Talk:Aberfan disaster

Cadw/Icomos listing
I'm always a bit cautious about changing the ending of an FA. I know the effort that goes into getting the structure right. But I think the 2022 listing on the Cadw/ICOMOS Register of Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest in Wales is significant. And, personally, I think the reason for its listing, as a monument "of great national importance and meaning" makes for a rather poignant conclusion. Others may disagree, and I'm absolutely fine with its being moved elsewhere, but I do think it warrants a mention. KJP1 (talk) 07:39, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, it certainly needs to be referred to, and I think I agree it works well as the final point. I've tweaked the ref to be consistent with the others, but it looks a good addition. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:00, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Teachers
I see that Howell Williams died at the end of last month,. I know that two of the four surviving teachers, Hettie Williams (nee Taylor), and Rennie Williams, have died previously. Does anyone know if the last of the four, Mair Morgan, is still alive? KJP1 (talk) 08:40, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Someone of that name and roughly the correct age died in 2009, though of course can't be certain that's her. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:45, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * - Thanks very much. I’ll do a bit more digging. They’re not uncommon Welsh names, as is Williams, held by three of the teachers, none of whom I believe were related. If Howell Williams was the last of the surviving teachers to die, it may warrant a note. Can discuss with User:SchroCat. KJP1 (talk) 13:02, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, definitely not a unique name - another Mair Morgan died in 2019, although that one was slightly older than this Mair Morgan should have been. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:05, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it would certainly be worth a mention. A search of a news database doesn't show any articles mentioning her death, which I would have thought there would have been. The pictures of them at the inquiry shows all four were fairly young at the time (she was the same age as Howell Williams, so would be around 82 now), so it is entirely possible she's still alive. As a slight side note, told me he used to work with someone who was shoved out the window by Williams on that day, thus saving his life. There are a few people walking around today who have a lot to thank him for. - SchroCat (talk) 13:25, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed so. Before joining the Crown Estate, of which I was in those far-off days the librarian, my colleague had served in the Royal Navy and seen the world. He left one in no doubt about the debt he and fellow survivors owed to his teacher.  Tim riley  talk   13:58, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I’d agree SchroCat - the fact that the deaths of the other two women, and of Howell Williams, have been covered, might suggest that she is indeed still alive. KJP1 (talk) 15:46, 1 April 2023 (UTC)


 * According to this, Ms Morgan was still alive on 28 April 2023. There have not been any other news reports that I have seen since that date, which is excellent news. - SchroCat (talk) 10:01, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Error in this paragraph
The Queen did not visit on the 29th of October: ”

Because of the vast quantity and consistency of the spoil, it was a week before all the bodies were recovered; the last victim was found on 28 October. The Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh visited Aberfan on 29 October to pay their respects to those who had died. 208.38.231.66 (talk) 13:50, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * There are lots of sources which say 29 October. Do you have a reliable source that says otherwise? - SchroCat (talk) 16:34, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Superfluous source
There have been recent attempts to add an unnecessary source to the article. Wherever possible we need to ensure that the strongest ones possible. This means that an academic source takes precedence over a newspaper. We already have a very strong academic source in place, and the addition of this new one is completely unnecessary. I’m not sure why the need to edit war over the inclusion, but it would be best if the matter was discussed, rather than the issue trying to be forced. - SchroCat (talk) 04:56, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * So, why are you edit warring over an addition? The Banner  talk 08:48, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Why are you edit warring at all? This is an FA and it requires the highest level sourcing possible. A newspaper article is not the highest level souring possible. - SchroCat (talk) 08:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You know that you are now in breach of 3RR? And you are removing extra sourcing, not a replacement. The Banner  talk 09:10, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Why are you lying in your edit summary? There is no POV-pushing: I am following the policies relating to sourcing. I am aware of what I am doing, and it's ensuring the article retains the highest level souring (as well as keeping in line with WP:STATUS QUO). You are just being disruptive edit warrior for zero reason. - SchroCat (talk) 09:14, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You are edit warring, pushing your own preferred version (= POV-pushing) and now you start with personal attacks. You have nothing useful to offer? The newspaper article is a relevant addition, not a replacement. See also: Status quo stonewalling. The Banner  talk 09:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That's not what POV-pushing means, genius. The newspaper isn't relevant, given we have a superior source in place that fully supports the information. What you're doing is a form of citebombing: adding superfluous citations for zero reason. The fact you're happy to ignore BRD, status quo and a heap of other guidelines and policies just shows a disruptive approach. - SchroCat (talk) 09:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Please look at your own behaviour first. The Banner  talk 09:44, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * FFS. Is that the best you can do? No thoughts as to citebombing with a weaker source? Ignoring BRD, status quo and the rest - and for what? Absolutely zero benefit to anyone - certainly not the article or readers. - SchroCat (talk) 09:51, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * At least I did not need personal attacks, as you did on multiple occasions. The Banner  talk 10:08, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * And yet you're still avoiding talking about the article and the absence of any need to include a weaker source. Perhaps focusing on that would be a better use of time? - SchroCat (talk) 10:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You think it is a weaker source solely because it is a newspaper article? The Banner  talk 10:19, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Mostly, yes, although there are obvious exceptions and caveats to that. On nearly every occasion academic sources are preferred to newspapers, particularly in an FA. See WP:SOURCE - one of our policies, which states "If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources on topics such as history, medicine, and science." - SchroCat (talk) 10:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * But this was an additional source, not a replacement of an academic source. The Banner  talk 11:29, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * So what? The sentence is already supported by a very strong (near unimpeachable) source. What benefit is there in adding an inferior one? - SchroCat (talk) 11:36, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * After crying about civility, you think this is acceptable? That's a sub-standard and untruthful way to go about editing. This sort of gutter approach to editing leaves a very bad taste in the mouth. - SchroCat (talk) 12:04, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

SchroCat is correct: the Guardian press article is surplus to requirements. Better to stick to the best sources.  Tim riley  talk   09:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * But the claim he used to remove the source is that it is an inferior source and that is why he removed it. That quality part is never been a serious part of the discussion here. The Banner  talk 10:15, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * "That quality part is never been a serious part of the discussion here": re-read my opening comment to the thread and you'll see I discussed this exact point. I've repeated is several times in my first and subsequent edit summaries, and several times in the thread. I'm not sure how you can actually claim such a thing! - SchroCat (talk) 10:18, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * "Citebombing" is a stretch. But I wholly disagree that a more-approachable, easily-accessible source from a respected newspaper is "inferior" to a hard-to-parse academic source. I don't understand why the addition of an extra source that is easier for readers to consume and which backs up the material is somehow problematic.
 * As well as @SchroCat's flagrant breach of 3RR, this feels like an OWNership issue too. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 10:19, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Nope. See WP:FAOWN. The rest of your comment contains straw man arguments that only serves to prove FUTON bias and runs counter to WP:offline sources too. If you want to include just because you think it a 'nice' article, then Aberfan_disaster would be the place to leave it. Wherever possible we use the higher sources first, which are academic ones. This is an FA, so the highest sources are always used wherever possible. As I've said above, see WP:SOURCE, which says academic sources tend to be the better ones to use. - SchroCat (talk) 10:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Given we're literally a part of the Open Knowledge movement, suggesting it's FUTON bias that we should include references that readers can easily is a pretty odd argument. SOURCE doesn't say that we should exclude online sources, merely that we should not exclude offline ones. Likewise FAOWN doesn't say there's a magic exception to 3RR nor does it say that repeatedly reverting the addition of a quality source is an exception to OWNership.
 * We are using the SOURCE approved sources; nobody is suggesting they be removed. Some editors here (including me) are merely suggesting that the inclusion of another good-quality source improves the article. Nothing about being an FA says that we should not include additional sources nor that newspapers are somehow lowly sources that should be excluded.
 * That you seem to be so insistant that an additional quality source not be included appears to be leading you to try to twist several policy guidelines to justify an opinion that the hard-to-parse academic source is good but The Guardian is somehow beneath us. Frankly, it feels like pompous OWNership, even though I assume that is not the intention. I genuinely don't understand what harm you think the additional reference is bringing. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 12:14, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you're misunderstanding what the Open Knowledge movement is. We've already provided the knowledge and it's open and free to use. It has zero bearing on the choice of source. I'm sorry that you seem to have trouble understanding the academic source, but it backs up the statement we have in the article. Thanks for the additional insults. They're making my lunchtime even more enjoyable than it was before. Either way, the academic source is there: it doesn't need backing up by anything else, particularly a weaker one. - SchroCat (talk) 12:19, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No insults were intended by my reply; I'm criticising your actions not your personality (which clearly I know very little about, given we've not interacted much before). Though suggesting that I "seem to have trouble understanding the academic source" might also be considered by some to be a personal attack. Either way, I don't doubt that we would both rather be doing other things over lunch.
 * I think you are forgetting that we are one of the most-visited sites on the Internet and that we are trying to build an encyclopædia of everything, available to everyone. Providing easy-to-read, easy-to-parse articles is a part of that and I would suggest that easy-to-read, easy-to-parse, easy-to-verify citations is a logical extension of that.
 * You seem very insistant that including that Guardian piece is somehow beneath the article's dignity. Whereas several editors now are suggesting that the additional reference is beneficial to readers. Yes, the academic source is already there; we are saying that including the non-academic source as well improves the referencing. Frankly, we are saying that, while it might not need backing up by another source, it benefits from it. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 14:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There was no personal attack in anything I wrote: you've referred to the "hard-to-parse academic source" on a couple of occasions, and it's a justifiable conclusion to come to, although my apologies if that's not what you meant. Thinking "easy-to-read, easy-to-parse, easy-to-verify citations is a logical extension" of providing similarly viewed articles, just isn't right though, as the various links I've provided show. It's in our policies and guidelines that that's not right: they are clear that we use the strongest references, not the available ones. As to the article being improved by the addition of a weaker source, I'm afraid that I don't agree with the logic behind that at all. If we had an weak source backed up by this, then that would be fine, but we have an academic source that's trumps it by a country mile. And the bit in the Guardian article that deals with the point in question hardly does so with any strong foundation. In other words, adding a weaker source that doesn't deal well with the bit that it's supposed to be supporting is hardly improving the referencing. I've added the article as an External link, and think that's as far as it needs to go - the Guardian piece is on the page and this veritable storm in a teacup is even more pointless than it was when it started. - SchroCat (talk) 14:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Speaking as the editor who originally added the Guardian citation, I think that you are being unreasonable, and agree with @OwenBlacker that you are displaying ownership over this article. The feature article I added is from a good quality source and directly relevant to the section of the article on the residents. It contains detailed information about a specific survivor, which complements the academic source and is useful to our readers. I believe it belongs where I originally put it, not in External Links. But I am not going to edit war over this. Funcrunch (talk) 15:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Another one happy to push out the boat of incivility: please see WP:FAOWN, and realise that it's not ownership, but ensuring that an FA retains it's high level of sourcing. The source holds very limited information for the claim it was supposed to be supporting, and the academic source is far superior then a newspaper article. The only point in using it is as a source, and not to provide 'detailed information about a specific survivor', but to support the point that pupils (plural) at the school felt survivor guilt. The Guardian article says that one pupil did. To try and use that one experience to support the multiple is OR. The academic source we use goes into the details of the problems faced by the residents of Aberfan, particularly the parents and surviving children, including the multiple cases of survivor guilt. This is why the academic source is far superior to the newspaper. It actually supports what we are claiming, without us having to resort to OR to justify its inclusion. - SchroCat (talk) 15:53, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think that describing that as OR is a bit of a stretch, as is complaining about incivility any time you are criticised. But if the link is in External links now then I'm sure we all have better things to do than argue the toss further. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 18:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Of course it's OR - it's pretty much a textbook example of it. The source is being used to attempt to use the reported experience of one person to cover the text which says multiple people had problems: that's OR. It's not a stretch to say that. It's misusing a source to claim something that it doesn't say. As to the incivility: I'll stand by what I've said. I'm ensuring this FA stays within the boundaries of our policies, retains a high standard of sourcing and isn't being degraded by a weaker source that relies on OR: that's not ownership - it's just having standards. - SchroCat (talk) 19:31, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I recommend a cessation of acrimony. If anyone can establish a consensus to add the recent Guardian article cite, so be it. I couldn't support it myself: I read the article on the day it came out, and I found it moving, but the recollections of a single person fifty-something years later are not a front-runner in the WP:RS stakes. If there were no alternative sources the Guardian piece might conceivably do, at a stretch, but we have much better sources already. As to accusations of WP:OWN, I cannot count the number of times over the years a drive-by editor has automatically accused anyone resisting his or her pet edit of ownership. Failing a consensus to use the Guardian article as a source I suggest the matter be dropped.  Tim riley  talk   09:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * With an edit war started over it, their is certainly reason for the ownership claim. Especially because the "inferior source" is so inferior that is now added as external link. In my opinion, it makes clear that it is a matter of taste and type, not quality. The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 09:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * As above, it wasn't supporting anything except by use of OR. According to our guidelines and policies, that shouldn't happen. It is acceptable as an EL, however. The difference between ELs and sources to support specific statements is quite clear. Having standards is not ownership, despite the number of times people try and use it to try and win an argument. As Tim riley has said, there is no consensus for inclusion, and this matter can now be closed. - SchroCat (talk) 09:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * As you stonewalled it by edit warring... The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 10:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)


 * And this closure is another proof of ownership and stonewalling. The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 11:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, please!  Tim riley  talk   16:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)