Talk:Cumbria shootings/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Move article

I think we'll have to move this article to something like 2010 Cumbria shootings as the BBC News Channel is reporting several deaths and shots fired in at least three different locations. TheRetroGuy (talk) 11:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Then let's do that. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Just did it actually, I hadn't seen your comments beforehand, but I agree that it is the correct move. Anyway it's been done. TigerShark (talk) 12:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Derrick Bird now found dead

[1] - good enough as a cite? Pedro :  Chat  13:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd say good enough to say they found a body believed to be him, yes. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
BBC are also saying "believed" [2] Pedro :  Chat  13:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I've added the Cumbrian police link. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Weapons

Do we know what weapsons were used in the shooting? Nath1991 (talk) 13:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Shotgun. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
One of the BBC reporters mentioned that he'd overheard the police mentioning "bullets" as opposed to shotgun cartridges. Cryomaniac (talk) 13:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
A doctor confirming deaths said they were the worst shotgun wounds he'd ever seen. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Any news on the make/model etc? Nath1991 (talk) 13:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Not yet, but the police have confirmed they found a weapon alongside his body, so more details may come out soon. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
A young man being interviewed by the BBC said he saw the shooter with a scopped Rifle looking at a hill from his taxi.-- OsirisV (talk) 17:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Two weapons, almost certainly shotgun (from doctor report) and maybe a scoped rifle. Nothing definitive that we can cite though. Yet. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Guy on BBC says "shotgun and assault rifle". Still nothing concrete to cite though. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Only time I heard "assault rifle" was when they were mentioning previous massacres, and that one in the '80s led to a ban of such weapon. Maybe he had three weapons, maybe the guy was unable to tell the difference and exaggerating on certain parts. Still too early. I'm sure the BBC site may provide some interview videos.-- OsirisV (talk) 18:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
He was a former policeman, so I guess "not telling the difference" isn't part of it. We'll see. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
What if we had "Scoped Rifle (believed)<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/10215998.stm Cyclist Barry Moss account provided by BBC News</ref>" in the weapons list? It's true that one is believed to have been used, and we have a source to back it up.-- OsirisV (talk) 18:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't believe that a cyclist would be better placed to identify a weapon than a retired police officer. Let's wait. There's no deadline. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
The Telegraph is reporting [3] a .22 rifle was used. - Timsheridan (talk) 18:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Link fails. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Fixed. - Timsheridan (talk) 18:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Cool, well the Telegraph is a WP:RS so perhaps this could be added. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

He also had a 22 rifle with a scope-according to Sky news. (TheGreenwalker (talk) 22:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC))

So two RSs with a scoped .22, guess it means we can add it. Good research. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
BBC now agrees, so there's no reason not to add a fully cited "scoped .22" to the list of weapons. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Frizington

There is certainly a crime scene and the Copeland recycling centre at Frizington. I am a local and it is cordoned off. It has been reported in the media but it is almpst certainly linked —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.209.248.67--Footix2 (talk) 17:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, but until we get anything that we can reference (and it may already be incorporated in the statement from the police), we'll need to leave it out. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Good for wikiews though? Rich Farmbrough, 10:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC).

File:Whitehaven area 1 in 250 000 scale.png

Question, are edited OS maps really CC licensed? Not sure how Ordnance Survey maps are released. S.G.(GH) ping! 18:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that crossed my mind but I seem to recall a quite recent release of these scales of mapping by OS into the more public domain. I'll dig around... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
This may shed some light on the deal? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
This seems to suggest as long as OS are credited, they're in line with CC 3.0. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes that seems legit. S.G.(GH) ping! 19:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
And I guess it'll open the floodgates...! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
This info will be quite useful to me! Cls14 (talk) 08:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Birthplace

What is the source for Bird being born in York? I can't find that reported anywhere, all reports speak of a "local" man - obviously it doesn't necessarily follow that he was born in Cumbria, but still the source for York needs citing. Draggleduck (talk) 19:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, tagged. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

- Further to that at the time he was born 'North Yorkshire' did not exist. If it is confirmed that he is from York, then it should be replaced with 'North Riding of Yorkshire'.Mtaylor848 (talk) 19:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the info until we can cite it. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

He was born in Ennerdale. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.153.125 (talk) 21:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Monkseaton shootings

No article on wikipedia for this- 1 dead and 12 injured. I lived in Monkseaton at the time. Sartin was found not guilty as he pleaded insanity. I am local to Whitehaven by the way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.153.125 (talk) 21:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Why not create an account and write an article about it. There's a very good article on this subject on the BBC News site. [4] Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 21:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Yep, as I suggested, create the article, then we can talk about adding it as a "See also". Note, this has nothing to do with "disrespecting" those affected by the shooting at Monkseaton. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Here you go. Whether this should be in the "see also" section I am not sure. Adambro (talk) 09:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Nice work Adambro. I'd say you could get that at DYK if you were interested. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Motivation

BBC say Bird was reported to have been in an argument last night, but it will need a ref before it goes in. Rich Farmbrough, 21:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC).

The locals who knew him say that he was a normal, affable 'Joe Bloggs' type of character. A bit on the quiet side, but by no means an oddball 'misfit' like Michael Ryan. Another witness says that he was 'different' to his normal self this morning. You really never know what is going on between a man's ears, do you?. Perhaps the tragedy is that (because of 'kneejerk' British gun laws), there was really nobody in Whitehaven able to shoot him dead on the spot - and face whatever music was coming - before Bird then went on to slay all the others. 86.150.205.78 (talk) 22:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Heh, good one. Our gun laws have restricted the UK to three major sprees in the last 25 years. It seems that in the US or China, we get a "spree" every month. I'd say British gun laws are doing a reasonable job. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Yep, same as when we banned drugs. Bans work, so therefore there are no drugs in Britain...it is a Paradise :-) 86.150.205.78 (talk) 23:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
There are probably as many guns in the UK as there ever have been, and ever will be. I don't like guns...they are a coward's weapon, and I have no desire or need to hold one, but the same people that want one always will. Fortunately in the UK we are not as prone to 'gun-worship' as (say) the Americans, but all you are doing with gun law is to reduce the percentage of guns that are legally licencable. The others will not give a damn whether they can licence their gun or not. 86.150.205.78 (talk) 23:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
On the contrary, shotgun ownership in England & Wales now is about 82% of what it was in 1979. Ownership of other firearms peaked in 1988 and is now some 65% of what it was then. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Remember, Wikipedia is not a forum. S.G.(GH) ping! 23:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Who asked you "Is Wikipedia a forum?" I was simply replying to a comment. Who is SGGH? What is your authority? Are you an Administrator? 86.150.205.78 (talk) 23:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Our policy is here. All policies and guidelines may be applied by any editor, administrator or not. Talk pages are intended for discussions related to articles, and not general discussion of the topic at hand. Hope that helps. Rodhullandemu 00:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
OK RodHull, YOU are an administrator. Wilco with respect. 86.150.205.78 (talk) 00:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
So is SGGH[5], not that it matters 129.67.108.31 (talk) 00:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Figures. That's why I always respect administrators, because I used to be one. I just got sick of being called-in by the bloke who nominated me. If you are losing a debate: there are two things you can do. One is say "That's how the Nazis started", and the other is to call in your friendly Admin :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.205.78 (talk) 03:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Daily Mail

Do we really want to be using the daily mail as a source?©Geni 22:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Preferably not. Can we find alternatives for this? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I think the mail is only used for the names of the victims, which could all use the same reference once all the names are published. Martin451 (talk) 23:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Image

Surely the Ordnance Survey map image has copyright and shouldn't be used here? 91.106.120.101 (talk) 00:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

See above discussion. It's CC-BY-3.0 Rodhullandemu 00:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Narcissistic rage

I suspect that narcissistic rage is key to understanding this but I havent found a reliable source as yet.--Penbat (talk) 06:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Based on what? It seems a bit of a leap, especially considering that all talk of him I've read so far has mentioned has mentioned how nice, gentle and quiet he was, as opposed to the way neighbours and friends speak of Stephen Griffiths, who seems a much more likely candidate for Narcissistic personality disorder, and particularly Malignant Narcissism. As far as we know, he just snapped due to personal and family difficulties, which had built up over time. Snorgle (talk) 19:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
More like Brian Blackwell. It has to be a form of rage rather than just anger as rage operates at a more unconscious, primitive and deeper level in the psyche. Blackwell was in many ways a talented and productive member of society but he still flipped and killed his parents in the most appalling way. Blackwell was diagnosed with NPD. People have more conscious control over anger than rage. Many with NPD have a fake persona with unnaturally high levels of superficial charm which they may use most of the time. Stephen Griffiths seems to me to be more of an obsessive psychopath.--Penbat (talk) 20:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
All this speculation is fine, but honestly? Let's just wait to see what pans out. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Shotgun/ firearms licence

The article states that Bird posessed both a shotgun licence and a firearms licence. Number one, is there a difference? and Number two, do we need a cite for this piece of information? The slack (talk) 09:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes there is a difference, strictly speaking it should be shotgun certificate rather than license. Adambro (talk) 09:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Ah, cheers for that, this link seems to back that up http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/10222188.stm, do we need to add it as a citation? If so could someone? I cannot edit the page due to being new The slack (talk) 09:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 Done I've done that now. Thanks for your assistance with this. Adambro (talk) 09:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Can we not wait?

I'm sorry for hijacking this, but can we not wait before jumping all over wikipedia posting every gory detail? 12 people were viciously killed. I respect and admire wikipedia for its wonderful database. However, out of respect is it not right to wait a little time for the dust to settle before greedily grabbing every piece of information possible? I'm sure the families would not approve. I live in the area and to be honest find that such a comprehensive article less than 24 hours after the incident frankly, disgusting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.222.233 (talk) 10:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Hm, came and looked at it though. It is true WP is not a news agency, and we reject a lot of information, however I am sure an unbiased account of events such as this, avoiding the speculation rife in other media, being available sooner rather than later can be helpful. Rich Farmbrough, 10:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC).
The phrase "a little time" is comparative. The article might make the Police think twice about issuing
gun licenses and thus possibly save lives in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.254.83 (talk) 11:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Can we not wait? No, no we can't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.134.135 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia:Drama --Leladax (talk) 12:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It is not our place to edit out of 'respect'. Personally I think road-side shrines and postponing Coronation Street are cheap, morbid and over-emotional sentiments that we could do without. Life goes on, so why not an article? Mtaylor848 (talk) 15:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course there should be an article, but editors on Wikipedia would do well to wait until speculation actually becomes reported fact before putting it all over articles. Not writing articles until 24 hours after the event would be a good start, and would likely be beneficial to the project not detrimental. Wikipedia is not a source of news. Halsteadk (talk) 19:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, if you have specific problems with the accuracy of the article, then let us know. Otherwise, we (i.e. a collaboration of an enormous number of interested, caring and intelligent contributors) are doing our best to come up with a neutral, accurate and comprehensive description of what's just happened. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Should TV news and the press also wait? For practical purposes it is beneficial to start the article when the news is fresh. Articles and information is readily sourced and a lot of editors will be on the case at once. If normal WP rules are applied there should be no problem; speculative reports later disproven can easily be qualified later. If we wait, a lot of information could be missed. WP is not a news service, but the incident is clearly eligible for WP. Format (talk) 08:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Gun control

I have started to here slight debates about gun control on various news programmes. After Hungerford and Dunblane the legislation was tightened (banning pump action shotguns and handguns respectively). Unfortunately this debate doesn't seem to have made sources I can cite just yet (that I have found at any rate). However I would have thought that the resulting debate and perhaps legislation would be pertinent to the subject and once any verifiable sources become available to suggest that debate has taken place, the issue has been brought up in parliament or notable campaigns have taken place as a result, we should add a section.Mtaylor848 (talk) 11:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The article needs to state on what grounds Bird was able to obtain a gun license.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Gun politics in the United Kingdom#Licensing and legislation. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
No, Jeanne, wikipedia is for reliably sourced information and until that becomes available, it's better to avoid speculation. Chris55 (talk) 18:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Also the police have confirmed that he had a legitimate licence for a shotgun and a .22 rifle. Per Nick Cooper, adding something either speculative would be unproductive, he obviously filled in the same form that 100,000s have done and got his licence. The news reported he held it for over 20 years, so it's not like he'd just signed up for this event. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I was just curious as to how he got the license 20 years ago; it might come to light over the next few days.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Well he had to renew the licence every five years, which the police confirmed he did, so I'm not sure why it's of particular interest, especially as 100,000s in the UK have a licence. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't find evidence of the number of guns licence holders in the UK. I find it difficult to believe that it is 100,000s in England and Wales. There are 90,000 in Northern Ireland, however gun control is notoriously lax in Northern Ireland and what with all the gun-totting IRA/UVF nutters, however I would doubt the number in the UK is 100,000s. Or at least I hope not, that's surely 100,000s too many! Mtaylor848 (talk) 20:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm going on anecdotal evidence on BBC1 this morning, for instance, where ex-police say that 100k+ is the number. Consider that around 55 million people live in the UK so this is a tiny minority. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
In fact, per the BBC article we cite here in this article : "According to the most recent figures for England and Wales, there are 138,728 people certificated to hold firearms and they own 435,383 weapons. There are 574,946 shotgun certificates which cover 1.4 million shotguns." The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
See here 138,000 licences for over 400,000 weapons in England. Pedro :  Chat  20:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
A more direct source is the Home Office itself: Firearms Certificates. It's 574,946 Shotgun Certificates covering 1,366,082 weapons, plus 138,728 Firearms Certificates covering 435,383 weapons. Nick Cooper (talk) 21:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Yep. I think the point is, though, that over 100,000 people in the UK have the same licence that Bird did. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

"the Cumbria region of North West England"

No: North West England is a region; Cumbria isn't. 189.136.171.103 (talk) 15:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Clealry "region" is being used in the general descriptive sense, rather than the specific political/geographical sub-dividion in use in England. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I've changed it since I think it's imprecise and confusing; "Cumbria" is an adequate description. Rodhullandemu 16:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Ncarr1, 3 June 2010

 Done {{editsemiprotected}} The age of Darren Rewcastle is 39 not 31 as stated.

Ncarr1 (talk) 19:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, but the current source doesn't say his age when he was killed, nor do you provide an alternative. Any suggestions? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
He's 43, according to the police statement. [6] 91.106.114.208 (talk) 20:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
A good source, so 43 it is. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Times

The times in the infobox of the incident are incorrect. It's now known he started at about 5.30am. 91.106.114.208 (talk) 20:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for this? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately I couldn't see it on the police statement I linked above. It was on Five Live earlier this afternoon but can't see anything on the BBC website. 91.106.114.208 (talk) 20:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Okay, as soon as you see something we can link to, note it here and we'll update the article as soon as possible, cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
NB, 10.35 is definitely wrong, because that's the shooting of the taxi victim in Whitehaven. The interactive map here shows that was the third victim. 91.106.114.208 (talk) 20:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Understood. I've removed the "start" time and left it blank until we get some cited idea of when the first crime took place. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The article still needs to reflect that the 'public' phase only began from 10.30 onwards, and it wasn't until well into the afternoon that the media/police realised he had shot people before the taxi rank in whitehaven. MickMacNee (talk) 18:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Bird under Deaths

I think the Bird should be cited under Fatalities. Although it states that its Exluding the Perpetrator, I think we are just making things harder and more confusing for everyone. Thoughts? Skullbird11 (talk) 20:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It's not a list of victims, but of fatalities. So it makes sense to add his name. But maybe there could be a division in the table between "perpetrator" and "victims." David Straub (talk) 23:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not so sure. It already states "excluding the perpetrator" surely people can work out from the article that he's the perpetrator and realise that he is dead? --5 albert square (talk) 00:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
But as the above states, the list is stated as Fatalities, not Victims —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.160.240 (talk) 10:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Umm?

So, the news is allowed to air kinda graphic details of the crime and Cornation Street can not air for 2 days?? How is this logical?Liquinn (talk) 20:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Could be that a million watch the news and ten million watch Corrie. Or it could be a PC attempt to not upset people unnecessarily. Either way, it's probably for the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, thanks for clearing that up.Liquinn (talk) 20:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

But at the same time the news only usually spends a few minutes on each story. Not a solid 30 or 60 minutes. Plus people would expect to see this kind of stuff on the news, they wouldn't necessarily expect it on a soap! It could also be out of respect to the people that witnessed the shootings and the families that have lost a loved one --5 albert square (talk) 21:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
We've had 30 and 60 minute stories on this in the last day. Either way, this is not the first time pre-recorded fiction has been shelved as a result of reality. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I guess, I guess it has to be shown on the news. Liquinn (talk) 21:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC) So, the public AREN'T upset by hours of in-depth content about a real-life shooting but WOULD be offended by a fictional one. Am I missing something?Liquinn (talk) 21:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Well this is sightly off-topic. Current news in the UK is far more graphic than it was, say, ten years ago, and much more so than 20/30 years ago. News is inevitable, it'll be broadcast, no matter what. Soaps, like Corrie and Eastenders, well they can be pulled at any time, because they're fiction, and if their storyline coincides with reality, they'll tend to avoid making things worse by broadcasting those episodes. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Is this relevant at all to the content of the page? See WP:TALK for guidelines, particularly "Stay on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal." 91.106.114.208 (talk) 21:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why I started my response with "this is slightly off-topic". We can afford some leeway, but otherwise, no, we won't go down this route. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
It's because that TV show is watched by millions, and the larger the audience, the lower the IQ. Lugnuts (talk) 07:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Theft

The London "Metro" of 4/6/2010, on page 6, notes that Bird had a previous conviction for theft. This did not stop the issuing of the certificate and license. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.139.189.240 (talk) 10:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Your point being? Nick Cooper (talk) 11:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
It is possible that Bird had come to the notice of the Police on other occasions. At least, the conviction could be mentioned in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.139.189.240 (talk) 11:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Why? We should only include it if it is relevant to the event. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
To what relevence? Only certain types of conviction have a bearing on either the issue or revocation of shotgun and firearms certificates, which may not necessarily have been so in Bird's case. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
It is possible - even likely - that the issue of Bird's previous criminal conviction will be seized upon by opportunistic politicians as a reason for 'tightening' firearms licensing laws in the U.K. Attention should therefore be paid to reliable source citations with regard to this element in Bird's past history with the intention of ensuring confirmation. -- Tucci78 (talk) 16:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
You should probably read WP:NOTCRYSTAL first. Nick Cooper (talk) 18:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Timeline

Even though this seems fairly clear now (Frizington->Whitehaven->Egremont/Wilton/Carleton->Gosforth->Seascale->Boot), the way it reads is becoming more garbled and less clear than ever as random two penn'orths are stuck in, seemingly without any regard for the chronology of events. Anyone not knowing any of the facts would currently infer that people were warned to stay indoors two minutes BEFORE the Whitehaven shootings started, that the Seascale shootings had already happened at some time before Whitehaven, that the streets of Whitehaven were left strewn with corpses when in fact there was only one fatality in the town itself, that the rugby player was shot in or near Whitehaven.... It's a jumbled, incoherent mess. Draggleduck (talk) 16:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to do what I can. Evidentaly I know little about the chronology of events. Feel free to edit it for yourself. It would probably produce a better result than my own attempt. Jolly Ω Janner 16:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it is confused, but there's a more fundamental problem. He shot both people he knew and those he didn't. But Phase 2 as it now stands includes both. Shouldn't the Whitehaven shootings be moved to Phase 1? The killing was clearly part of the grudge phase. Who else he injured in Whitehaven I'm not sure. Chris55 (talk) 21:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

A non-victim

According to this story Bird had targeted scuba diver Jason Carey after his first three victims. Possibly should be added into the timeline section. 91.106.114.175 (talk) 12:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

List of fatalities

What's the encyclopedic value of this rather long (vertically) section? Notable shootings such as his brother, family solicitor and other taxi driver are already noted in the timeline section. A list of names and ages does not add any useful information (none of them have their own articles). If there was any pattern with age, then this would be picked up on by third party sources and could be summarised by one sentence of prose. I was going to be bold and remove it, but since this is a hot topic, I decided to come here for consensus. Jolly Ω Janner 01:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree, this isn't a memorial, and while it sounds harsh, the more "notable" of the victims have been discussed, as JJ says. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. It adds info about the where and who. Keep pro tem. Kittybrewster ☎ 07:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Interesting, Dunblane we do list the victims, Hungerford, we don't. As for the where, that's covered in the main article, the who? Well notable people (his brother etc) are in the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Maybe Hungerford we should? Compare with Neil Rutherford. Kittybrewster ☎ 08:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Or maybe here we shouldn't. It's fine for the time being, but I still think it's borderline memorial. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Kittybrewster, how is the "where and who" listed in that table adding any more information than the prose in the section above? Are you suggesting that the names of the people killed (except the brother) is information suitable for an encyclopedia? Jolly Ω Janner 16:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Names and dates are not included in the prose. Clearly some of the victims were chosen and targetted while others were random. I have no problem with the sections being merged. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
The list is the only thing that currently resembles a route/timeline. And I've never read WP:MEMORIAL as barring list of victims, certainly not when they have been referred to extensively in the coverage. MEMORIAL is more about not creating separate articles for victims, than preventing victim lists. It's hard enough trying to understand what went on during this attack without insisting on removing usefull markers, which is what the names effectively are. The prose without the table says nothing between Whitehaven and Boot, it's clearly deficient as a replacement. Infact, the whole article is still pretty poor infact. MickMacNee (talk) 18:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Do you think if the timeline was improved to use a more past-tense style of writing and included all the locations of shootings then the table should be removed? Jolly Ω Janner 19:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
No. Kittybrewster ☎ 20:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Why not? Jolly Ω Janner 21:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
There is a better timeline here. Kittybrewster ☎ 06:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I've merged that timeline into the article's timeline, so we now have all the deaths listed. Is there still a need for the table of fatalities? Jolly Ω Janner 14:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes. WWGB (talk) 14:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Why do you still feel it is needed? Jolly Ω Janner 14:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Because it adds explicit detail to the article. Why do you feel it needs to be deleted? WWGB (talk) 14:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
As I said in my opening statement, I do not feel the addition of personal information such as names and ages is appropriate for an encyclopedia. I believe that all useful information has been merged into the timeline, therefore expelling the need for a list of fatalities. I do not know what the "explicit" detail is that you mention? Jolly Ω Janner 14:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
A list of victims is consistent with similar articles: see, for example, Dunblane massacre#Victims killed, Fort Hood shooting#Fatalities , Columbine High School massacre#Shooting begins etc. The existence of a list of victims breaches no Wikipedia policy or guideline as far as I am aware. WWGB (talk) 15:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Consistency is only useful when you have comparable data, such as listing the populations of countries in their infoboxes. The names of people is not comparable, so being consistent does not add any value to the article. Also, arguing that we should base this article around another one is a poor choice and is not how Wikipedia should decide things (see WP:Other stuff exists). As far as I'm aware, there wasn't a discussion about whether or not those articles should list the fatalities? Just because other articles have it, it by no means means that it is the best way to write an article. In answer to your last question, there is policy which might hint towards it. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information states "Who's who Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic." Jolly Ω Janner 15:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
My understanding of that policy is that individuals may not warrant standalone articles, that is, "limited to the article about that event" unless they have further notability. It says nothing about the presence or not of individual names within an article. WWGB (talk) 15:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I do not want to drag up too much policy, because it can often lead to discussions going off track and there isn't any policy specific to our discussion (as far as I'm aware). My query is that if these people aren't notable then why should we present information about them i.e. names and ages. I have nothing wrong with presenting this information when it is relevent to the article i.e. David Bird's brother and Garry Purdham, but when these people were shot at random, information about them loses its ability to contribute encyclopediac information. Jolly Ω Janner 15:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
The main point with having a list of names is to know how these are related to perpetrator. We should gather information about when and where each one where shot and if they where known by the perpetrator. --Kslotte (talk) 16:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I believe that's what I did using this source. I wrote in the timeline how each person was killed and where. Only three of them were known by Derrick Bird and I have noted that down. I don't see what additional information the table adds? Jolly Ω Janner 16:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
In current state the name list doesn't bring any additional value to the article, it looks more like WP:MEMORIAL. I removed the list. For the reference the list is found here, if someone want to develop it further into something useful. --Kslotte (talk) 15:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
By my reckoning there are three comments in favour of removing the table and three comments in favour of retention. That is hardly consensus. WP:STATUSQUO applies here. I am restoring the table for now. WWGB (talk) 02:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
My vote, for what it's worth, would be "keep it" (although the formatting looks a bit wonky at present. It would be better if the list could be right-aligned. I don't have enough knowledge to do it myself though). Why is it needed? Hard to say, precisely. I certainly wouldn't expect to find in Wikipedia the names of everyone murdered during the events of 9/11, for example. And once a killer's victims exceeds a certain (arbitrary) number, then a list becomes pointless. Here it does seem to add something to the article. It's by no means a memorial though, just extra contextual information HieronymousCrowley (talk) 06:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
HieronymousCrowley, the names and ages of the people killed are not extra contextual information suitable for an encyclopedia. Jolly Ω Janner 15:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Current version looks good. Alignment to the right makes it more "passive". But, could there be some type of separator and maybe a header between #3 and #4 to indicate the phases? #1 to #3 was known to perpetrator. --Kslotte (talk) 13:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I did some changes myself, hope you like it. --Kslotte (talk) 14:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I think the style of the table has improved. On the other hand, it is just slightly too high up in the article, as the infobox clashes with it on the right hand side. Could do with being moved down a few lines for my screen's resolution. Jolly Ω Janner 15:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Is the layout better now in your resolution? I did some layout tweakings. --Kslotte (talk) 15:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Yep, brilliant. Thanks. Jolly Ω Janner 15:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Anti-depressants

Obviously this isn't encyclopaedic as yet but there is quite a lot of speculation that Bird may have been on anti-depressants such as Seroxat which could have triggered his killings. It is claimed that quite a few serial murderers were on anti-depressants. --Penbat (talk) 13:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

We don't do "speculation." No doubt if it was the case, we will hear definitive confirmation in due course, but there's not point in joining in with media second-guessing. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

It might be good to have a section on Derrick Bird himself, his early life etc. as well as profiles of the victims and whether or not Derrick knew them or not, and how. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.5.199 (talk) 21:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Bird's relationship with three of the victims (brother, solicitor, co-worker) is already covered in the article. WWGB (talk) 22:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Renaming page

Now, after 13 deaths confirmed, In my opinion the article could be rename as 2010 Cumbria massacre, or simply Cumbria massacre... - SiMioN.EuGeN (talk) 17:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Definately not, it's not THAT major!! Ggoere (talk) 17:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
See Hungerford massacre or Dunblane massacre. Here 38 people were involved (1 shooter, 12 deaths, 25 injuries) SiMioN.EuGeN (talk) 17:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Um, [[Hu--AycliffeAngel (talk) 11:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)ngerford massacre]] wasn't that much more "major" as you put it. I suggest we wait and see. If the popular press etc start calling it something like that, then we can reconsider. No point in rushing it now though. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • And whatever it is, WP:MOS indicates that "massacre" and "shootings" should NOT be capitalised. Rodhullandemu 17:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I was thinking on moving it to "massacre", but felt that it would require discussion. The BBC has a timeline of the shootings based on interviews by the way. I moved "shootings" to "Shootings" because the similar "massacre" was capitalised in a number of search results. I guess you'd want to examine those.-- OsirisV (talk) 17:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
And I guess you'd like to familiarise yourself with Wikipedia naming conventions, like Hungerford massacre. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, I live in Whitehaven. Locally they are using words like 'shootings', 'gunman' and 'rampage', but I've not heard 'massacre' being used yet. 86.150.205.78 (talk) 19:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, we'll stick with what we have for the time being. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
OK, the 'Cumbria Shootings' is how BBC national and the local press/radio are describibg today's events. Perhaps the media or public might change their minds in the future, so we can change it then if they do. 86.150.205.78 (talk) 19:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Nope, there are various references throughout the BBC outlets to Cumbria Shootings, Cumbria shootings, CUMBRIA SHOOTINGS, so let's stick with regular English and not capitalise nouns which don't need to be capitalised. And, just out of interest, how could you tell the radio were referring to this event with a capital S? Cool. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Not bothered really...other things on our minds. But '2010 Cumbria Shootings' is a title, and title case is caps for major words. If you say 'the 2010 Cumbria shootings' in running text, that's OK, because Cumbria is a place name, or it was when I went to school. 86.150.205.78 (talk) 19:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
No, "Shootings" is not a proper noun, so we don't capitalise it. If you want to run this out over Wikipedia, then fine, for example Hungerford massacre presumably needs to be moved? You could also read WP:HEAD which, while not directly relevant, would suggest you do not unnecessarily capitalise words. And you do seem bothered as you keep arguing in favour of this move. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Call it what you want. We've had floods, dead and maimed schoolchildren and now this. All we're short of round here now now is a plague of frogs or Scafell Pike to erupt. 86.150.205.78 (talk) (Ends) —Preceding undated comment added 20:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC). p.s. Shouldn't it be 'The rambling man' ? 86.150.205.78 (talk) 20:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
No, it's my name, so it's a proper noun. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Exactly...it doesn't matter does it?. More Wikibollox when people are dying. All I was saying (if you look up a bit) was "don't use the word 'massacre' yet". Maybe in future, but not yet. Have a good night, Mr Man, or can I call you Rambling? :-) 86.150.205.78 (talk) 21:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Wittness on BBC very specific that "single barrelled shotgun with a telescopic sight" used Gendankenlautwerden (talk) 22:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)Gendankenlautwerden

I doubt that the witness' description is accurate, given the fact that telescopic sights are almost never mounted on shotguns (there's no point, since the effective range of a shotgun is too short to necessitate one, and shotguns are generally used against moving targets like birds, where a looking through a sight would be more of a hindrance than a boon). Bricology (talk) 00:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Channel 5 are showing a show tomorrow titled: 5 News Special: The Cumbrian Massacre. Something to consider. --AycliffeAngel (talk) 22:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
But they are journalists with their own Manual of Style. We are writing an encyclopedia, also with our own Manual of Style. Rodhullandemu 22:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Yep, nothing to consider there. If 5 News Had Their Own Way, Just About EVERYTHING WOULD BE IN CAPITALS AND IF POSSIBLE IN ITALICS TOO. We'll follow our MOS for time-being. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Is this to imply that journalists, who have every word they write checked by sub-editors and editors and then passed through a legal department before publication, are less responsible about what they write than wikinerds? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.74.141.132 (talk) 10:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh no! I wasn't making a point about the correct capitalisation, I was making a point regarding the first point made above, that we should consider changing the page from the current 2010 Cumbrian shootings, to 2010 Cumbrian massacre. It seems that the originl point of this section has been lost.

I note this page seems keep to be moving around a little bit. I'd just like to add my support to the current name "Cumbria shootings". We don't need to mention the year since there are no other such incidents which I think anyone will be confused about and neither do I think we should describe it as the "Cumbria massacre". In line with the spirit of WP:COMMONNAME, my general perception is that "shootings" is a more widely used name for the incident and Google search seems to confirm that. A search for "cumbria shootings" -"Wikipedia" turns up about 41k results whilst "cumbria massacre" -"Wikipedia" turns up about 6k. Adambro (talk) 14:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it should be renamed Cumbria massacre, (I changed my mind). Ggoere (talk) 17:18, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Own article?

Will Derrick Bird get his own article?

Doubt it, for instance Michael Ryan (mass murderer) hasn't. Why do you ask? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Was just wondering really. I'm not really sure what these Wikipedia policies are. I would ask a question to you but the question doesn't really involve the article.Liquinn (talk) 18:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Seung-Hui Cho has his own though, and so does Martin Bryant and so do Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold.Faceless Enemy (talk) 04:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable only for one event may be what you're looking for? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah thanks, that's the one. Sorry this is not really about this article but... How come Stephen Griffiths has his own article and Derrick Bird doesn't? Liquinn (talk) 18:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

That's ok. His article is up for deletion, and I guess in his case there's not quite so much to write about, unlike here where we know it was a 2010 mass murder that took place by shooting in Cumbria... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

OK thanks, I think this is slightly off topic but how can I contact you as I have another question? Thanks. Liquinn (talk) 18:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Either leave me a message on my talk page or email me using the toolbox from my user page. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Responding to The Rambling Man, I can make one exception to that rule. Rohedin TALK 21:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not surprised that there would be one or two exceptions. But this character will probably not gain the notoriety of those guys. However, time will tell. I'm pretty convinced that, right now, this page will cover it all. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I think one of the obvious difference between EH/DK and SHC is that the evidence suggests they were deeply disturbed individuals with histories to match (e.g. bullying in the case of EH/DK) who planned some sort of murderous rampage. (The fact that they were young also means that much of that appears to be a big part of their lives.) MB also has some similarities. While it's still quite early, DB appears to have more been the more ordinary seeming person who just 'snapped' Nil Einne (talk) 20:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Garry Purdham could do with an article though, he played semi-professional rugby league with Whitehaven and Workington Town which would put him on the fringes of "notability" before his tragic death.GordyB (talk) 11:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC) Derrick Bird - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Derrick Bird (born 1958 - 2nd June 2010) was a 52 year old serial killer who ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derrick_Bird

An article has been created on him I see? But redirects here?Liquinn (talk) 12:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Purdham would have to meet WP:ATHLETE for an article, and yes Bird's article was created then converted to a redirect since Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable only for one event seems to apply for the moment. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Purdham probably does meet notability based on the WP:Athlete criteria.Footix2 (talk) 08:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Semi protection

Any particular reason why this article should be semi protected? I've asked the admin concerned. MidnightBlue (Talk) 12:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

A completely inappropriate request. This article should not be SP'd MidnightBlue (Talk) 16:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It does seem an unnecessary move. e.g. though the page has been blanked or almost blanked (3 times) it was reverted each time by people who were not logged in. There have been more than 70 edits by 47 anonymous people and few were vandals. Chris55 (talk) 18:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

As this is a high profile page, but (fortunately) the initial rapid fire editing is now over I'm very much minded to unprotect it now. If some brief consensus can be found I'll happily do that. Pedro :  Chat  19:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I'd advocate unprotection. It's fine. Even when it was all going on it wasn't so bad. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. Any problem was very minor and certainly didn't justify SP. MidnightBlue (Talk) 21:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I concur. But keep an eye please. Kittybrewster ☎ 07:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Is there still any need for semi protection? Even when it was unprotected there wasn't significant vandalism as far as I can see.--A bit iffy (talk) 00:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the requirement for protection has passed. The incident is over, and all the memorial services have been held. This isn't going to hit the news again until the investigation is over, and it seems there is no consensus to keep protected. Accordingly, I will unprotect. Rodhullandemu 00:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that.--A bit iffy (talk) 13:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Funerals of victims

This is a matter of headline news in the UK and adds closure to the article. These are people and the brief details of their putting to rest is very relevant to UK readers. These details should be restored perhaps in a briefer form. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.157.209 (talk) 08:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I see such information are irrelevant and a bit WP:MEMORIAL. All of the dead will be put rest a while after they die, nothing special about that. Non of the dead will come awake (that would be special). --Kslotte (talk) 10:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. Wikipedia is not a memorial, nor is it about headline news. It is reasonable to assume that every victim will have a funeral date and place. Which policy or guideline indicates the specific detail needs to be published here? WWGB (talk) 10:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Attempted targeted killing(s)?

The article explains that the earlier of the shootings were targeted and not random. The article names all the victims who were killed; user's comments on this talk page suggested that only the targeted victims were notable for inclusion or at least warrant greater detail in the article text. I understand that it is common for news and probably here on Wikipedia to mention and name victims killed but not wounded.

I forget all the details but I saw a man in the news more than once, that had survived with minor shotgun wounds to his face. Bird and he knew each other, Bird from his car had called him over, shot him in the face but missed. Was this man targeted? The article contains a fair amount of information about the targeted victims and posible motives; I won't dictate what definately should and should not be in the article, but it seems odd to leave out this guy who was known to Bird and who Bird tried to kill just because he survived. Were there any more attempted tageted victims he did not kill? Carlwev (talk) 23:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I think we are unlikely to know Bird's full intentions and motives unless he left behind some sort of "hitlist", or one can be pieced together by the Coroner's inquest from external evidence. Meanwhile, the case is "on hold" while the police collate all the evidence they can find, and present it to the Coroner. I don't think we should speculate beyond known facts, but am ambivalent as to whether individuals who were shot and survived should be included, but I tend towards listing them, but not the funeral details of the deceased, because that is not encyclopedic information. Rodhullandemu 23:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Carlwev, we should put also some focus on the wounded also, not only the killed. --Kslotte (talk) 00:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: Motive

I know people can figuratively explode, but- "pressurised"? How about put under pressure or was under pressure?Gimelgort 18:20, 2 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gimelgort (talk • contribs)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Cumbria shootings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Cumbria shootings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cumbria_shootings/Archive_1&oldid=1136335684"