Miscellaneous desk
< January 16	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 18 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 17

Breaking story of parents charged with abusing large family

I have redacted the names, not the details or links for WP:BLP reasons. This is not the place to discuss article creation in any place, sea WP:TEAHOUSE, WP:HELP, etc. μηδείς (talk) 16:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an article on the [Redacted] family alleged [13-]child abuse? News stories say [redacted] kept their 13 children in conditions which were adverse. The case of alleged abuse and malnutrition gained widespread coverage. See [1], [2] , [3] , [4], [5], [6], [7]. Edison (talk) 05:40, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find any such article. "The parents are charged with torture and child endangerment, and scheduled for a court hearing Thursday."[8] I guess more will be known then. I too have been very curious about this case. Bus stop (talk) 06:28, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't enough information yet to form a solid article. Also, it becomes a BLP issue. What to call the article? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:31, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We now have Turpin case. I have no idea if it's going to survive long term. Nil Einne (talk) 03:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And it starts off on the wrong foot by failing to say "alleged" child abuse. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Alleged" has been added, but case law shows use of that term does not provide immunity to issues of defamation. I piped-linked Nil's GF addition to avoid the name. People who want this roadkillporn can follow the links, we don't need to advertise when it may turn out one or both of the accused is not guilty based on extenuating circumstances. μηδείς (talk) 02:20, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They have since pleaded not guilty, so the verifiable facts are still as lean as the kids in question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:14, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the pipelink. It's ridiculous to worry about simple mention of the article name here when we still have the article. If there are problems with the article, or its existence or its name these should be dealt with rather than worrying about simple mention of the article name on the RD. It's almost as dumb as hatting BLPvios. (If something is a BLP vio it needs to be removed not hatted. If it's not a BLP vio, then it should only be hatted if there's reasons besides BLP to hat it.) Discussion of the case here should be avoided whenever possible and fully comply with WP:BLP if it's absolutely needed but that's different from simply mentioning the article name here. If there are BLP problems with any of the comments here, they should be removed, per my earlier comment. (Note that you shouldn't normally need to worry about defamation, our BLP policy rightfully goes well beyond the legal requirements for defamation in even in liberal democractic but less extreme free speech countries like the UK.) While it will likely stop this specific discussion being found from most internet searches for the name, simply removing the name is not likely to be a good solution considering it's trivial to identify from the URLs, the linked article (even with a pipelink) etc who is being referred to so anyone who does come across it will still know what it is and the much more concerning thing, the article, is still there and likely to be a higher search result for most searches. If and when the article is deleted, or renamed, I won't complain about someone updating or removing the link. Until then, it's like worrying about losing that budget store brand pizza you left in the oven when your house is on fire. Nil Einne (talk) 08:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would add I did check when I was posting the first time whether there were any suitable redirects but none of them seemed to be a better choice even if they didn't mention the name. I looked again and there are still none. I think the simple answer is that the nature of this subject means it's difficult to come up with a name which wouldn't be seen as a problem in some way. And frankly, especially considering how much this was talked about, simply mentioning their surname is hardly a big deal. As I mentioned above, even ignoring the link to the article, it's easy to tell not only the surname but at least one of the given names for both of the parents simply from the URLs. So even if the links are dead in 10 years anyone with a bit of smarts is only going to know who this concerns. The only thing hiding no mentioning the name here via a link to the article does is prevent less smart people from working it out if all links (including our article) die or remove the name; and prevent this discussion from being found via internet searches for the name, but realistically provided commentary here complies with BLP that should not be a problem. Nil Einne (talk) 03:26, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

EMPIRE EXHIBITION JOHANNESBURG

I am trying to attach a picture of a badge that I would like help in identifying. However, I have tried everything and just cannot find a way to attach it. I will do my best to describe it, but if anyone has an email address that I could send it to, it might make it easier.

The badge is a "silver" coloured anchor with a coat of arms in the centre with the words Johannesburg at the top and Empire Exhibition at the bottom on a blue background and there are, what looks like, 3 silver burning candles on a green background, two above a silver stripe and one below.

I found the badge amongst my father's possessions.

As I am making a scrap book of the various things he had collected over the years, is there anyone who could possibly help me identify this badge and it's significance? He was in the Johannesburg Traffic Department before and after WW2, in the motor cycle division. This may mean that they did an escort of some sort to the exhibition at the time and were presented with this badge.

Any help would be much appreciated.

Many thanks

Sandy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandyven (talk • contribs) 11:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The exhibition would almost certainly be the 1936 Empire Exhibition, South Africa which was in Johannesburg. I can't pin down the coat of arms: the anchor suggests either something naval (unlikely given the location of the city) or a symbol of hope - so possibly a local temperance movement? Hopefully, this may put you on a useful track: there may be literature about that exhibition which could help.Wymspen (talk) 12:38, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The old Johannesburg coat of arms featured three (somewhat candle-like) "stamp dollies from a gold ore crushing battery" on a green ground. More information at "Johannesburg 1936: keeping an eye out for souvenir survivals" Alansplodge (talk) 12:16, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More about Johannesburg CoA - http://www.ngw.nl/heraldrywiki/index.php?title=Johannesburg hope this helps. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bombardier CSeries having five-abreast seating (and five-abreast seating in general)

Why did the Bombardier CSeries opt for a five-abreast seating arrangement as opposed to a six-abreast seating arrangement as seen on the Boeing 737 and Airbus A320? Our article doesn't go into detail about that. In addition, why did some other airliners (like the McDonnell Douglas DC-9 and descendants, as well as the Fokker jets) opt for five-abreast? Considering five-abreast isn't symmetrical, among other things. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:02, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Its explained in Narrow-body aircraft (see second chapter of lead in and the model-lists at the end (compare cabin width!)). Because the seats are close to the center of mass, a symmetry of seat distribution is not that important. --Kharon (talk) 02:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]