters 15:49, 20 August 2007 annoted by aatomic1
  • I object to any lists in any articles that are not essential to an understanding of the event...comparison to Bloody Sunday (1972) is a red herring.
Brixton Busters 16:02, 20 August 2007 annoted by attomic1
  • WP:NOT#memorial did not get overturned,
  • Please do not distort events.

Brixton Busters 18:57, 20 August 2007 annoted by aatomic1

  • People at the DRV seemed to think it did, as did the editors (including administrators) at the help desk.
  • NOT#directory applies to lists of dead, as it's a directory entry of dead people.
  • NOT#indiscriminate obviously applies,
  • please read what is says under the heading.

Brixton Busters 19:04, 20 August 2007 annoted by aatomic1

  • Perhaps Bastun would like to explain why he twice removed the list of dead from Bloody Sunday claiming WP:NOT applied ([18] [19]) and then started a discussion saying the list failed the memorial part of WP:NOT ([20])? And I suggest this article is covered in the mediation request, as the same principles are involved. Link Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-08-24 Birmingham pub bombings. Brixton Busters 06:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Domer48 [21][a][22][edit]

  • I’m glad this discussion is being held here, before it begins could we all agree to abide by the page guidelines. Otherwise it will just be a mess, and nothing gets resolved. Domer48 18:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aatomic1 [23][edit]

  • WP:NOT#MEMORIAL, Part 1 : Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. - What relevance does this have to this article? (None to my Knowledge) Aatomic1 22:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this a different point? Yes. Have you answered my question? No Aatomic1 22:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Are these further points Yes. Have you answered my question? No Aatomic1 05:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conypiece [24][edit]

  • If the dead can be included on Bloody Sunday (1972) then they can be included in this article. However I can now already see the WR:IR brigades response... Oh they were killed in disputed circumstances, they were killed by an army, they were innocent etc etc. A list should be included in this article and any of the many sources such as this could be used. Conypiece 00:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thats a good reply Domer, hmmm. Conypiece 00:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Btw if anyone didn't pick it up, the above was sarcasm Conypiece 00:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

BigDunc [25][edit]

(added by BigDunc - noted by aatomic1)

Vintagekits[edit]

[26]

[27]

Aatomic1 Edit summaries[edit]

[28]

I confirm I am happy to try Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-08-24 Birmingham pub bombings. Aatomic1 18:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(User:Dreamafter/Mediation Notes)

Why User:Aatomic1 think including will help the article[edit]

One death is a tragedy; a million is a statistic. (Joseph Stalin) [29]

WP:NNC is quite clearly inclusionist in tone[3]:

Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content [30]

  • Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles, which is governed by other guidelines such as those on using reliable sources and on handling trivia. The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standard of the notability guidelines[31].

Trivia ‘’A selectively populated list with a narrow theme is not necessarily trivia, and can be the best way to present some types of information’’.

Pro's for keeping it[edit]

Cons for Keeping it[edit]

  • The list re-ignites anglo-irish emnities [4]. However several examples of victims harbouring no resentment against the Irish Community[5] - this should be expanded upon.

Con's for deleting it[edit]

Pro's for deleting it[edit]

  • Brixton’s time-line argument [36]. To which I replied [37]. a view suported by User:Gaimhreadhan - Absolutely [38]. But in fact here people did not die in just one place. Eleven, died in the Tavern in the Town.[6] There do exist distressing stories - the two friends that died, while going to the bar saved the life of one's boyfriend (didn't save his leg though). [7] British African-Caribbean community also affected. More stories - too ghoulish to list - satisfy Brixton's criteria.[8] [9]

[39]

Statement by Aatomic1[edit]

[40]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Barry Cunliffe, Robert Bartlett, John Morrill, Asa Briggs, Joanna Bourke (2001). Atlas of British & Irish History. Penguin Books. p. 71. ISBN 0 141 00915 2.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  2. ^ (aatomic1 added parenthesis)
  3. ^ Tiddly Tom
  4. ^ Wilson plea for no acts against Irish; The Times, Saturday, Nov 23, 1974; pg. 2; col C
  5. ^ Mother of Injured Girl - No Retaliation; Solihull News 30 Nov 74
  6. ^ £43 bomb victim award an insult; The Times, Thursday, Nov 27, 1975; pg. 4; col E
  7. ^ Aftermath: Days of sorrow and anger;Solihull News 30 Nov 74
  8. ^ Brothers died in public house blast;The Times, Tuesday, Nov 26, 1974; pg. 3;col A
  9. ^ Duke sees Birmingham victims;The Times, Tuesday, Nov 26, 1974; pg. 1; col B

Memorial[edit]

External links[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aatomic1/Sandbox&oldid=348731405"