Wikipedia

Talk:Deal barracks bombing

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by One Night In Hackney (talk | contribs) at 19:03, 1 May 2007 (→List of fatalities ...: Response). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Latest comment: 4 years ago by Grosseteste in topic Articles
edit 

Introduction

Talk:Deal barracks bombing/Intro



"WP:IR" redirects here. For WikiProject International relations, see Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations. For image requests, see Wikipedia:Requested pictures. For Wikipedia ignore all rules (IAR) policy, see Wikipedia:Ignore all rules.
Irish Republicanism articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total
  FA 1 1 1 3
  GA 1 2 6 3 12
B 12 16 41 27 5 101
C 5 10 53 64 26 158
Start 4 37 170 198 127 536
Stub 1 26 77 29 133
List 1 2 2 10 3 18
NA 1 4 3 204 212
Assessed 24 70 303 382 204 190 1,173
Total 24 70 303 382 204 190 1,173


Welcome to the Irish Republicanism WikiProject, a collaboration of editors dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of Irish republicanism, Irish nationalism, and related organizations, peoples, and other topics.

(For more information on WikiProjects, please see Wikipedia:WikiProject and the Guide to WikiProjects).

Goals

  • Improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to Irish Republicanism and Irish Nationalism.
  • Gather interested editors, and provide a central ___location to discuss matters pertaining to the above.

Scope

  • Topics related to Irish Republicanism and Irish Nationalism.

Guidelines

Open tasks

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This 'To do' list- has it been updated since 2007? Basket Feudalist (talk) 16:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Armed Campaigns

Republican Wars

Others

Events

Armed Republican Groups

For an organized hierarchial chart, see Genealogy of the IRA

Irish Republicans

Note: There are many, many IRA Volunteers of varying memberships, and we cannot list them all here. We have many categories for that. Only particularly notable members should be listed here.

Early Volunteers; the Wars

Later IRA

Other

Participants

Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
 This user is a member of WikiProject Irish Republicanism.

Please feel free to add yourself here, and to indicate any areas of particular interest

  1. Paddytheceltic (talk · contribs) Protestant Nationalists, Militant oganisations, Political Organizations and others..
  2. Erin Go Bragh (talk · contribs) Militant Armed Irish Republican organizations. Gaelic.
  3. Kathryn NicDhàna (talk · contribs) I've been working on some of the articles about women in the Easter Rising.
  4. Pauric (talk · contribs) Too much to mention
  5. Derry Boi (talk · contribs) Interested in all areas of republicanism really.
  6. One Night In Hackney (talk · contribs) Bit of everything
  7. Irish Republican (talk · contribs) Irish Republicanism 1798-Present
  8. Vintagekits (talk · contribs) Irish Republicanism past and present with more focus on the history of the Provisionals
  9. Phoblacht (talk · contribs) Republican Newspapers from 1790’s to Present.
  10. GiollaUidir (talk · contribs) Republican activities from the 1969-mid 80's. Also, biogs of (primarily) dead activists both political and military. Post-1986 is mainly CIRA activity and shoot-to-kill operations by the SAS etc.
  11. Greydomovoy7 (talk · contribs) Irish Nationalism c. 1775-1921, particularly the earlier period. some troubles as well.
  12. Leopold III (talk · contribs) The leaders in the period from the Easter Rising to the end of the Civil War.
  13. Kevin Murray (talk · contribs) Learning more and helping where I can.
  14. Scolaire (talk · contribs) 20th century history, especially the 1913-1922 period
  15. Sheehan07 (talk · contribs) Love Irish History
  16. Sbfenian1916 (talk · contribs) Love Irish Republicansim, hate Unionism.
  17. United and Free (talk · contribs)- PIRA history and operations
  18. Fluffy999 (talk · contribs) Inter(world)war republican activities. Internment and extra judicial activities surrounding Irish Republicanism.
  19. Free Scotland, Unite Ireland (talk · contribs) Interested in post- St Andrews agreement Republicanism.
  20. Diarmaid (talk · contribs) Six county sovereignty
  21. Domer48 (talk · contribs) Period covered by the Irish Confederation (Young Ireland)
  22. Conghaileach (talk · contribs) Special interest in left-republican history
  23. Max rspct (talk · contribs) PIRA;INLA; civil war era; 70s 80s 90s; links/solidarity abroad;
  24. Carrignafoy (talk · contribs) War of Independence and Civil War (especially in Cork) also development of Official Sinn Féin and its successors.
  25. Brixton Busters (talk · contribs)
  26. BigDunc (talk · contribs)
  27. Ró2000 (talk • contribs) Tá suim mhór agam i stair náisiúnta na hÉireann, neamhspleach go háirithe!!
  28. quirk666 (talk · contribs) Republicanism 1798-present. 32 County Sovereignty Movement
  29. gavcos (talk · contribs) Old IRA, War of Independence, Civil War
  30. ElementalEternity (talk · contribs) 20:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)Irish history and republicanism in general.Reply
  31. Biofoundationsoflanguage 15:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
  32. Moz1916 (talk · contribs) All Irish history, especially 1903-1932
  33. Princess Pea Face (talk · contribs) Ireland pure and simple
  34. Barryob (talk · contribs)
  35. NIscroll (talk · contribs) --NIscroll (talk) 19:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
  36. RSFRuairi (talk · contribs) Anything really.
  37. Gr8opinionater (talk · contribs) 1:10 July 27 2008 (GMT), Interested in Irish nationalism in general particularly from a Political and historical point of view.
  38. Lihaas (talk · contribs) open to much
  39. EoinBach (talk · contribs) Irish republicanism in general from an academic point of view
  40. Gerard Madden (talk · contribs)
  41. SPARTAN-J024 (talk · contribs) I have ties to the Easter Rising and the Irish War of Independence
  42. NewIreland2009 (talk) The 1912-1924 period, with a particular passion for challenging popular myths of the period.
  43. Dribblingscribe (talk) 20:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
  44. Tippsno1fan (talk · contribs) Tá an-spéis agam ann
  45. Gallagher-Glass (talk · contribs) General interest.
  46. Fallduff (talk · contribs) National Archives, Dublin and Na Fianna Éireann, pre Northern Troubles
  47. Mabuska (talk · contribs) maintaining neutrality and verifiability
  48. Nicholas Urquhart (talk · contribs) military operations of the "New IRAs": the Provos, the Reals and even OnH, the Official and Continuity IRA.
  49. You Can Act Like A Man (talk · contribs) 32 CSM
  50. Finnegas (talk · contribs)
  51. Sittingonthefence (talk · contribs) Irish republicanism as a philosophy. 1916 and War of Independence combatants.
  52. High_Noonan (talk · contribs) Tom Hunter, 1916, War of Independence
  53. Antiqueight (talk · contribs) Women involved in 1916 or similar.
  54. AusLondonder (talk · contribs) General matters.
  55. Tdv123 (talk · contribs) PIRA, OIRA, INLA, IPLO, ICA, IVF, SE, CRF, SARAF, PLA
  56. Irishpolitical (talk · contribs) Traditionalist Republicanism and Nationalism. Dissenting republicans post GFA. Anti-communist Republicanism.
  57. CnocBride (talk · contribs) All Irish history, though my favourite time period would be the vast 1800–2011 period.
  58. KINGHB190 (talk · contribs) A Corkonian with ancestry in the original Irish Republican Army.
  59. Endersslay (talk · contribs) Enjoy Irish republican music and history.
  60. R0paire-wiki (talk · contribs) Irish Republicanism past and present, with particular focus on Socialist Republicanism.

Userbox

Feel free to place {{User WP:IR}} on your User page to advertise our WikiProject!

Articles

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Featured content

Candidates

Good articles

Candidates

Articles in need of urgent attention

Please provide a short explanation, or leave a note on our talk page if needed.

  • John Sweetman. Article on 2nd President of SF needs more footnotes, and appears to have been compiled largely from reports in The Times of London, which is hardly a neutral source on an Irish Republican.

Suggestions for new articles

Articles in Preparation

New articles

Belfast Pogrom

1923 Irish Hunger Strikes

Richard Goss (Irish Republican)

Joseph Whitty

Thomas Harte (Irish republican)

Patrick McGrath (Irish republican)

Jack McNeela

Seamus Woods

Andy O'Sullivan (Irish Republican)

Please feel free to list your new Irish Republican Army-related articles here (newer articles at the top, please). Any new articles that have an interesting or unusual fact in them should be suggested for the Did you know? box on the Main Page.

Collaboration

The article listed here is our current official article to collaborate on. Propose new articles in the Nominations section below.

Nominations

James Larkin - Grosseteste (talk) 17:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Review

Peer review
Assessment / Project's Assessment page

Assessment requests:

Language

Gaelic words and phrases should be marked up using {{lang}}, thus: {{lang|ga|Páirc na hÉireann}}.

Templates

To use the following template, simply put {{IRAs}} at the bottom of an article.

To use the following template, simply put {{NIPP}} at the bottom of an article.

Articles which fall within our scope should be labeled as such on their talk pages. To do so, simply place {{WP IR}} at the top of article's talk page.

 Irish republicanism Unassessed
 This article is within the scope of WikiProject Irish republicanism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Irish republicanism and Irish nationalism related topics 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.Irish republicanismWikipedia:WikiProject Irish republicanismTemplate:WikiProject Irish republicanismIrish republicanism
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Categories

Regular cats

Project organisation cats

Resources

Using references

  • For a simple guide to using references, place {{subst:refstart}} (including brackets) on your user or talk page.

List of fatalities ...

Latest comment: 18 years ago24 comments6 people in discussion

...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 --Bill Reid | Talk 13:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Murdered eh!! If they didnt want to be killed they shouldnt havent joined a force that occupies Ireland (and other countries - legitimate targets imo!)--Vintagekits 13:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
The list adds nothing to the article, it's just trivia. For more detailed reasoning, 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. One Night In Hackney303 13:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
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. --Bill Reid | Talk 08:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
If you're not going to maintain a neutral point of view or be civil, further discussion seems fruitless. One Night In Hackney303 09:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

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.--Jackyd101 14:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

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. One Night In Hackney303 14:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Sounds like a good idea.--Jackyd101 16:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
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. One Night In Hackney303 22:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
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 [1]) 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 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.--Jackyd101 22:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
I am entirely persuaded by this argument. - Kittybrewster (talk) 02:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
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. One Night In Hackney303 14:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

(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.--Jackyd101 14:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've already stated exactly which policy says the information shouldn't be included - WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. One Night In Hackney303 15:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
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.--Jackyd101 15:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Please read what I've said already. One Night In Hackney303 15:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
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?--Jackyd101 15:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
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. One Night In Hackney303 15:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Did you even read this [2]? 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.

You have also not linked me to any such discussion at the help desk, please do so. (Apologies, have now found the discussion). And as I previously mentioned, this Afd [3] 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.--Jackyd101 16:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC) PS, The discussion you mentioned ([4]), as I said before, was inconclusive. It makes the case for both sides quite clearly without reaching consensus.--Jackyd101 16:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

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 --Bill Reid | Talk 18:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

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 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. One Night In Hackney303 18:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
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.--Jackyd101 19:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
The last point is very persuasive. This information is relevant, and should be in the article. Drmaik 19:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
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. One Night In Hackney303 19:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Deal_barracks_bombing&oldid=127487809"