This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles
The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.
What do we think are the inclusion criteria for this list? Should the lasting effects of the crime (or a similar criteria) apply to the definition of "major"? Without an objective criteria, all an editor has is their own subjective opinion on what constitutes "major". And, without an explanation in the preamble, all a reader has is their own interpretation of what "major" might mean. (Personally I have difficulty balancing the entry on the 1983 O'Connor's jewellery heist (some jewels taken, no real lasting or "shared memory", find me someone who remembers it) and the 1974 Dublin and Monaghan bombings (everyone's heard of it, umpteen inquiries, still discussed today.) I also have/had concerns with the inclusion of the 1980 Bundoran hotel and 1981 Stardust fires. Not least as there was/is no indication of either involving a crime or a trial or similar. And so I have removed these). Every crime is "major" to someone. Not least the people involved. But what's our criteria? (I note that the inclusion criteria for the similar UK list is stated as being crimes that have "received significant media coverage or led to changes in legislation". Personally I'm sure that "significant media cover" is sufficient. As many crimes receive significant coverage. But it is at least better than nothing....) Guliolopez (talk) 23:06, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bump. It's been almost a year since I opened the above thread and tagged the article to draw attention to the thread. "Crickets" since. Unless there are other thoughts on the above, then I'm going to make an attempt to define an inclusion criteria for this list article. And then to apply it. Otherwise, right now, we've got an indiscriminate list of crimes. Where the only criteria for inclusion is the editor's own subjective opinion on what constitutes "major". Unless there are other thoughts, the criteria should perhaps be the existence of an associated article. Where, at least there should be an article (whether on the crime itself, the perpetrator, the victim, or some other article where the crime is covered). This, at least, would align with WP:CSC. Guliolopez (talk) 18:45, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved Closing this thread. I have added an inclusion criteria to the lead and updated the body to reflect. In short, unless the crime itself demonstrably and verifiably meets the project's related notability criteria (WP:CRIME, WP:EVENT or WP:LASTING), or the criminal(s) involved meets the project's related notability criteria (WP:CRIMINAL or WP:ANYBIO), or the victim(s) meets the project's related notability criteria (WP:VICTIM or WP:ANYBIO), then I do not see how notability can be demonstrated. Put simply, unless the crime involved is covered SOMEWHERE ELSE on Wikipedia, I do not see what the inclusion criteria can possibly be. Other than the adding editor's own personal opinion on what constitutes "notable" or "major". And I do not see how that personal/subjective approach can reasonably align with the expectations of WP:LISTCRIT or WP:CSC. Put more simply, unless someone can advise some other (non-subjective) criteria, the basic criteria here should likely be: "no article = no entry"! Guliolopez (talk) 00:40, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved Closing this thread. I have added an inclusion criteria to the lead and updated the body to reflect. In short, unless the crime itself demonstrably and verifiably meets the project's related notability criteria (WP:CRIME, WP:EVENT or WP:LASTING), or the criminal(s) involved meets the project's related notability criteria (WP:CRIMINAL or WP:ANYBIO), or the victim(s) meets the project's related notability criteria (WP:VICTIM or WP:ANYBIO), then I do not see how notability can be demonstrated. Put simply, unless the crime involved is covered SOMEWHERE ELSE on Wikipedia, I do not see what the inclusion criteria can possibly be. Other than the adding editor's own personal opinion on what constitutes "notable" or "major". And I do not see how that personal/subjective approach can reasonably align with the expectations of WP:LISTCRIT or WP:CSC. Put more simply, unless someone can advise some other (non-subjective) criteria, the basic criteria here should likely be: "no article = no entry"! Guliolopez (talk) 00:40, 25 October 2020 (UTC)