Talk:Deal barracks bombing/Archive 1

List of fatalities ...
...is just that. There are no eulogies nor honouring of the dead so why is this section being reverted under WP:NOT which is part of a section called Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. By no stretch of the imagination could this factual list of murdered soldiers be classed as an indiscriminate collection of information --Bill Reid | Talk 13:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Murdered eh!! If they didnt want to be killed they shouldnt havent joined a force that occupies Ireland (and other countries - legitimate targets imo!)--Vintagekits 13:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The list adds nothing to the article, it's just trivia. For more detailed reasoning, see here. The list of dead were removed from Omagh bombing by comminity consensus, therefore there is no legitimate reason why an identical list should remain in this article. One Night In Hackney 303 13:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What is trivial - the list itself, or the terrorist killing of a group of military musicians? The Afd vote was closed with a perverse decision to delete when the vote went as follows: 3 keep, 1 keep if..., 2 merge and only 2 for delete. There is a case for the Afd to be re-considered if ever there was one.  Vintagekits, the cowardly murdering of musicians who, when not entertaining civilians train as medics, can never be justified. As for occupying forces, tell that face to face with the Irishmen who serve in the UK forces;  I suspect you wouldn't have the guts. --Bill Reid | Talk 08:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If you're not going to maintain a neutral point of view or be civil, further discussion seems fruitless. One Night In Hackney 303 09:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

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


 * We can continue the discussion here, people can easily see what's been said to date on our respective talk pages. I'll reply to your last message later on. One Night In Hackney 303 14:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a good idea.--Jackyd101 16:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


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


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


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


 * I am entirely persuaded by this argument. - Kittybrewster  (talk) 02:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * There's a rather substantial difference between this list and the one at Bloody Sunday. Let's just take the one at Bloody Sunday with the least amount of information shall we?
 * John Pius Young (17). Shot in the head while standing at the rubble barricade. Two witnesses stated Young was unarmed.
 * Now, let's pick a name at random from this list shall we?
 * Musician Michael F. Ball (24)
 * Spot the difference? The information at Bloody Sunday is essential to the article, is this information essential? You are quite right in saying we need to establish what kind of military personnel were caught up in the blast, which is why the article already states:
 * Many British people were shocked at the attack carried on a ceremonial military band whose only military training was geared towards saving lives. The public were also shocked by the ages of those killed, as many were new recruits to the School and the majority of those injured (although none of the dead) were in their teens.
 * So seemingly everything is already in the article, without the addition of a memorial. One Night In Hackney 303 14:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


 * I've already stated exactly which policy says the information shouldn't be included - WP:NOT. One Night In Hackney 303 15:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


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


 * Please read what I've said already. One Night In Hackney 303 15:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've both read and answered that: Your opinion that the list is fluff is not grounds for removal, what is contained in articles on completely seperate topics is irrelevant to this one (as are the comparisons you made), also WP:NOT does not apply here. You're right that this is going round in circles though, what we need is independant arbitration. Any suggestions as to who?--Jackyd101 15:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


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

Did you even read this ? I demonstrated there that your "debunking" of my claims about Bloody Sunday is nothing of the kind as its based on some "policy" about essential information which doesn't appear to actually exist. I didn't retreat anywhere because my position has always been that the information is factual, informative and verifiable and your belief that it is "irrelevant fluff" is nothing more than your opinion. Wikipedia is not based on opinions but on policy and you have not addressed my questions as to exactly which piece of policy the list violates - please show me the exact wording, just asserting WP:NOT and "policy" is not enough.

You have also not linked me to any such discussion at the help desk, please do so. (Apologies, have now found the discussion). And as I previously mentioned, this Afd was closed early and against consesus. The closing admin even stated "Delete - no prejudice against recreation at a later date in a more encyclopaedic form". It wasn't the names that were the problem it was the layout and formatting as well as high-levels of irrelevant personal detail.--Jackyd101 16:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC) PS, The discussion you mentioned, as I said before, was inconclusive. It makes the case for both sides quite clearly without reaching consensus.--Jackyd101 16:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

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


 * Um, no. I've provided examples of exactly what indiscriminate information is. Simply because it doesn't fall under one of the examples provided at WP:NOT does not mean it isn't indiscriminate. The key part is in the heading - That something is 100% true does not automatically mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Please see here for a similar discussion. I would welcome mediation but policy and precedent are clearly on my side, and it would be a waste of time that could be spent far more productively, when all that is required is the addition of an external link to the article. As I've already stated the list at Bloody Sunday is far, far different to the list of names that has been removed from this article, so any attempt to directly compare them is incorrect and clutching at straws in my opinion. One Night In Hackney 303 18:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


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


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


 * As you persist in repeating the same tired and incorrect points over and over again, this discussion should be concluded. It's already been adequately demonstrated that the memorial of names here and the list of names at Bloody Sunday are two totally different entities, and that this list is not important to the article whereas that one clearly is. One Night In Hackney 303 19:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm, my first edit on this page, and I am accused of 'persisting' in repeating etc. This is not civil behaviour. Drmaik 19:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * My post was directed at Jackyd101, as I am more than aware it is your first edit on this page. One Night In Hackney 303 19:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not really bothered either way, however WP:NOT is pretty much made for this exact situation.--Vintagekits 19:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't have time right now to get into this debate all over again, but this discussion should not be concluded just because you think my arguments are "tired and incorrect". It has not been demonstrated that there is any substantive difference between the two lists, and when I do have time in a few weeks I will submit this for arbitration. Your entire argument is based on your opinion with no policy to back it up, as WP:NOT does not apply here (it is made, as it says at the page, to stop people creating pages "to honor departed friends and relatives", and thus bears no relevance to this debate). I suggest that anyone who so far has not been involved in the debate feel free to put your two cents below and when I do take it to arbitration I'll notify anybody who has contributed. If someone else wants to take it to arbitration first, then by all means do so but I won't be around to contribute.--Jackyd101 22:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but have you actually read this debate? WP:NOT is part of WP:NOT, and for the past several days I've patiently explained exactly why the list falls under WP:NOT, so my argument is fully backed up by policy. You're confusing me describing this list as a memorial (which is true) with me saying WP:NOT. The list adds no encyclopedic value, an external link does the job much better. One Night In Hackney 303 22:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I know what you've said but it's all just "your opinion" that the information is indiscriminate. That is the whole problem.--Jackyd101 22:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sadly not, as I'm basing what I say on past consensus and precedent. One Night In Hackney 303 22:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, here is my final word on this for the moment. You have not yet shown any "past consensus and precedent" other than inconclusive debates on talk pages and one controversial Afd which stated "no prejudice against recreation at a later date in a more encyclopaedic form". Until you can demonstrate either a Wikipedia policy which categorically states that this kind of informative list is inappropriate or a qualified ruling from a neutral administrator that the list should go then all your arguments remain your opinion and nothing more. If you do provide either of these things, then I will happily accept the verdict although I imagine you will have a hard time defending the list on the Bloody Sunday page in the face of it.--Jackyd101 22:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Look at the Omagh bombing AfD. Do you really that a list of names, ranks and ages is a more encyclopaedic form than that list would have been? I've provided the same policy countless times - WP:NOT. It applies, other people agree it applies, consensus has shown it applies, precedent has shown it applies. Perhaps if you stopped wasting my time here I'd be able to actually source the claims in the Bloody Sunday article, or you could always go and do it yourself? I love the way you force me to find someone neutral to agree with me (which I already have as you're more than aware) and claim until that happens your view (supported by people who can be clearly shown to have made anti-Irish republican comments) is the prevailing one, sorry but that's not correct. One Night In Hackney 303 22:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll reply one more time. You have done none of those things. You have no consensus, no applicable policy and no precedent which hasn't been challenged. You have also found 0 neutral editors who agree with you on this specific debate whilst in the wider range of debates you linked to there have been arguments from editors on both sides but no conclusion. The Omagh list would have been far more encyclopedic without comments like "He had just been accepted for an engineering course at the University of Ulster, and was awaiting his exam results." or "had gone into the town that day with a friend to buy a pair of jeans". A simple list of names and ages with perhaps profession and of course information about where they died (i.e. at the scene or in hospital etc.) would most certainly be encyclopedic, informative and relevant to the article. I also never said that I had consensus behind my view, I simply said that you didn't. There clearly is no consensus about this at all, except with regards to school shootings in the U.S., where the lists of names have all been kept. I'm sorry you see a debate about WP policy to be wasting your time, if you don't feel strongly about it then why are you still fighting it? As to sourcing the Bloody Sunday article, there is no rush, the list is relevant (as this one is) and will stay there, so theres no need to worry about racing through that. Finally, since the list isn't actually in the article and I'm not going to replace it without arbitration first (I have no desire for an edit war, they are boring), can't we drop this in the meantime? --Jackyd101 23:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, challenged by you, who is so determined to ignore policy and consensus to insert a memorial it's disruptive POV pushing bordering on WP:POINT. You've just admitted the Omagh list would have been far more encyclopedic, yet it was deleted with "no prejudice against recreation at a later date in a more encyclopaedic form". So that tells you straight away that the list wasn't enyclopedic enough, yet you claim a list of names, with ages and ranks would be encyclopedic? Clearly absolutely 110% not the case, consensus is on my side. Policy is on my side. Neutral editors are on my side. Yet you claim there is no consensus. No, there is clear consensus and it is on my side. Let's look at the discussion over at the desk shall we?


 * Editors in favour of removal of memorials - User:Scientizzle (administrator), User:Wily, User:Veinor (administrator), User:Adrian M. H.


 * Editors in favour of memorials - User:W. Frank (user with a self admitted anti-IRA bias, and indefinitely blocked sockpuppet), User:Squidfryerchef (296 total edits)


 * So excluding User:W. Frank who took the issue to the help desk in the first place, only one editor out of five who replied said the list should be in, and he only has 296 total edits. Also his rationale was "There's no way that WP:NOT#MEMORIAL applies to newsworthy events like these. I imagine that MEMORIAL was intended to disallow the cyber equivalent of "roadside shrines" on Wikipedia", which is problematic. The bombing itself was newsworthy, only none of the news sources being used by the article actually have the list of names so the names clearly aren't newsworthy. So your claim of inconclusive is FALSE, four neutral established editors (including two administrators) said the removal of the list was covered by WP:NOT, versus one anti-IRA POV pusher and an inexperienced editor with a non-existent argument that he didn't debate, just commented then left. One editor felt that strongly he removed the names himself. That's a clear, clear consensus, and I suggest you stop wasting time and accept it. One Night In Hackney 303 01:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Finally having some free time, I came on Wikipedia last night and was reading around and doing a few maintenance edits, (mostly signed out as I was on a network computer). I realised whilst doing it how nice it was to simply edit and not have to confront disruptive or partisan users over their BS.


 * Originally I was planning to contact the three users who make up your “consensus” and ask for proper rationales behind this decision, which appears to have been reached at (as you pointed out) a very poorly attended and one sided short discussion. After all, there are dozens of articles with lists of dead on Wikipedia which are not subject to any controversy. (For a short list, see here, although I can give at least six more examples), This “consensus” surely affects all of those, and yet I didn’t see any editors who have worked on these articles giving their opinion, which might imply that your consensus is not quite as comprehensive as you insist.


 * But I have come to the realisation that I simply don’t care enough about these articles to continue this increasingly boring and suddenly very UNCIVIL debate. Or in fact about any of the endless and needless arguments surrounding WP:IRA. So I quit. The list can stay gone, if anybody wants to see it, it is here (and do not delete this link like you did here, that is an extraordinary breach of Wikiettiquette). I’m sad to say that this type of poor behaviour on your part is increasing. Your companions in the WP:IRA are notorious for bad faith edits, but until recently you stood out as a respectable and neutral editor.


 * I will wind up all my remaining business with articles about the IRA and remove them from my watchlist. I will also not be replying to any further enquires about the subject. I have no further interest in continuing this topic.--Jackyd101 12:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)