Talk:Deal barracks bombing: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 19:08, 1 May 2007

Latest revision as of 14:39, 5 November 2024

(41 intermediate revisions by 26 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{Talk header}}

{{WP:Kent|class=start|importance=low}}

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|1=

{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|terrorism=yes|terrorism-imp=Low|importance=Low|serialkiller=yes|serialkiller-imp=Low<!--includes mass killings-->}}

{{WP:IR|class=startWikiProject Death|importance=lowLow}}

{{WikiProject Explosives |importance=Low}}

{{WikiProject Ireland |importance=Low }}

{{WP:WikiProject Kent|class=start |importance=lowMid}}

{{WikiProject Military history |class=C |British=yes |B-Class-1=Yes<!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-2=No<!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-3=Yes<!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-4=Yes<!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-5=Yes<!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->}}

{{WikiProject United Kingdom|importance=Mid}}

{{WikiProject Irish republicanism|importance=Low}}

}}

{{Troubles restriction}}

<div class="center">There is [[Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Extremist, terrorist and freedom fighter|a clear guideline]] on Wikipedia about the use of the word '''Terrorism'''. Please read it before editing.</div>

{{Annual readership}}

{{WP:IR|class=start|importance=low}}

{{Archive box|

*[[/Archive 1|Archive 1]] (Apr 2007 -

}}

==Location==

==List of fatalities ...==

I think I've added the coordinates (via the {{tl|coord}} tag at the bottom of the article) to the right place - it certainly looks like some kind of garden next to a lone wall, just north of Canada Road. Could someone just check that it's in the right place? And if possible refine it, I understand that the garden isn't quite where the bomb went off. [[Special:Contributions/86.27.171.145|86.27.171.145]] ([[User talk:86.27.171.145|talk]]) 09:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

...is just that. There are no eulogies nor honouring of the dead so why is this section being reverted under [[WP:NOT#MEMORIAL]] which is part of a section called '''Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information'''. By no stretch of the imagination could this factual list of murdered soldiers be classed as ''an indiscriminate collection of information'' --[[User:Billreid|Bill Reid]] | [[User talk:Billreid|Talk]] 13:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

:Murdered eh!! If they didnt want to be killed they shouldnt havent joined a force that occupies Ireland (and other countries - legitimate targets imo!)--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 13:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

::The list adds nothing to the article, it's just trivia. For more detailed reasoning, [[User talk:Jackyd101#Lists of dead|see here]]. The list of dead were removed from [[Omagh bombing]] by comminity consensus, therefore there is no legitimate reason why an identical list should remain in this article. <font face="Verdana">[[User:One Night In Hackney|<span style="color:#009">One Night In Hackney</span>]]_{''[[User talk:One Night In Hackney|303]]''}</font> 13:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

:::What is trivial - the list itself, or the terrorist killing of a group of military musicians? The Afd vote was closed with a perverse decision to delete when the vote went as follows: 3 keep, 1 keep if..., 2 merge and only 2 for delete. There is a case for the Afd to be re-considered if ever there was one. Vintagekits, the cowardly murdering of musicians who, when not entertaining civilians train as medics, can never be justified. As for occupying forces, tell that face to face with the Irishmen who serve in the UK forces; I suspect you wouldn't have the guts. --[[User:Billreid|Bill Reid]] | [[User talk:Billreid|Talk]] 08:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

::::If you're not going to maintain a neutral point of view or be civil, further discussion seems fruitless. <font face="Verdana">[[User:One Night In Hackney|<span style="color:#009">One Night In Hackney</span>]]_{''[[User talk:One Night In Hackney|303]]''}</font> 09:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

==Not musicians==

This issue is being discussed between me and Mr. One Night in Hackney on our respective talk pages. Please feel free to participate but lets try to do it in a civil manner. Bill, you seem to be a relative newcomer to articles on The Troubles, please be aware that this section of Wikipedia is subject to extensive and heated debate, so try to keep your arguments focused on WP rules, especially civil and NPOV. I appreciate the points you are making, but you need to moderate your language. Vintagekits, you know better than to behave like that, that is exactly the kind of POV nonsense which discredits your edits and those of your fellow contributors.--[[User:Jackyd101|Jackyd101]] 14:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

John Bowyer Bell's "The Irish Troubles" says on page 781 "The one big incident in 1989 was the bomb in Deal Barracks in Kent that killed soldiers", even if the British media labeled them teenage bandsmen". It is inappropriate to try and impose the point-of-view that the British media sought to impose, so I have reverted the change. [[User:O Fenian|O Fenian]] ([[User talk:O Fenian|talk]]) 18:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

== Incorrect Cat ==

:We can continue the discussion here, people can easily see what's been said to date on our respective talk pages. I'll reply to your last message later on. <font face="Verdana">[[User:One Night In Hackney|<span style="color:#009">One Night In Hackney</span>]]_{''[[User talk:One Night In Hackney|303]]''}</font> 14:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The [http://music.leeds.ac.uk/ University of Leeds] has a School of Music, as does [http://www.liv.ac.uk/music/ Liverpool], [http://www.bangor.ac.uk/music/ Bangor], [http://www.uea.ac.uk/mus/ East Anglia], [http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/music/ Cardiff] and so on. But an attack on them is an attack on a university, not a school. It's not called the Deal School Bombing, it's called the Deal Barracks Bombing. It's totally misleading to include it in a category like the one disruptively and repeatedly added, especially as it's a sub-category of [[:Category:Crimes against children]] which doesn't apply. [[User:Mo ainm|<span style="color:#B22222;font-family:serif;text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">'''''Mo ainm'''''</span>]][[User talk:Mo ainm|<span style="color:black;font-family:cursive;font-size:80%">~Talk</span>]] 17:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

:Sounds like a good idea.--[[User:Jackyd101|Jackyd101]] 16:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

:See [[school]]. A university is a school – just one that's commonly called something more specific – and in the absence of a "university bombings" category, an attack on, say, the University of Leeds would also be a school bombing. It's not called the Deal School Bombing as it wasn't an attack on something called Deal School, it was an attack on a school at Deal Barracks. <span style="color:#004225;">—</span> [[User:Jon C.|<span style="color:#004225;">Jon C.</span>]][[User_talk:Jon C.|^{<b><span style="color:#F28500;">ॐ</span></b>}]] 15:23, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

== External links modified ==

::In my opinion the list of dead is indiscriminate information, as it is not really encyclopedic and can easily be handled with an external link. The whole point of [[WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE]] is that we don't want every single available factoid inserting into articles. Please note that with the folliwing examples I'm not directly comparing the list of dead to any other information, just trying to show how how articles need to be kept in check. On articles about films we don't include the name of every crew member who worked on the film, despite it being factual, or even a list of every actor that appears in it. On the [[Battle of Goose Green]] we don't have a list of all the British dead, despite that being factual. On articles about bands we don't have a big list of every concert they have ever done, despite it being factual. Inclusion must be based on encyclopedic value, and I really don't see any in a list of names of (I'm sorry to say) non-notable people, it's just fluff. <font face="Verdana">[[User:One Night In Hackney|<span style="color:#009">One Night In Hackney</span>]]_{''[[User talk:One Night In Hackney|303]]''}</font> 22:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

:::Sorry for the delay, I'm very busy in the real world at the moment, so I won't be around to reply for a few days. My argument on this issue is that I believe the list to be relevant and useful information to any person researching the incident as it includes basic factual details about the persons killed by the explosion such as their name, age and rank. It is also worth noting (as stated [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_victims_of_the_Virginia_Tech_massacre|here]) that a group of people killed in an incident like this may be notable as a group when they are not individually so. The names listed here are a notable and important part of the information about the event contained within the article and thus I believe they should remain, i.e. they are not fluff.

I have just modified one external link on [[Deal barracks bombing]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=799351197 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:

:::I also want to repeat my previous assestion that there is no real difference between this list of names and the one at [[Bloody Sunday (1972)]]. Why should that remain and this go? ONiH stated that "the background of the people is important to establish exactly who the Paras shot", but why should that be true in that instance and not in this - the list here helps establish exactly what kind of military personnel was caught up in the blast; bandsmen (medics), generally in their middle twenties to early thirties. That the list is fluff is (at the moment) simply the opinion of one (maybe two) users, and think that an "opinion" is simply not enough grounds to warrant removing an important piece of the article. Ideally, a clear WP guideline should be laid down governing this problem, as it crops up in quite a number of places on WP.--[[User:Jackyd101|Jackyd101]] 22:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070327211307/http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.2692 to http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.2692

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

::::I am entirely persuaded by this argument. - [[User:Kittybrewster|Kittybrewster ]]<small>[[User_talk:Kittybrewster| (talk)]]</small> 02:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

:::::There's a rather substantial difference between this list and the one at Bloody Sunday. Let's just take the one at Bloody Sunday with the least amount of information shall we?

:::::*John Pius Young (17). Shot in the head while standing at the rubble barricade. Two witnesses stated Young was unarmed.

:::::Now, let's pick a name at random from this list shall we?

:::::*Musician Michael F. Ball (24)

:::::Spot the difference? The information at Bloody Sunday is '''essential''' to the article, is this information essential? You are quite right in saying we need to establish what kind of military personnel were caught up in the blast, which is why the article already states:

:::::*Many British people were shocked at the attack carried on a ceremonial military band whose only military training was geared towards saving lives. The public were also shocked by the ages of those killed, as many were new recruits to the School and the majority of those injured (although none of the dead) were in their teens.

:::::So seemingly everything is already in the article, without the addition of a memorial. <font face="Verdana">[[User:One Night In Hackney|<span style="color:#009">One Night In Hackney</span>]]_{''[[User talk:One Night In Hackney|303]]''}</font> 14:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 04:43, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

(reduce indent) OK, firstly, the list of names is NOT a memorial, in order to be a memorial in the sense you are using it the list would have to express regret for the deaths. When I wrote it, I deliberately removed anything which might be considered sentimental from the information in the list.

Secondly, whilst I understand your argument, I disagree with it on two quite important points. 1) Your claim that the list of names at the Bloody Sunday article is '''essential''' is simply not true. It is not absolutely necessary to an understanding of the events to know exactly when, where and how many times each person was shot, neither is it necessary for everybody to have witness statements that they were unarmed, the main text already descibes the debate about whether the dead were armed or not. I also notice that a large proportion of the list's claims are unsourced. Under your own terms, the information in that list is no less "fluff" than in the one here, there's just more "fluff" in that list than this one.

2) Nowhere in any Wikipedia rule or guideline is there a statement that only '''essential''' information can be included in an article. Wikipedia content should be relevant (yes), verifiable (yes), informative (yes) and conform to style guides (under debate, my opinion, yes). Nowhere does it say that content must be '''essential''' to the understanding of an article. If I'm wrong on this then please point me to where its says that only essential information is permitted, because I have never heard of this guideline before. Yes, the article could survive without the list but why should it have to? Bloody Sunday could also survive without its list, but that doesn't mean it should be removed. Again, if it is simply the list format you are complaining about then the information could be presented on the page in other ways. The list at Omagh which you mentioned earlier was removed after a swift and poorly attended Afd which has since been challenged. Part of the reason it was removed was because it was on a poorly formatted page after being removed from the main article due to size constraints, clearly something which is not a problem here.

In summary, no, the list is not '''essential''' to the article. It is however relevant, useful, informative, sourced and significant. It is not a memorial, it doesn't dominate the article and it provides some additional insight into the events of the day. I am not directly advocating the removal of the list at Bloody Sunday, but if this list doesn't qualify then neither does that one.--[[User:Jackyd101|Jackyd101]] 14:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

:I've already stated exactly which policy says the information shouldn't be included - [[WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE]]. <font face="Verdana">[[User:One Night In Hackney|<span style="color:#009">One Night In Hackney</span>]]_{''[[User talk:One Night In Hackney|303]]''}</font> 15:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

::Yes you have said that, and I've pointed out that it doesn't apply. This information is not a memorial and neither is it indescriminate. It is a list of the names, ranks and ages of the men killed in this incident. I asked which guideline said that it was only '''essential''' information which could be entered into the article. Non-essential and indescriminate are not the same thing.--[[User:Jackyd101|Jackyd101]] 15:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

:::[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A1989_Deal_barracks_bombing&diff=125959581&oldid=125879592 Please read what I've said already]. <font face="Verdana">[[User:One Night In Hackney|<span style="color:#009">One Night In Hackney</span>]]_{''[[User talk:One Night In Hackney|303]]''}</font> 15:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

::::I've both read and answered that: Your opinion that the list is fluff is not grounds for removal, what is contained in articles on completely seperate topics is irrelevant to this one (as are the comparisons you made), also [[WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE]] does not apply here. You're right that this is going round in circles though, what we need is independant arbitration. Any suggestions as to who?--[[User:Jackyd101|Jackyd101]] 15:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

:::::No, you didn't answer it at all. After I totally debunked your claim about Bloody Sunday, you retreated back to the list being factual, informative and verifiable. I can add information that is factual, informative and verifiable to countless articles about countless subjects, but [[WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE]] exists precisely to stop that happening. I've already linked you to a relevant discussion over at the help desk where the consensus was quite clear, such lists do not belong. The consensus is also quite clear from the Omagh bombing article, such lists do not belong. Policy and consensus say the list does not belong, please respect that this irrelevant fluff should not be in the article. <font face="Verdana">[[User:One Night In Hackney|<span style="color:#009">One Night In Hackney</span>]]_{''[[User talk:One Night In Hackney|303]]''}</font> 15:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Did you even read this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A1989_Deal_barracks_bombing&diff=126863101&oldid=126630888]? I demonstrated there that your "debunking" of my claims about Bloody Sunday is nothing of the kind as its based on some "policy" about '''essential''' information which doesn't appear to actually exist. I didn't retreat anywhere because my position has always been that the information is factual, informative and verifiable and ''your'' belief that it is "irrelevant fluff" ''is nothing more than your opinion''. Wikipedia is not based on opinions but on policy and you have not addressed my questions as to exactly which piece of policy the list violates - please show me the exact wording, just asserting [[WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE]] and "policy" is not enough.

<s>You have also not linked me to any such discussion at the help desk, please do so.</s> (Apologies, have now found the discussion). And as I previously mentioned, this Afd [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Names_of_Omagh_Bomb_Victims] was closed early and against consesus. The closing admin even stated "Delete - no prejudice against recreation at a later date in a more encyclopaedic form". It wasn't the names that were the problem it was the layout and formatting as well as high-levels of irrelevant personal detail.--[[User:Jackyd101|Jackyd101]] 16:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

PS, The discussion you mentioned ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2007_April_10#Is_it_WP_policy_to_remove_the_names_of_dead_victims_of_IRA_killings_from_WP_articles.3F]), as I said before, was inconclusive. It makes the case for both sides quite clearly without reaching consensus.--[[User:Jackyd101|Jackyd101]] 16:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I hesitate to dip my big toe back into this discussion but I will anyway. ONiH continues to base most of his arguments on [[WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE]] and its sub-heading [[WP:NOT#MEMORIAL]] which I pointed out right at the top of this section that, on reading the article, it simply did not apply. A rather discourteous edit in his reply and also in the edit summary that the list was "trivia". He did not reply to my request for an explanation on the use of this word but chose to disengage from the discussion basing this on my perhaps unnecessary repost aimed at [[User:Vintagekits]]. The list in this article was just that - a list with no embellishment; the section at [[Bloody Sunday (1972)]] however tends to be a memorial. I believe no-one disputes that the events of Bloody Sunday should never have taken place but equally nor should the bombing of Deal Barracks which lead to the deaths of bandsmen/medics. The justification for the retention of one list but the removal of another when innocent victims died in both events is quite frankly verging on the ridiculous. Either both articles have the list or none of them. This IMO can only be resolved using [[WP:RFM]] --[[User:Billreid|Bill Reid]] | [[User talk:Billreid|Talk]] 18:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

:Um, no. I've provided examples of exactly what indiscriminate information is. Simply because it doesn't fall under one of the ''examples'' provided at [[WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE]] does not mean it isn't indiscriminate. The key part is in the heading - ''That something is 100% true does not automatically mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia''. Please see [[Talk:List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre#Compiling lists of survivors.2Fwounded|here]] for a similar discussion. I would welcome mediation but policy and precedent are clearly on my side, and it would be a waste of time that could be spent far more productively, when all that is required is the addition of an external link to the article. As I've already stated the list at Bloody Sunday is far, far different to the list of names that has been removed from this article, so any attempt to directly compare them is incorrect and clutching at straws in my opinion. <font face="Verdana">[[User:One Night In Hackney|<span style="color:#009">One Night In Hackney</span>]]_{''[[User talk:One Night In Hackney|303]]''}</font> 18:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

::Your answer is exactly why mediation is needed. Clearly we are not going to reach consensus arguing back and forth like this as everything you have mentioned above is ''in your opinion''. The link you have provided, like all the other links this debate has thrown up, does not reach a consensus and is in fact heading for arbitration itself. The list there included far more irrelevant details than the short one here does and also had problems with OR. I'm also afraid that whilst policy and precedent ''may'' be on your side, the truth of that is far from clear and obviously needs to be independantly verified beacause you repeatedly giving your own interpretation of what is meant by [[WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE]] is getting us nowhere. I'm sorry but I see very little difference in the ''relevance'' (which is the key word of my argument) of this list to the article and the relevance of the list at Bloody Sunday.--[[User:Jackyd101|Jackyd101]] 19:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

:::The last point is very persuasive. This information is relevant, and should be in the article. [[User:Drmaik|Drmaik]] 19:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

::::As you persist in repeating the same tired and incorrect points over and over again, this discussion should be concluded. It's already been adequately demonstrated that the memorial of names here and the list of names at Bloody Sunday are two totally different entities, and that this list is not important to the article whereas that one clearly is. <font face="Verdana">[[User:One Night In Hackney|<span style="color:#009">One Night In Hackney</span>]]_{''[[User talk:One Night In Hackney|303]]''}</font> 19:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

:::::Hmm, my first edit on this page, and I am accused of 'persisting' in repeating etc. This is not civil behaviour. [[User:Drmaik|Drmaik]] 19:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)