Talk:Omagh bombing/Archives/2007/8

List of names

The article on the list of names of the Omagh bombing casualties has been moved to a subpage of this article - Omagh Bombing/names - following an AFD. Proto///type 12:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Since moved to Talk:Omagh Bombing/names.--Chaser - T 11:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed the link to the list of names from this article on the basis of the consensus at the AFD, which was to exclude the content from mainspace. If someone wants to link to it, a consensus needs to be established to override the consensus at the AFD, which was to remove the material from mainspace.--Chaser - T 16:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Looking at that AFD, I'm wondering how the decision to delete was arrived at. Two deletes, one saying "not sure if this shouldn't be in the main article", the other delete agreeing; three keeps; and two merges. The result should surely have been 'no consensus' or 'merge'?

The list of victims is now a subpage of a Talk page, which is permitted. There is no policy against linking to a talk (sub)page that I'm aware of, though I'm open to correction on that. Regards, Bastun 16:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find a policy explicitly stating linking to non-article namespaces, but I'd say that if information is relevant enough to be linked to, it should be in its own article - which in its current state the list of names was deemed not to be article material. In my opinion the link should be removed. QmunkE 19:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The most specific policy covering this is a section of WP:NOT, at WP:NOT#MEMORIAL, which says that people have to be notable to be mentioned.--Chaser - T 20:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, and this is probably why the original article was deleted, however we were trying to ascertain whether there is a policy for cross-namespace linking. QmunkE 20:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Those links are not clearly prohibited by any policy, but since links are to other articles (except rare self-references) doesn't it stand to reason that there shouldn't be a link to the talk namespace for content that is prohibited by policy from being in the article namespace?--Chaser - T 20:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

That section of notable states: # Memorials. Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered. I would contend that while many of the victims may not have been notable in life, the manner of their death made them notable - they were the subject of much media attention both in the immediate aftermath and following on from that in newspapers and other media, and would therefore easily satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria. Bastun 21:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Except for two things: there is no longer a section of WP:BIO that says people are notable based on the circumstances of their deaths; and the depth of the media coverage is really about the bombing, not the people who were killed.-- Chaser - T 11:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:BIO is a guideline, not a policy, though. And a Google search [1] for victims of the Omagh bombing returns almost 96000 results. Bastun 16:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

That something is a guideline means it recommends an action. It doesn't mean you can ignore it if you disagree with it. See this. Besides that, you haven't indicated what in those 96000 google results makes any of these people notable.--Chaser - T 20:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

After a lot of argument about this, I'm removing the link. The prior consensus (consensus is more than a vote) was to delete the material, and in this talk section it's been 2-1 to remove the link, with no real change in the arguments that generated the first consensus.--Chaser - T 09:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Surely discussion, not argument? If you read that AFD, you will see that the consensus (not vote) was clearly not to delete - it was to merge into the main article, with improvements. While I am tempted to bring it to WP:DRV, the simpler solution for the moment seems to be to externally link to CAIN's list. It's kinda hard to prove notability for 20-month-old babies, children and young adults. Bastun 10:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, discussion if you prefer. A DRV might bring more comment on the closure. An external link strikes me as an end-run.--Chaser - T 10:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC) My mistake. I was confused about what external link you meant.-- Chaser - T 11:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Omagh Bombing/names has now been deleted. I have therefore added the names to ensure truly encyclopedic coverage of the article Aatomic1 15:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You can't insert content that has been deleted by process. You need to go to DRV. Brixton Busters 06:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Also it says above it has been moved not deleted. Talk:Omagh Bombing/names is the new location, and it cannot go back in the article. Brixton Busters 06:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Not correct. Deleted articles can't be recreated as articles - this is not the case here. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 09:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is correct. "If someone wants to link to it, a consensus needs to be established to override the consensus at the AFD, which was to remove the material from mainspace" (emphasis added). The result was not merge to this article, it was delete. You yourself said above "While I am tempted to bring it to WP:DRV", so you clearly know what the correct procedure is. If any further attempts to breach policy are made by re-adding material deleted via process, I will bring this matter up elsewhere. Brixton Busters 09:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Look what else you said. Brixton Busters 09:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

BB is right on this if the decision was to delete the list rather then merge its contents here, then the list cannot be recreated here, also this list serves no purpose, as the dead and the numbers are mentioned in the article.--padraig 11:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Not allowing someone to change their views is pretty self defeating would you not say? Aatomic1 21:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm not infallible, nor intransigent, and reserve the right to make mistakes, change my mind and be persuaded by other people's arguments. ;-) Regards, Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 11:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

What was his argument? That the subpage had been deleted, when it hadn't. You're clearly easily persuaded..... Brixton Busters 16:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Names of Omagh Bomb Victims. It seems to me that the above was deleted on the ground that the names should be included in the main article. Aatomic1 06:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

No, if that was the case it would have been closed as "merge", it was closed as "delete". Brixton Busters 08:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It was deleted, on WP:NOT grounds - however, it seems that may have been misinterpreted - see ongoing discussion here. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 11:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

A list of those that died adds nothing to the article imo, its purely a memorial list.--Vintagekits 12:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion here, [2] and a previous discussion here,[3]. Please feel free to participate and please do not engage in edit warring, it is only disruptive and discouraging. --Domer48 15:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

And coincidentally, your comment appears a minute after BB removed the names again... *sigh* Note that the closing admin in the AfD stated "The result of the debate was Delete - no prejudice against recreation at a later date in a more encyclopaedic form." Note also that the actual !vote was 2 deletes, 2 merges and 3 keeps. Given that, the argument above that "deleted material cannot be incorporated here" (paraphrasing) is obviously incorrect. So - are people going to be reasonable, especially given the ongoing discussion on such short lists inclusion in relevant articles? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 15:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

No. I refer you to the comments from the admin above "..the consensus at the AFD, which was to remove the material from mainspace". A link to the deleted article is above, and it is more in depth than the list of names that were just added, so it is clearly less encyclopedic than the original content that was removed from mainspace. So your argument that it has been recreated in "a more encyclopaedic form" holds no water. Counting heads is of no relevance (especially as you can't even count properly), Wikipedia is not a democracy and the consensus was to delete the content, not merge. Brixton Busters 15:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Bastun, lets not get ahead of ourselves. The afD said it was against WP:NOT, that policy is still in place but under dicussion, not not waste time and engry discussing it here until it is sorted out over there. regards--Vintagekits 15:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

According to the administrator who closed the deletion debate the names do not go in the article. Aatomic1 is aware of this, as he replied to that message see here. Please stop. Brixton Busters 16:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Please also note that the closing admin said; "I have no prejudice against recreation at a later date in a more encyclopaedic form" - Alison ☺ 18:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I am aware of that, but having seen the original article I do not believe the list of names being added is any more encyclopedic. The original article is currently at DRV, so it would be best to wait for the outcome of that possibly? Brixton Busters 18:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Then cite your reverts as being just your personal feeling rather than making gestures to some old AfD, where your rationale no longer applies - Alison ☺ 18:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, but Neil (the administrator who closed the Afd) has commented in the last two days that the names do not go in the article. Would it be best to wait for the ouctome of the DRV discussion? Brixton Busters 18:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

If there's a DRV open, then yes, I'd wait. Got a link? - Alison ☺ 19:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

First, a closing admin can not dictate whether something must or must not go into an article. Admins don't resolve content disputes. Next, a simple compromise would be to provide an external link to a verifiable, reliable list of those killed. Rklawton 19:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

To what Neil said? It is in my post above at 16:48. There already is an external link to a list of those killed, complete with brief biographies and photos. Brixton Busters 19:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 August 15. I have asked for the Omagh List AfD to be looked at again Aatomic1 13:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Warnings

This section contradicts itself, tagged as such. Brixton Busters 11:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

There are contractory views on what happened with the warnings. I don't think the current article reflects this fully. --Dumbo1 12:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Should details of victims be in our article?

Editors may wish to comment here  W. Frank talk ✉  19:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Following the DRV conclusion, I've added the names, along with two sources. Others may want to contribute other sources. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 15:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The decision was to discuss the issue here first and try and achieve consensus first.--padraig 15:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. The DRV close says that, consensus is neeeded here first. The list fails WP:NOT#MEMORIAL, WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. Brixton Busters 15:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

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^{BaStun not BaTsun} 16:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I object to any lists in any articles that are not essential to an understanding of the event, and for that reason the comparison to Bloody Sunday (1972) is a red herring. Brixton Busters 16:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

So, the story so far... the information cannot be included because of WP:NOT#memorial. That gets overturned. Then it cannot be included because it (in a separate article) was subject to an AfD. That got clarified. 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^{BaStun not BaTsun} 18:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT#memorial did not get overturned, please do not distort events. Brixton Busters 18:57, 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^{BaStun not BaTsun} 19:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

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 (UTC)

This is what the closing admin said today here, on his talk page: "...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 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..."  W. Frank talk ✉  19:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

What does a list of names add to this article, nothing.--padraig 22:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Is this a different point? Yes. Have you answered my question? No Aatomic1 22:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOT#MEMORIAL, WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, and tell me how this list fits in with you opinion. --Domer48 23:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment Are these further points Yes. Have you answered my question? No Aatomic1 05:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

A redherring, using Bloody Sunday (1972). --Domer48 08:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

Perhaps Bastun would like to explain why he twice removed the list of dead from Bloody Sunday claiming WP:NOT applied ([4] [5]) and then started a discussion saying the list failed the memorial part of WP:NOT ([6])? 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)

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^{BaStun not BaTsun} 08:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It is the measure of your intellectual maturity and neutral stance, Bastun, that you weigh the arguments carefully and change your opinions as referenced facts and novel nuances are introduced. Oh that your fanatical antagonists were as well balanced. (And please note, T, that I have not labelled any of your "fanatical antagonists" as well balanced - although, no doubt, some will now self-identify).84.13.10.123 13:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Lots of arguement, not a lot of agreement. If the dead are listed in the Bloody Sunday article, why are the dead not listed here. We should agree on whether to include such lists, and if the list of dead will not appear here, we should check all other articles and remove lists from them, if appropriate. And that INCLUDES the Bloody Sunday article. If you want to keep the list off this article, and want to keep the list in the Bloody Sunday article, you should state why. --81.132.246.132 17:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)