Talk:Northern Ireland Prison Service

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Northern Ireland Prison Service. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717143807/http://www.ome.uk.com/Document/Default.aspx?DocumentUid=FCCDF87C-C3F3-450F-9609-794AD48D337F to http://www.ome.uk.com/Document/Default.aspx?DocumentUid=FCCDF87C-C3F3-450F-9609-794AD48D337F

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:12, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Removal of List of Murdered Officers
A recent edit removed the section Officers killed in the line of duty.


 * The content is clearly notable, as it details targeted victims of a terrorist campaign during The Troubles, who were killed in the line of duty.
 * These were all serious crimes (see WP:NCRIME) carried out in relation to a "well-documented historic event" (see WP:VICTIM).


 * WP:NOTMEMORIAL is clearly intended to prevent personal memorials to "deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such [notability] requirements", requirements which these individuals obviously meet.


 * Finally, all of these policies are specific to preventing the creation of entire articles which may lack notability, the solution to which is to "describe the event within a preexisting article" - which was already the case in the first place (see Alternatives to deletion and WP:PRESERVE).

I believe these policies were either misunderstood or abused, and I have restored the content.

-&#9733;Keys&#9733; (talk) 18:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)


 * These individuals are clearly non notable, since none of them have linked articles. The list is referenced by memorials, it's presented as a memorial, therefore it blatatly is a memorial. FDW777 (talk) 15:38, 20 March 2024 (UTC)


 * This is a list of victims of crime within the wider context of an important historical period, of which the Prison Service was an important intrinsic part.


 * This is not a list of victims of a crime out of context, nor does it contain information only useful to relatives/loved-ones, nor is it an indiscriminate list or list of eulogies. It includes short encyclopaedic summaries of each event, each of which was the result of the militant actions of a notable terrorist group, and each of which attracted media attention. Furthermore, the persons are notable in that they were killed as a direct result of their membership of the Northern Ireland Prison Service during a highly-notable ethno-nationalist conflict in which the Prison Service - alongside the RUC and Army - were largely considered belligerents.


 * You will be well aware that the meaning and scope of WP:MEMORIAL has been discussed and argued ad infinitum for the past 15+ years with no clear consensus. The bulk of arguments and near-consensuses in favour of WP:PRESERVE mirror the rational that I have provided in that WP:MEMORIAL “seems to apply only to dedicated articles about deceased persons, not about mentioning their names and age as victims in otherwise notable articles”, amongst other examples (this is particularly good discussion, but see also this and this). The threshold for notability is also a near-impossible concept to agree on. Your statement that "none of them have linked articles" is a point of discussion that has also been largely dismissed as not constituting a relevant argument in of itself.


 * The only real consensus it that there is no consensus on the meaning of WP:MEMORIAL, which leaves little to no justification for the deletion of over 12,000 characters of content, and a section which has been part of this article for a number of years, without adequate explanation.


 * The best reaction to a situation such as this is rarely the complete removal of content without any in-depth discussion (WP:PRESERVE) - this much is agreed across Wikipedia. You removed the content a second time after I restored it, without addressing in any way what I have posted above, providing further context or rationale, or even suggesting how the content could be re-fashioned in a more encyclopaedic fashion, and have not demonstrated adequately how your personal interpretation of Wikipedia policy supersedes the above.


 * I have performed a rollback on the edit. I suggest not removing the content again without seeking WP:RfC or similar.


 * &#9733;Keys&#9733; (talk) 20:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)