Talk:Aberfan disaster/Archive 2

Official tribunal images
This set of images might be of interest:, particularly this plan. Not sure if they are useable, as presumably all are Crown Copyright. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:50, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Interesting - was thinking about this the other day when reading the Tribunal Report at the Durham Mining Museum site. I think there is a note somewhere that it is reproduced with permission of the HMSO.
 * Also, Crown Copyright allows copying automatically for published works 50 years after publication (at the end of the year) provided the source is acknowledged, so I think the tribunal report and maps (produced by Ordnance Survey) could be freely reproduced on 1st January 2018. The photos may have a different copyright if the copyright was assigned to the crown by the author (but not if the author was an "officer or servant of the Crown"). Might be worth asking the HMSO nicely since they've already released material to Durham - but they may not like it being released under the Creative Commons license. Robevans123 (talk) 15:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The plan is really useful. I was wondering about how far away the secondary school was, and it looks to be about 100 metres (not exact as there is no scale but estimated on width of terrace houses). Is this the map you used to make the north or east decision in the article? I'm not sure that Moy Road was divided - it looks more like it was inundated from the junction with (Aberf)an Road, and then Moy Road continued south past the school. I think the bit of road north of the school is actually part of Pant-Glas coming round the corner. Page 13 in this document seems to confirm my map reading (but they could have just read the map the same way I did). Fairly reputable source though - even if they have shown the (same) tribunal map without acknowledgement. Could be a useful source for some references as well.
 * If we can use the map, it very clearly shows how the emergency services could only reach the site from two directions, both of which were now effectively cul-de-sacs. Robevans123 (talk) 16:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes it was that map, backed up by what was shown on the documentary. But if we can't find this in a written source, or adjust it slightly, it might have to be removed as WP:OR. The image here and the lower BBC/PA image here show where the river of slurry settled. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:17, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Which documentary was it in? I've watched and read so much over the last few days I'm struggling to remember what came from where. I'll try to give it a look - my reading of the map is just that (and the doc is written very recently), and it's impossible to check on present day street maps as parts of the roads are no longer in existence.
 * Those photos are shocking. If a bit more of the tip had broken away both schools might have been completely destroyed.
 * Been listening to Radio Wales on t'internet most of the day. Interesting to hear some mutterings that Robens et al should be de-lorded/stripped of recognition on hospital buildings etc. Didn't catch the details.
 * Also, in the Surviving Aberfan documentary (I think) that one class wasn't in the school as they'd left to go on a walk. Robevans123 (talk) 17:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it was last night's Surviving Aberfan. I had not heard about one class being out for a walk. That was the end of the road that the fire crew arrived, to attend "a collapsed house". One thing that was mentioned was that on the day before half term, school assembly was always postponed until the afternoon. Had it not been the last day, and the whole school had been standing in the main hall, I think it's quite likely many more would have escaped or survived. But another imponderable, I guess. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:45, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No need for OR: the 1951 edition of the OS 6" map (consultable on the National Library of Scotland website) Glamorgan XIX.NW (includes: Llanwynno; Merthyr Tudful.) clearly shows - in fact explicitly labels - Pant-Glas Road as going round the corner Rjccumbria (talk) 18:38, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Ideal, thanks. So that would be the northern end of Moy Road where the bulk of the slurry spilled between the two schools? I wonder if there is any written account that includes this detail? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:11, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Brilliant - thanks Rjccumbria. With the scale, looks about 100 yds between the two schools. And about 150 yards north of the school, is that the tramway that fed the tips? I don't know why but I'd always assumed that the route would have gone round the south and west of the village. If it was the route, the children would have had a view of the drams going up and carrying the material that would eventually slide back down.
 * Martin - when you say the northern end of Moy Road, do you mean the bit around the red text "73" in "471.73"?
 * Yes, exactly. On that second plan I originally linked you will see that a terrace of eight houses stood on the west (school side) of Moy Road, between the two schools. You can see from the two photos that these were all flattened by the wall of slurry 20-30 ft high. This is corroborated by the report of Len Haggett, fireman from the MRS at Dinas, who speaks (for the first time in 50 years) in the Surviving Aberfan documentary. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:52, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry - my bad. Watched the Surviving Aberfan documentary (from about 22 minutes in) and looked at the plan, and the first colour picture (from spidercatweb), all together. When I first looked at the Plan I assumed everywhere in the dotted area was equally affected so the rescue services must have come in through Pant-Glas. Looking at the colour photo makes it clear that the 20/30 feet wall of slurry is confined to a width of 30/40 yards, and the fire engine could have gone up Moy Road (to about where the yellow tractors and dumper trucks are in the bottom middle of the picture.
 * Just noticed Rjccumbria has already effected a change based on my mistake beliefs - sorry all. Although Aberfan Road was in the area affected, it looks mainly like runoff of black fluid, rather than the central high core, which looks as though it stops just before the houses on the western side of Aberfan Road (bottom middle of colour photo). So it's (AFAICT) true to say that "Moy Road was blocked by a wall of slurry to the north-east of the school." At least part of this could be referenced by a ref to the documentary. But if you want to include any geographical detail then you need to combine the documentary ref with maps and pictures. I can't find a map that separates the overall area affected from the major wall of slurry.
 * Struggling to work out how this fits in with the overall narrative, and keep getting pulled back to the start of the paragraph, which gives no idea of the order events, which I think is - first the farm, then the school and the first row of houses on Moy Road, and then the other houses. Also not sure about the number of houses. Most sources say 18, but some say 20 (and some of these may be Wikipedia mirrors).
 * Sorry - going to have to leave it at that for tonight, and hope to come back with fresh ideas tomorrow. Robevans123 (talk) 21:29, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks your recent edits make it much clearer and coherent. Robevans123 (talk) 15:12, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the thanks. I'm afraid I used to do this sort of thing for a living (fortunately never for anything with fatalities) so I probably accumulated a certain facility. Not really on this sub-topic, I'm not a local (just someone who used to have a professional interest in how dysfunctional organisation can be lethal (obviously without the slightest relevance to any of my employers)) and if I don't get back to writing up the disused railways of West Cumbria I can't think who will - but looking at the map, surely 'the school' in the photo accompanying the "collapse" section must be the Secondary School, not the Junior ? Rjccumbria (talk) 15:43, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely right. I'll leave you to edit the caption. I'd never looked at the photo closely. Interesting job you had - any chance of a thesis on whether Wikipedia is a dysfunctional organisation or not? Hopefully there is no danger of it being lethal... I work as a technical author ("resting" between contracts at the moment), so I can usually, I hope, bring clarity to text, but, being from south Wales (and aged 9 at the time of the disaster) I was not on top form yesterday. I do hope to edit and expand the article over the coming year. Good luck with the railways of West Cumbria. I hope to do much the same with the south Wales valleys lines sometime. Diolch. Robevans123 (talk) 16:11, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Just leaping in! Please adjust caption further if required. Maybe it's a bit tenuous to even mention the Secondary School there? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:22, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure about the caption. The photo does give some sense of the geography. Maybe it should moved to the Background section above? With the caption indicating the northern part of Aberfan to the right of the tramway, and the majority (southern and middle) to the left, with the school just out of shot (to the left). That would be a long caption though! BTW the photo is from July 1964 so it's from before the disaster.
 * It prompted my to go and check what other photos we have (precious few) and to see if there is anything else useful on geograph. I found this on geograph. It's from August 1968. It's from a more northerly point, but does show the tips before clearing. I also think it shows shows part of the track of the slide (just to the left of the second post from the right), but would need to check it against some of the other photos.
 * Just checked - the file has already been copied to commons (but not yet categorised). Certainly useful to add somewhere later in the article: Robevans123 (talk) 17:09, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Obvious place would be against the row over paying for their removal. I have had a stab at it on that basis Rjccumbria (talk) 20:56, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That'll do nicely (or as we sometimes say "bloody tidy, mun"). Robevans123 (talk) 12:16, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Are there any freely-available images of the hillside after completion of the removal/landscaping? Not quite sure where one would most logically go, but it would round off the tale on that point. Rjccumbria (talk) 19:40, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * There are none that I can find. I hope to visit Aberfan sometime in the year ahead to pay my respects, so I'll add it to my list of photos to take. I did find some non-free photos. This photo-feature from the Daily Mail is good, with lots of photos and graphics. About half way through (search for "Then and now"), there is a post-disaster photo linked to a current photo from roughly the same spot, and you can pull the slider across the page to compare the two. Robevans123 (talk) 11:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The "then and now" is impressive, both for what it shows and for how well it shows it. Rjccumbria (talk) 22:40, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The Geograph image appears to have been taken from . This third-party URL shows the Google StreetView image from that point. Unfortunately some trees have grown in the past fifty years. Verbcatcher (talk) 01:13, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That's interesting. Looks as though it would be possible to get a photo from the same position, but probably better to do it in winter when there are less leaves on the trees. Robevans123 (talk) 17:59, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Lord Justice Davies
I think I preferred your first version: being born somewhere is not as powerful a cultural force as having been brought up there. Lloyd George was born in Manchester but generally passed for Welsh; the Duke of Wellington, born in Ireland, objected to being described as Irish, because "you don't call a man a horse just because he was born in a stable' or words to that effect. I have a weakness for from the horse's mouth quotes and the House of Lords discussion of the AG's attempt to bully the press includes a statement that Davies told a BBC interviewer  "These are my own people. I can assure you that I shall leave no stone unturned to see that we arrive at the truth." which is presumably the point being made by noting his birthplace and/or alma mater Any use to you? or over-lengthy? Rjccumbria (talk) 21:32, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * We should probably have both, something like "who had been born and brought up locally" or "who had been born and went to school locally", citing both sources. We could add "in Mountain Ash" for the benefit of local people, but clicking on his link will show this. I think the quote is more suitable for the Tribunal article, where we can put it in the context of suggestions that the tribunal would be a whitewash. Your link is for the Lord Chancellor Lord Gardiner in the House of Lords, referring to an interview on the 24 Hours TV program. It would be good to get the date of the program and to confirm the exact wording. Edmund Davies's commitment to the area is confirmed by the title he took in 1974: Baron Edmund-Davies of Aberpennar. Verbcatcher (talk) 01:16, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

1.5 million payment in 2007
The lead section says "In 1997 Tony Blair's New Labour Government paid back the £150,000 to the ADMF and in 2007 the Welsh Assembly donated £1.5 million to ADMF as recompense for the money wrongly taken."

but the Subsequent events section says "In February 2007 the Welsh Government announced a donation of £1.5 million to the Aberfan Memorial Charity and £500,000 to the Aberfan Education Charity. No connection was made to the shortfall of the 1997 repayment."

This is a contradiction, if there was no connection then it was not "as recompense". In a check-in comment Martinevans123 noted "this ITV source seems to make this connection, but didn't Rhodri Morgan make the connection also?". Perhaps we should say "no official connection", but it may be difficult to find a source for a negative. Verbcatcher (talk) 02:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Here are some links that do not make the connection, , . What I think happened is that the Labour Party had promised recompense for money wrongly taken, but when the Labour-run Welsh government subsequently paid a similar amount no connection was mentioned. I haven't found a source yet. Verbcatcher (talk) 03:22, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, that sums it up well. I've been looking at the sections and noticed they were contradictory and don't tell the full story. Some points arise:
 * The original charity was called the Aberfan Disaster Fund (no mention of Memorial). The charity was effectively split into two charities in 1988 (with different trustees). The successor charities were "The Aberfan Memorial Charity" (Maintenance and repair of cemetery memorials and memorial garden for victims of the Aberfan Disaster 1966) and "Aberfan Disaster Fund and Centre"  (furthering charitable purposes for the general benefit of the inhabitants of Aberfan). The Aberfan Disaster Fund investment account was closed in 2014 with the money going for capital works on the Aberfan and Merthyr Vale Community Centre (the building on the site of the secondary school). (link 4 above)
 * The 1997 government repayment of £150,000 did not take into account inflation or interest on the original amount that was coerced from the Aberfan Disaster Fund. This was a continuing source of resentment. I'm guessing, but don't know for sure, that the money was given to the ADF, which used to make payments to the later charities from the interest in the original fund.
 * The 40th anniversary commemorations brought a lot of the resentment to the surface - many residents did not want any politicians to be present (citation needed - but I'm sure there are some somewhere).
 * The 2007 Welsh Assembly "grants" were made directly to memorial charity (£1,500,000) and the disaster fund and centre charity (£500,000). Afterwards, the memorial charity commissioned significant refurbishment of the cemetery.
 * There was no official statement that the grants were to cover the shortfall caused by inflation and interest (but the figures seem quite similar to what that amount would be...)(again - citation needed), but many commentators/politicians talked about it "being the right thing to do" and finally addressing the original wrong.
 * I think would be best to remove the sentence "No connection was made to the shortfall of the 1997 repayment", but with sufficient other information, readers should be able to see what was going on. Robevans123 (talk) 18:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, that sounds reasonable. Here's a summary document about the 40th anniversary from (somewhere?) at gov.uk. Morgan was quoted here: "Speaking at the memorial garden, which was built on the site of Pantglas Junior School, First Minister Rhodri Morgan said it was "overwhelmingly the right thing for the people of Wales to do". But here's a bit about him putting his uninvited foot in it: . Martinevans123 (talk) 19:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with removing "No connection was made to the shortfall of the 1997 repayment" from theSubsequent events section. We should also remove "as recompense for the money wrongly taken" from the lead section. The £150k payment from charitable funds, the resentment it caused and the subsequent payments are mentioned in several places. We should probably bring these together, maybe in a new subsection onTip clearance (which should include the clearance of the tramway embankment in the village). Verbcatcher (talk) 20:02, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:45, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Can we find a source for a Labour Party commitment to make an addition payment after the £150k in 1997? Perhaps in an election manifesto. Verbcatcher (talk) 20:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I'd be truly amazed if that was ever the subject of a manifesto promise. Even from the Labour Party. Stranger things have happened, I guess. I'd certainly never heard of anything as shabby as that, although I don't live anywhere near Merthyr. And Neil was cosily bedded down in Brussels by then, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:03, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Serendipitiously, I've found a statement in a reliable source that roughly says "while no explicit connection was made between the Welsh Assembly grants, the amount was similar to the shortfall, and was viewed as righting the wrong". I'll update the text and add a section on tip removal, as agreed above, over the weekend. Robevans123 (talk) 21:20, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

What is a tip?
Is this a mining term? Is it UK English? I have no idea and there is no explanation in the article. --Sephiroth9611 (talk) 22:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The first sentence has a wikilink to Spoil tip. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:25, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It's the 12th word? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Wiktionary: "area or place for dumping something, such as rubbish or refuse, as from a mine; a heap". Verbcatcher (talk) 01:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring
Rather than edit warring Mabbet, try using the talk page to explain what you are trying to do and why. - SchroCat (talk) 11:16, 30 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I've full-protected the article for 24 hours so you can come to an agreement. I don't understand how this is "reverting vandalism" (as I assume "rvv" expands to), it looks like a good-faith edit that accidentally introduced a mistake. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  11:31, 30 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Why is this needed, "The smaller Aberfan Calvinistic Chapel nearby was used as a second mortuary from 22 to 29 October, as a holding place prior to burial of the bodies."? That's an obvious tautology from mortuary. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes it is, although this is still a version of the article that I am writing and have not proof read fully. When it is unlocked I shall remove it, unless others get there before me. - SchroCat (talk) 11:46, 30 August 2017 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell, the main locus of this dispute is whether to display co-ordinates directly in the infobox or at the top of the page. What's the difference? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  11:50, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not in the box OR at the top: it's in the box AND at the top - a few inches above. This is a really pointless duplication (even more so than is normally repeated in IBs). There is no need to have it floating at the top of the page, out of all context or position. At least there is some sense of having it in the box. - SchroCat (talk) 11:56, 30 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Okay, your thoughts please. Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)  13:23, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I have asked them twice to use the talk page to discuss. The second time I was accused of being a troll. - SchroCat (talk) 13:30, 30 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Watching Andy's talk, I arrive here, rubbing eyes. You may not know it, but it's common practise to have coordinates BOTH on top and in the infobox. We have readers who would never look at an infobox. We have readers who only look there. The Tower House, for example, but you can check any church I know. Why should this article be different? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * "Common practice" is not a good basis for article development if there isn't a good reason (or policy or guideline); it's just a lazy approach to doing things if there is no rationale. As we don't have readers who look at an idiotbox, perhaps we should just remove this one and leave the co-ordinates at the top. As to your snarky edit summary ("and no comment to calling a 3RR warning "asking to use the talk page"), I told Mabbet to use the talk page twice on his talk page and once in edit summary. I even opened the thread for him. That's more than enough for when he is supposed to at least pay some form of passing attention to WP:BRD, even if he dismisses it out of hand. - SchroCat (talk) 14:05, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Mind you, I was "rubbing eyes" at this rather crass edit. When the notice says " If this article or section has not been edited in several days, please remove this template", I wonder about how useful it is to remove a note when - as the edit summary says - only "37 hours have passed". I am still trying to parse how "37 hours" = "several days" to make it a constructive or useful edit, but I must admit that I'm stumped. - SchroCat (talk) 16:43, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment "Common practice" is also to maintain civility. SchroCat invited a discussion both here and at the other editor's TP.  It was there where he was again reverted with "Go troll somone (sic) else". We hope (talk) 14:32, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I was always under the impression that we placed the coordinates at the top of an article principally because it's a fixed location and it makes it easy for (third-party or internal) mapping tools to pick out that data, rather than having to load the whole page and hunt through it for coordinates. I assume that making it easier for others to extract the data outweighs the aesthetic disadvantage of having the coordinates twice in relatively close proximity, which is why we find so many instances of coordinates in both the infobox and title area. I completely accept that not everybody shares the weight I give to making metadata available; and I concede that it is not much more difficult to pull the data out of a well designed infobox anyway, but at least I think I can offer a valid reason why many editors might want to have coordinates at the top of the article. It's not a big deal and really not worth getting worked up over. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 17:41, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If I read you correctly rex, you are saying that if the co-ordinates are not at the top, the code strippers will still pull the same information out of the IB? That's not an overwhelmingly strong reason to have such close duplication. - SchroCat (talk) 09:40, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed, SchroCat. If a lot of articles are being processed, it's just easier to pull the info from a fixed place on each article – the infobox varies from article to article (and may be absent), but I agree it's not an insuperable obstacle . My preference would naturally be to make life easier for the coders, rather than worry about having the same info repeated in visual proximity, but I can understand perfectly that others may not share my priorities. Good luck with the FAC – I remember being deeply affected by the disaster at the time. --RexxS (talk) 12:00, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I have made the copyedit suggested by Andy Dingley above, as I don't see why a squabble over co-ordinates should hold up improvements like that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:15, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks Richie - SchroCat (talk) 14:24, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Robens section
- thanks for removing this - always thought it messed up the flow of the article but could never quite get round to dealing with it! Diolch Robevans123 (talk) 16:09, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks ! Hopefully the rest of the re-write will be a little easier to write (reading the press reports and histories of the events was a little hard to get through). Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 22:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Population
The statement that Aberfan was a "town" with a population of 58,000 in 1966 is not credible; either the source is in error or it has been wrongly interpreted. This source states that the population of Aberfan and Merthyr Vale ward (which covers Merthyr Vale as well as Aberfan) fell from 5,459 to 4,642 between 1961 and 1971. This seems about right, given the size of the settlement. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 13:42, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure of the exact figure, but I mis-read the source for the 58,000 figure: that was for the Merthyr Tydfil borough as a whole, not Aberfan. - SchroCat (talk) 14:00, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Location
Describing the location of the village as "towards the bottom of the western valley slope of the Mynydd Merthyr hill" is confusing, because the slope that forms the western side of the valley is actually the eastern slope of the mountain, and this needs to be made clear. The version I changed it to is sourced to the OS 1:50,000 map of the area. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 15:15, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I've tweaked it again to be more readable than the previous version; still in line with the sources used. - SchroCat (talk) 15:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is better. Regarding your first answer, maps display information, which can be read. Reading a map is the same as reading a factual book - there is no interpretation. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 15:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Interpretation of maps is needed far more than for the words of a book; it's not good practice to "interpret" graphical information that way, or we end up with descriptions like this that are rather garbled. - SchroCat (talk) 15:38, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * In order to read a book, we have to learn how to read a written language. This takes years. In order to read a map, we have to learn how to read the symbols used. It's the same principle. No more interpretation is needed for maps than books, it's just a different 'language'. FYI, my words that you link to were not the words I would have used if writing from scratch; I was adapting what was already there. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 15:45, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It's two entirely different skills andpeople interpret maps entirely differently than they do words on a page. We end up with things badly written, dubiously put and without a source. Not really an improvement. Enough of this - I have better things to do than try and explain something quite so obvious. - SchroCat (talk) 15:51, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I've got better things to do as well - I'm going to feed my dog. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 16:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Ahhh, a "humorous" dig based on a pun of my name. Brilliant. That Oxbridge education wasn't wasted at all, was it. – SchroCat (talk) 16:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring
Rather than edit warring Mabbet, try using the talk page to explain what you are trying to do and why. - SchroCat (talk) 11:16, 30 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I've full-protected the article for 24 hours so you can come to an agreement. I don't understand how this is "reverting vandalism" (as I assume "rvv" expands to), it looks like a good-faith edit that accidentally introduced a mistake. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:31, 30 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Why is this needed, "The smaller Aberfan Calvinistic Chapel nearby was used as a second mortuary from 22 to 29 October, as a holding place prior to burial of the bodies."? That's an obvious tautology from mortuary. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes it is, although this is still a version of the article that I am writing and have not proof read fully. When it is unlocked I shall remove it, unless others get there before me. - SchroCat (talk) 11:46, 30 August 2017 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell, the main locus of this dispute is whether to display co-ordinates directly in the infobox or at the top of the page. What's the difference? <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:50, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not in the box OR at the top: it's in the box AND at the top - a few inches above. This is a really pointless duplication (even more so than is normally repeated in IBs). There is no need to have it floating at the top of the page, out of all context or position. At least there is some sense of having it in the box. - SchroCat (talk) 11:56, 30 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Okay, your thoughts please. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  13:23, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I have asked them twice to use the talk page to discuss. The second time I was accused of being a troll. - SchroCat (talk) 13:30, 30 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Watching Andy's talk, I arrive here, rubbing eyes. You may not know it, but it's common practise to have coordinates BOTH on top and in the infobox. We have readers who would never look at an infobox. We have readers who only look there. The Tower House, for example, but you can check any church I know. Why should this article be different? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * "Common practice" is not a good basis for article development if there isn't a good reason (or policy or guideline); it's just a lazy approach to doing things if there is no rationale. As we don't have readers who look at an idiotbox, perhaps we should just remove this one and leave the co-ordinates at the top. As to your snarky edit summary ("and no comment to calling a 3RR warning "asking to use the talk page"), I told Mabbet to use the talk page twice on his talk page and once in edit summary. I even opened the thread for him. That's more than enough for when he is supposed to at least pay some form of passing attention to WP:BRD, even if he dismisses it out of hand. - SchroCat (talk) 14:05, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Mind you, I was "rubbing eyes" at this rather crass edit. When the notice says " If this article or section has not been edited in several days, please remove this template", I wonder about how useful it is to remove a note when - as the edit summary says - only "37 hours have passed". I am still trying to parse how "37 hours" = "several days" to make it a constructive or useful edit, but I must admit that I'm stumped. - SchroCat (talk) 16:43, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment "Common practice" is also to maintain civility. SchroCat invited a discussion both here and at the other editor's TP.  It was there where he was again reverted with "Go troll somone (sic) else". We hope (talk) 14:32, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I was always under the impression that we placed the coordinates at the top of an article principally because it's a fixed location and it makes it easy for (third-party or internal) mapping tools to pick out that data, rather than having to load the whole page and hunt through it for coordinates. I assume that making it easier for others to extract the data outweighs the aesthetic disadvantage of having the coordinates twice in relatively close proximity, which is why we find so many instances of coordinates in both the infobox and title area. I completely accept that not everybody shares the weight I give to making metadata available; and I concede that it is not much more difficult to pull the data out of a well designed infobox anyway, but at least I think I can offer a valid reason why many editors might want to have coordinates at the top of the article. It's not a big deal and really not worth getting worked up over. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 17:41, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If I read you correctly rex, you are saying that if the co-ordinates are not at the top, the code strippers will still pull the same information out of the IB? That's not an overwhelmingly strong reason to have such close duplication. - SchroCat (talk) 09:40, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed, SchroCat. If a lot of articles are being processed, it's just easier to pull the info from a fixed place on each article – the infobox varies from article to article (and may be absent), but I agree it's not an insuperable obstacle . My preference would naturally be to make life easier for the coders, rather than worry about having the same info repeated in visual proximity, but I can understand perfectly that others may not share my priorities. Good luck with the FAC – I remember being deeply affected by the disaster at the time. --RexxS (talk) 12:00, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I have made the copyedit suggested by Andy Dingley above, as I don't see why a squabble over co-ordinates should hold up improvements like that. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  14:15, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks Richie - SchroCat (talk) 14:24, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Aberfan Disaster Tribunal
Although his name appears elsewhere on the page, it is bizarre not to name Lord Justice Edmund Davies as the chair, in the opening of the section on the Aberfan Disaster Tribunal. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:47, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It's mentioned two paragraphs above, with the correct links to his title and name, and in the lead and in the idiotbox. I'm not sure that every piece of information we have needs to be repeated so many times, and three seems more than enough. - SchroCat (talk) 14:52, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No matter how much he is mentioned elsewhere it is, as I said, bizarre not to mention his role in the section on the inquiry for which he was chairman. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:03, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Noted. - SchroCat (talk) 15:06, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The section could mention that the other two members of the tribunal were Harold Harding, a civil engineer about whom WP already has an article, and Vernon Lawrence ("greatly respected former Clerk to the Monmouthshire County Council" Hansard). BencherliteTalk 15:09, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you Bench, those are now added. - SchroCat (talk) 15:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks
As someone, the grandson of a Rhondda miner and a 1st year student in Cardiff in 1966 I was deeply shocked by this disaster. The recent improvements in pictures have given me a far better understanding of event. Thanks to those concerned. JRPG (talk) 21:50, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * As someone, the grandson of a Rhondda bank clerk, I concur and look forward to the FAC when it arrives. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  14:31, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The FAC will be next year. There are three images in the report that need to be in the article and they fall out of crown copyright at the end of this year. It could go through FAC without the images, but it wouldn't be anywhere near good enough without those extra images. - SchroCat (talk) 15:55, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Clarity of writing
My attempt to render the prose:

"Mud and water from the slide flooded many other houses in the vicinity, forcing many to evacuate their homes"

less ambiguous by changing it to:

"Mud and water from the slide flooded many other houses in the vicinity, forcing many residents to evacuate their homes"

has been reverted (twice; by an editor who lectures me not to edit war).

Mindful that our readers have mixed reading abilities, and the general principles of writing clearly for such an audience, I'm sure that suggesting that "many other houses... evacuate[d] their homes" is not wise; and I certainly don't see any harm including a single short word of clarification.

The second "many" should also be replaced, of course. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:46, 26 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, you have been reverted because you continually ignore BRD. Your opinion is noted, but there is no need for the addition: unless was actually wants to misread something, there is no ambiguity. - SchroCat (talk) 16:53, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It's better without "many residents". A suggestion: "Mud and water from the slide flooded many other houses in the vicinity, forcing residents to evacuate their homes." That gets rid of the two manys. SarahSV (talk) 17:05, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Works for me. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:31, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I've advised you before to stop replying on BRD - and especially on your misrepresentation of it - as a smokescreen for your edit warring; which is clearly in breach of its advice. Your assertion about wanting to misread is, of course, unfounded. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:31, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll not take "advice" from a second-rate edit warrior like you, Mabbet (particularly one who is disruptive enough to make trolling edits with no rationale except to piss people off). Suffice to say, you have made sub-standard edits (Bold), I have reverted them, and guess what the next step is for most people... yours is to revert again, so there's no "misrepresentation", except in your claims. There is nothing unfounded in what I have written: it is difficult to see ambiguity unless you deliberately force yourself to do so. I'm not sure why you've decided to try and annoy me at this particular point - life is so much sweeter when you keep your distance. Thanks Sarah, but with the removal of the first 'many' the change is not needed. - SchroCat (talk) 17:37, 26 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm not seeing the "ambiguity" here. Mabbet, why don't you go and review a GA nomination rather than waste your time here?  Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   18:43, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Please see Civility. Verbcatcher (talk) 04:42, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Who are you talking to?   Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   04:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't want to raise the temperature by identifying individuals. We can all read what has been posted, and assess which comments were inappropriate and which may have prompted inappropriate responses. This talk page should be about the article, discussions about the behaviour of individual editors should be the user talk pages and if necessary raised on the administrators' noticeboard.


 * This started as relatively trivial disagreement about wording, no facts about the disaster were in dispute. This should not have become heated. This is particularly unfortunate here, as this talk page may be read by people whose family members died in the disaster. What are they likely to think of this exchange? Verbcatcher (talk) 21:33, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Mines Inspectorate 'failed in their duty' - argument could do with expansion ?
In the disaster tribunal section, we have this para:

''McLean and Johnes observe that HM Inspectorate of Mines went largely unchallenged by the tribunal, although the two consider that the organisation failed in their duty; in doing so, they created a situation of regulatory capture, where rather than protecting the public interest—in this case the citizens of Aberfan—their regulatory failures fell in line with the interests of the NCB, the organisation they were supposed to be overseeing. ''

That seems to be unduly condensed, to the point where it reports assertions, rather than analysis, especially given that the section on legislation - as it stands- says

''"The Act was an extension of the earlier Mines and Quarries Act 1954, which did not legislate over tips." '' which makes it hard to see what part of the duty given to them by Parliament the inspectorate failed in.

and then goes on to say ''According to McLean and Johnes, "the general commitment to public safety that the Tribunal had envisaged was not implemented" through the act, as the tribunal had advised wider legislation that should "consider the safety, health and welfare of all persons going about their lawful business in the vicinity of a mine, including the safety of their property". ''

which would again suggest that the legislation as it stood in 1966 did not consider the citizens of Aberfan.

I am not sure that the legislation section has got all the nuances right:
 * What the BGS reference says is "This Act is an extension of The Mines and Quarries Act 1954 which did not mention tips specifically in its provisions." The tribunal held (and a Divisional Inspector concurred (report para 67)) that tips fell within the scope of the 1954 Act and hence the remit of the Inspectorate,(presumably as 'any matter, thing, or practice at a mine' ?) although it recommended (report para 295 clause(2))that the 1954 Act be amended to remove any doubt that tips should be understood as 'structures' within the meaning of the Act


 * The more important shortcoming of the 1954 Act was that - to quote the BGS again- "the only reference in the 1954 Act to the safety of the public beyond the mine or quarry is a section dealing with the fencing of abandoned and disused mines and of quarries." Hence, the tribunal noted (report para 295, clause (1)); "It follows that there is no obligation on the Inspectorate of Mines, in the exercise of its powers of securing the enforcement of the Act, to have regard to the safety of the general public", going on
 * "Indeed, s. 146 (1) which gives power to the Inspector to serve a notice for prohibiting or changing 'any matter, thing, or practice at a mine' which 'is or is likely shortly to become dangerous' repeats the limitation to the safety of persons employed at the mine. We recommend that this limitation in the Act be removed and that the owners and managers of mines, and also the Inspectorate of Mines, should be required to consider the safety, health, and welfare of all persons going about their lawful business in the vicinity of a mine, including the safety of their property"


 * so the recommendation was not for "wider legislation to consider..." but for an amendment which would require owners and managers of mines and mine inspectors to consider....
 * The 1969 Act did not include the limitation, but only covered tips, so there was no statutory duty on NCB or inspectorate to consider effects on the public of other mine operations (until the 1974 Health & Safety at Work Act) Rjccumbria (talk) 21:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I would think that most/nearly all of your suggested additions should be to Aberfan Disaster Tribunal, rather than this article, where the tribunal is only one aspect of a wider subject. - SchroCat (talk) 22:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Town or village?
There have been a series of reverts of an edit to the opening paragraph:
 * The Aberfan disaster was the catastrophic collapse of a National Coal Board (NCB) colliery spoil tip above the Welsh village of Aberfan, near Merthyr Tydfil, on 21 October, 1966. The tip slid down the mountain above the village at 9.15 am, killing 116 children and 28 adults as it engulfed the local junior school and other buildings in the [ / ].

"In the town" is misleading because Aberfan is a village and Merthyr Tydfil is a town. "In the town" suggests that buildings were damaged in Merthyr Tydfil, which is wrong.

Perhaps there is confusion from Aberfan being in Merthyr Tydfil County Borough. Aberfan is separate from the town of Merthyr Tydfil, and the county borough was not established until 1996.

For the most recent revert, SchroCat gave the edit summary "Avoids repetition". I assume this means that SchroCat wants to avoid using 'village' twice in the same sentence. I do not think this is a problem, and even if it is inelegant, clarity and precision should trump style.

'Village' and 'town' are not synonyms. I expect that some editors have rules to make the distinction, but in my view Aberfan is a village and is not a town. This is supported by the Aberfan article.

Any comments? Verbcatcher (talk) 22:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It's poor writing to repeat something like "village" in close succession. There isn't confusion, and 99% of people reading the article won't be confused unless they try to see confusion. I'm fine with an alternative word, but not repetition, which is just poor. - SchroCat (talk) 22:42, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Would it be better (or at least avoid the argument/discussion) if the first mention of 'above Aberfan' also mentioned the mountain ? If the reader already knows about it, then the first "village" in the second sentence probably isn't needed. (Something along the lines of:

"The Aberfan disaster was the catastrophic collapse of a National Coal Board (NCB) colliery spoil tip at 9.15 am on 21 October, 1966. The tip had been created on a mountain slope above the Welsh village of Aberfan, near Merthyr Tydfil. A build-up of water in the accumulated rock and shale of the tip caused it to suddenly slide downhill as a slurry, killing 116 children and 28 adults as it engulfed the local junior school and other buildings in the village."
 * (If the way forward is a slight recast, rather than a search for a universally acceptable synonym, I personally would also hanker after mentioning the springs in the first para, on the general principle of giving the basic facts ASAP:

"The Aberfan disaster was the catastrophic collapse of a National Coal Board (NCB) colliery spoil tip at 9.15 am on 21 October, 1966. The tip had been created on a mountain slope above the Welsh village of Aberfan, near Merthyr Tydfil and overlaid a natural spring. A build-up of water in the accumulated rock and shale of the tip caused it to suddenly slide downhill as a slurry, killing 116 children and 28 adults as it engulfed the local junior school and other buildings in the village."
 * but that's a different point/greedy.) Rjccumbria (talk) 23:37, 8 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I suggest we omit in the town and in the village, leaving:
 * The Aberfan disaster was the catastrophic collapse of a National Coal Board (NCB) colliery spoil tip above the Welsh village of Aberfan, near Merthyr Tydfil, on 21 October, 1966. The tip slid down the mountain above the village at 9.15 am, killing 116 children and 28 adults as it engulfed the local junior school and other buildings.
 * Verbcatcher (talk) 00:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Or better,
 * The Aberfan disaster was the catastrophic collapse of a National Coal Board (NCB) colliery spoil tip above the Welsh village of Aberfan, near Merthyr Tydfil, on 21 October, 1966. The tip slid down the mountain at 9.15 am, killing 116 children and 28 adults as it engulfed the local junior school and other buildings in the village.
 * Verbcatcher (talk) 00:46, 9 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Last one reads best. Robevans123 (talk) 12:53, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree last is simpler, nothwithstading Rjccumbria's point about the springs. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:15, 9 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I'd go with the second of 's versions. - SchroCat (talk) 13:16, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I will add my last version, as it addresses SchroCat issue with repetition and nobody appears to object. This does not rule out other versions, however I think that Rjccumbria's give more detail that we need in the lead paragraph, and it is better just to give the stark facts. I would also omit "National Coal Board (NCB)" from the lead paragraph. Verbcatcher (talk) 00:52, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I suppose it depends on one's take on the disaster, but I thought (and still think, but I am not going to edit war on the point) it important for the lead to give enough detail to establish that the disaster was not an act of God, but a physically explicable/foreseeable consequence of human decisions/error. That seems to me to be a particularly 'stark' fact. Rjccumbria (talk) 18:49, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree: the NCB has to be in the lead, given it was their (in)action that led to the slide. The addition of a brief mention of the spring would be an improvement overall, too. - SchroCat (talk) 18:56, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Still no objection your proposal, Rjccumbria. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:00, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * We should not simply mention the NCB to imply that they were responsible. If we mention them we should be explicit. I propose:


 * The Aberfan disaster was the catastrophic collapse of a colliery spoil tip above the Welsh village of Aberfan, near Merthyr Tydfil, on 21 October, 1966. The tip slid down the mountain at 9.15 am, killing 116 children and 28 adults as it engulfed the local junior school and other buildings in the village. The subsequent enquiry placed the main blame on the nationalised National Coal Board (NCB) which had established the tip on a natural spring. A build-up of water within the tip after a period of heavy rain led to the tip sliding downhill is the form of slurry.
 * Verbcatcher (talk) 21:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, this would be my latest suggestion. "The Aberfan disaster was the catastrophic collapse of a colliery spoil tip at 9.15 am on 21 October, 1966. The tip had been created on a mountain slope above the Welsh village of Aberfan, near Merthyr Tydfil and overlaid a natural spring. A period of heavy rain led to a build-up of water in the accumulated rock and shale of the tip which caused it to suddenly slide downhill as a slurry, killing 116 children and 28 adults as it engulfed the local junior school and other buildings in the village. The tip was the responsibility of the National Coal Board (NCB), and a subsequent enquiry spoke of 'ignorance, ineptitude and a failure in communications' within the organisation and placed the blame for the disaster on it and nine named employees."A brief explanation of some of the points of difference:
 * I would strongly argue for 'mountain slope', since there was general agreement at the tribunal that tipping on the mountain top using an aerial ropeway would have been unexceptionable.
 * As I read the inquiry report (and on the doctrine that an organisation is responsible for seeing that its employees do their job properly), the NCB copped all the blame.
 * In post-Aberfan debates in the Commons, the Tories were careful to criticise the NCB without criticising nationalisation: my preference is to avoid mention of public ownership in the lead, particularly anywhere near the allocation of blame, lest the unwary conclude there was a connection or the suspicious think WP is trying to imply one.
 * The "ignorance, ..." quote is optional but it does explain concisely the nature of the NCB's failings.
 * I would wikilink the tribunal article via 'subsequent enquiry' to avoid the risk that a link via 'enquiry' might be thought to be a link to the generic Enquiry article
 * Rjccumbria (talk) 09:56, 12 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Agree with all these points. I think this would make a very good opening. Two "villages" there doesn't look like a problem to me. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:02, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Based on Rjccumbria's version, which I broadly support, I'd tweak it slightly to: "The Aberfan disaster was the catastrophic collapse of a colliery spoil tip at 9.15 am on 21 October, 1966. The tip had been created on a mountain slope above the Welsh village of Aberfan, near Merthyr Tydfil and overlaid a natural spring. A period of heavy rain led to a build-up of water in the accumulated rock and shale of the tip which caused it to suddenly slide downhill as a slurry, killing 116 children and 28 adults as it engulfed the local junior school and other buildings. The tip was the responsibility of the National Coal Board (NCB), and a subsequent enquiry placed the blame for the disaster on the organisation and nine named employees." If people don't want this version, then Rjccumbria's would be my preferred one (at the moment). - SchroCat (talk) 10:33, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I took "main blame" from the lead paragraph of Aberfan Disaster Tribunal. It says later "Blame for the disaster rests upon the National Coal Board", but this does not appear to be a direct quote from Part IV of the tribunal report. I have not read the report in detail, but it does not appear to place significant blame on anyone outside the NCB. I am ok with this part of the proposed paragraph, and we should adjust the lead of the tribunal article to match.


 * I suggest trimming "accumulated rock and shale" which is unnecessary detail for the lead, and shale is a type of rock. My latest version is:

"The Aberfan disaster was the catastrophic collapse of a colliery spoil tip at 9.15 am on 21 October, 1966. The tip had been created on a mountain slope above the Welsh village of Aberfan, near Merthyr Tydfil and overlaid a natural spring. A period of heavy rain led to a build-up of water within the tip which caused it to suddenly slide downhill as a slurry, killing 116 children and 28 adults as it engulfed the local junior school and other buildings. The tip was the responsibility of the National Coal Board (NCB), and a subsequent enquiry placed the blame for the disaster on the organisation and nine named employees."
 * Verbcatcher (talk) 18:11, 12 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I'd be happy with that. - SchroCat (talk) 18:27, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Likewise. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:43, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Likewise Rjccumbria (talk) 18:50, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Ditto, but "inquiry" rather than "enquiry". It may be worth having a look at the rest of the intro which mentions "contravention of the NCB's official procedures", yet the tribunal said there was no "official policy". Apart from that the intro seems to be pretty good. Robevans123 (talk) 21:45, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Done, but I changed "a subsequent enquiry" to "the subsequent inquiry". Robevans123's spelling is supported by the titles in Category:Public inquiries in the United Kingdom. Verbcatcher (talk) 22:10, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "Blame for the disaster rests upon the National Coal Board" was Finding I in section VII (the summary) of the inquiry report.
 * The most direct evidence on "i or e" is the Cledwyn Hughes letter setting up the tribunal - reproduced as a preamble to the tribunal report - which speaks of "a Tribunal for the purposes of this Inquiry"
 * The supposed contravention of supposed official procedures is not supported by the inquiry report. From paras 160-162 of the inquiry report, the Powell Duffryn memo of 1939 warned against tipping onto springs or bogged or water-logged ground, but had no standing within NCB until the Divisional Chief Engineer circulated it to engineers (but not managers) in April 1965, well after tipping to Tip 7 had started. Furthermore, he didn't circulate it as rules/procedures for future tip siting but as an aid to the review of existing tips for potential problems which he was asking his subordinates to carry out (and which was not carried out properly at Merthyr Vale because the mech engineer and the civil engineer were at loggerheads). The NCB conceded (para 178) that it had had  neither policy, procedures, nor instructions on tip stability.  (Incidentally the report says nothing about the original distribution of the 1939 memo, and Tip 5, started in 1944 when Merthyr Vale was owned by Powell Duffryn, seems from para 91 of the report to have comprehensively ignored the recommendations of the 1939 memo. On the other hand, (para 215) Joseph Baker, one of the two people involved in siting Tip 7 told the inquiry that 5 of the 6 points in the 1939 memo were matters of commonsense )
 * Rjccumbria (talk) 00:38, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Tone in lead
In a few points in the lead, the tone is not neutral. For example, I would remove the words "money wrongly taken". Whether a wrongful act or not is opinion, and this language is not encyclopedic. In the body of the article, the reader learns that aparently the company did in fact pay for removal of the other tips, along with the government (i.e., taxpayers). The smallest contribution came from the memorial fund, yet from the lead this is omitted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.187.91 (talk) 13:07, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I would also remove the word "catastrophic". The article title by which this event is presumable most commonly termed is sufficient while catastrophic is unnecessarily emotive for an encyclopedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.187.91 (talk) 13:11, 21 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The lead of the article reflects the body, where it is supported by citations from excellent sources. Thus "wrongly taken" is not opinion, it was an act done against the laws governing the use of money for charities. "Catastrophic" is not in itself unencyclopaedic, but its use can be, depending on the context; the OED has as one of its definitions "A sudden disaster, wide-spread, very fatal, or signal. (In the application of exaggerated language to misfortunes it is used very loosely.)" In this context, I think it is neither "unnecessarily emotive" or hyperbolic. - SchroCat (talk) 13:17, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Secretary of State for Wales
I see no good reason to render the name of this office with lower case letters. Similarly with Attorney General. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:36, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Quite right. And as they refer to a "formal title for a specific entity" (as the MoS has it), then capitals is correct. - SchroCat (talk) 15:51, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Cliff Michelmore
Shouldn't Cliff Michelmore's moving commentary on the disaster be mentioned in this article? You can see some of it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvBq5ucFw90&t=4s --Maarten1963 (talk) 18:36, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I would agree if a good secondary source could be found. The primary source clip you link to appears to be a copyvio of the BBC's 24 Hours. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:20, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * His commentary is mentioned in his obituary on the BBC website: https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-35828566 and in this obituary in the Daily Mirror at The Free Library: https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Down-to-earth+manner+won+nation%27s+heart-a0446629587 --Maarten1963 (talk) 15:08, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Excavated/recovered
Hi HJ Mitchell and the other IP. ‘Recovered’ makes it sound like people were saved - recover also means to get better from injury or illness. ‘Excavated’ is a perfectly good term for things being dug out of the ground: archaeologists use the term all the time. I don’t agree that there is a sense in which the bodies were being dug into - that’s really stretching common English understanding to breaking point. I’ll not revert, but I really don’t think ‘recovered’ is at all the right word to use. 213.205.194.63 (talk) 21:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Tend to agree. Bodies and/or human remains are often described as being "recovered" from the scenes of aviation accidents, which are often in the sea, where there can be no excavation. But here the bodies were engulfed in "mud sludge and rubble" and literally had to be dug out with shovels. So "excavated" seems perfectly appropriate to me. I imagine this is the word used in contemporary media reports, but I am not sufficiently familiar with them to know this. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:15, 28 January 2021 (UTC) p.s. IP 213, you seem to have been able to make a lot of useful and informed edits to multiple articles recently. I wonder had you considered formally registering as a Wikipedia editor. "lol"
 * PMSL. Thanks for the suggestion, but maybe not! Cheers 213.205.194.63 (talk) 21:24, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Good to see you're still about in some capacity. I try to keep an eye on some of your FAs. I'm not going to go to battle over it or anything, but "recovered" is not an unusual term to be applied to a body. I don't think the article leaves anyone under the impression that the bodies being recovered/excavated were still alive. It feels a more "artful" term (to me, at least) than "excavated". Or how about another term? "Dug up" or "dug out" would work just as well. <b style="color: teal; font-family: Tahoma">HJ Mitchell</b> &#124; <span style="color: navy; font-family: Times New Roman" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts? 21:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Harry, yes, I’d seen you’ve been doing some tidying up from time to time - thanks very much for that. I’m just passing through, so I’ll leave the choice of what goes in there entirely up to you. Cheers - 213.205.194.63 (talk) 22:19, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Dear PMSL,
 * I had recently thought of rage-quitting my Wiki account and am looking for suitable precious articles to keep an eye on. I thought this might be a good one. But I can't stand the thought of facing begging letters from WMF every time I log on.
 * Yours, Befuddled of Tunbridge Wells (talk) 21:35, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * OMG I cannot believe the cast of characters that my little change has invoked. Just needs Malleus to show up and it's like housey housey. Oh, maybe Lir? Anyway, as I am not here, I think I should probably just shut up. It's not a big thing and does not require fisticuffs. I won't revert further. I am out of here. Best to all of you, 82.34.153.236 (talk) 21:41, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * My word, Father Jackum? That would be a turn up for the books. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:48, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * They do use the word "recovered" in contemporary reporting. The Liverpool Echo on October 21, 1966 says on the front page that "22 Bodies Recovered, 150 Missing" Richjenkins (talk) 18:36, 19 October 2022 (UTC)