Talk:Greysteel massacre

Page move
I think this article should be moved to Greysteel killings or Greysteel shootings. The Remembrance Day Bombing article used to be called Remembrance Day Massacre, but "Massacre" was deemed too POV. Any thoughts? Stu  ’Bout ye!  12:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I think here massacre is a more descriptive term than an emotional one, because this is what a massacre is, the deliberate killing of unarmed civilians. It is also used on both sides of the conflict (see Kingsmill massacre). However if people really feel strongly, then it could be changed.--Jackyd101 14:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I also strongly disagree with your edits to this page. Most articles about things that happened in the The Troubles have list of those that died. They aren't intended as memorials, but informative. A reader can see at a glance how many and what age the people killed were. This applies across both sides of the divide. Likewise, recounting the incidents leading up to the attack in Greysteel is important because the "Greysteel shootings" did not happen in a vacumn, but were part of a string of attacks on Catholics following the Shankill Road bombing (which has a list of the dead too). I also don't understand why the links were removed, they're both pertinent to the subject at hand. If there is no reply in a couple of days, I'll change it back.--Jackyd101 14:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Massacre probably is a more descriptive term, but if one article (such as the Remembrance Day Bombing) has the word removed from its title, and another article such as this one has it, it can seem very POV. I'll maybe raise the issue at the Northern Irish Wikipedians' notice board to see what the wider consensus is.


 * I've removed the list of dead from the Shankill article too. I may be wrong about this, but there used to be an article listing the names of the Omagh bombing victims, which was deleted entirely. I don't think it's necessary to list the names and ages of the dead at all.


 * In regards to the links that were removed, I presume you are talking about internal links to other Wikipedia articles. If I removed any, it's because we only link to an article once. Stu   ’Bout ye!  14:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough on the links, I am curious though as to why you think it isn't necessary to include the names? Surely an article should include all pertinent information about an event, which would include the people killed by it? Also, I couldn't see any discussion of the issue on the Omagh board, is there any consensus or Wikipedia convention on this question? (I also notice that most of the articles on incidents in the Middle East have lists of names, although this is hardly an advert to do it here, given the state that section of Wikipedia is in). --Jackyd101 15:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't feel it is pertinent. I also think whether it intendeds to or not, it ends up reading like a memorial. I'm starting to think I was wrong about the Omagh list - it may have been the Hillsborough disaster article I was thinking of, apologies if I'm wrong. I don't think there is a convention on this subject, hopefully there will be a few responses to the message I posted on the Northern Irish Wikipedians' notice board. Stu   ’Bout ye!  16:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I take your point about it reading like a memorial, but I still think the information is pertinent. Is there anyway to include it as an appendix? Maybe on the talk pages, like an op-ed piece?--Jackyd101 19:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Having read the other articles you have worked on, quite a few have a list of victims. I guess if no one else has a problem with it, I shouldn't! Stu   ’Bout ye!  19:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I appreciate that, thanks for being reasonable about the whole thing, that is a pretty rare occurence around here. If there is a general future outcry against them, then they can go of course. I have also tried (in most cases) to keep it neutral by avoiding phrases like victims or anything other than names, ages and pertinent information (such as membership of the RUC, UDA etc). Thanks, see you around--Jackyd101 02:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Does this sound like a story to you?
The page sounds like its telling a story, not giving information. Do you see what I mean? I do not know how to describe it; please, just read it and fix it. I thank you, Wikipedians. WikiWebs (talk) 01:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The prose actually does read like an encyclopedia, not an essay, if that's what you mean. If you think it can be improved, why not tackle it yourself?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Number or perpetrators
This article says the attack was carried out by three UDA/UFF members; however, the article on Torrens Knight says he was part of a four-man UDA unit. After searching on the 'Net, it appears there were indeed four: Torrens Knight, Jeffrey Deeney, Stephen Irwin and Brian McNeill.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)