User:Dreamafter/Mediation/Answer/Summaries/Final/Discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

From what I have found, the list should be included if more information on the victims can be found. Dreamy § 19:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to be picky but, how much info would constitute "more". Name, age, occupation? Home address? Position in pub? GiollaUidir 19:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I would say that "more" would be:

  • Name
  • Age
  • Occupation
  • (Possibly more)


Dreamy § 20:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

From what you have found? Found where? --Domer48 23:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
From what I have found in all of the other pages. Dreamy § 23:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Wiki should be more than about lists - its information on each of the individuals adds to the article in a way that is more than just a list, if not then it shouldn't - per WP:MEMORIAL.--Vintagekits 11:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Which part of WP:MEMORIAL? Dreamy § 16:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Admins have already ruled that WP:MEMORIAL doesn't apply. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 22:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

What admins ruled that and where did this occur.--Padraig 22:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
At this stage, several months later, God only knows - it was definitely raised on one of the AN pages, and the conclusion was that inclusion of such a list did not constitute a memorial/was not what WP:MEMORIAL was designed to stop. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 22:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Or, in fact, here. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 22:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I see no ruling in that link that states what you claim, in fact I see no ruling at all, which is what this mediation is about.--Padraig 22:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

You're right, it wasn't a ruling - but I was quoting from memory from several months ago. Reading it now, its as I said immediately above - the admins who commented saw no problem with the inclusion and said this wasn't what WP:MEMORIAL was about. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 22:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Well in this discussion Admins User:Scientizzle, User:WilyD, User:Veinor all said it did apply., here.--Padraig 00:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest comparing the comments of the above with the comments made hereAatomic1 23:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no comparison, in the Virginia tech massacre and other such incidents the deaths occurred seperately and therefore there is a time line that helps explain how the killings began and progressed, that is not the case in a bombing where all the victims died at one time, so what value does a bare list of names and ages add to the article.--Padraig 00:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but what has come of this mediation, is that a list is useless, unless we have other details to go with it, like an occupation, etc... Dreamy § 00:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Didn't we already have this circular discussion?! Basically what you're saying is 'instantaneous' events such as a bomb will not/cannot have a memorial list - ruling out, say, the victims of the Dublin/Monaghan, Omagh, Birmingham bombings... and that a 'timeline' is necessary. So if someone opens fire on a pub with a machinegun, we would (theoretically) have a timeline... Sorry, I don't buy that, neither does this mediation decision. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 12:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, what would you prefer? Dreamy § 13:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Dreamafter - that was a reply to Padraig. What I'd prefer is the inclusion of a list of the dead in such articles, where it can be verified/sourced. Inclusion of relevant facts would be fine where readily available. Inclusion of extraneous details, I don't really see the point - what does it matter if someone was an electrician or brain surgeon? The reason they're being included is because the circumstances of their death was notable. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 14:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but if we include it, it must have some encyclopedic value, no? Dreamy § 15:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Bastun, you haven't said what purpose would a list of the dead add to any of these articles, simply stating that X number of people died is sufficent a list of names adds nothing, nor would it add any encyclopedic value to the article.--Padraig 16:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I have. Read the other pages in this mediation and the talk pages of articles that lead to it. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 16:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The Featured Article École Polytechnique massacre has a list independent of any "time-line". It has featured aricle status because it comphrensively covers everything about the subject (including the not insignificant details of those killed) ie it is encyclopedic. I would further add that there are 4 Archives of discussion on that article without a single dissenter to the inclusion of the list. Aatomic1 20:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

That is a compelling arguement... Dreamy § 20:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

École Polytechnique massacre should not be a featured article, due to the inclusion of that list. Ignoring the policy violation WP:EMBED says prose is preferred to a list, and a mass shooting allows each victim to be incorporated into the flowing text. Birmingham pub bombings is nowhere near featured article status, so the argument that the lack of a memorial to dead Brummies is somehow preventing it being a featured article is specious. Where's the enyclopedic value of a list of dead in this article? WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is irrelevant.

List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre is another specious argument. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre started on 17 April, ONE DAY after the shootings! If the discussion had taken place over thirty years after the shootings, it is plain to see the result would have been far, far different.

People say Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive280#WP:NOT.23MEMORIAL.2C says consensus says WP:MEMORIAL did not apply. Another specious argument, as of the two uninvolved editors who replied only one was an administrator, who said "Personally, I'd rather not have victim lists unless there is some significance to a list". Compare that to Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2007 April 10#Is it WP policy to remove the names of dead victims of IRA killings from WP articles, where all three administrators who replied said WP:MEMORIAL did apply. So all four adminstrators who replied to both discussions were not in favour of inclusion of victim lists.

Comparing this article to Bloody Sunday (1972) is another specious argument, as Talk:Bloody Sunday (1972)#The Dead aptly shows. In fact, look at all those non-Irish republicans agreeing, since all the inclusionists seem to do is claim Irish republicans seek to remove lists of dead from certain articles yet leave them in others. The people who died on the streets of Free Derry have been subjected to a thirty year smear campaign over the circumstances of their deaths, and the circumstances are the most controversial factor of the whole event. How do people suggest we explain those circumstances unless the manner in which each person died is explained? Shall we just call them "person #1", "person #2" and so on? Similar article Bloody Sunday (1920) has no list despite being another set of civilians killed by Crown Forces, because the circumstances of their deaths are not in dispute.

"Pan Am Flight 103: names 15 out of 270 victims; is 21 out of 201 really that far removed?" is another specious argument. Including the list of injured Brummies in the total for comparison is wrong. Also note how that article handles the victims, it doesn't include a shabbilly formatted article unbalancing list that serves no encylopedic value.

"I would further add that I am quite happy to expand the list into a narrative, as and when, verifiable references become available." is another specious argument. Unless verifiable references exist now, it is unlikely they will be available in the future, given it is over thirty years since the event. If such a narrative was proposed on the talk page, complete with wording as opposed to just a proposal, that would be a matter for much further discussion. However it's unlikely to happen, so let's keep the memorial list out until it does, if ever.

"An urban myth I have heard is that" is possibly the most irrelevant argument yet. This is an encylopedia, not a place to include gossip and tittle-tattle.

"The reason the bombing itself is notable is because it killed those people, so excluding them from the article would be bizarre." is yet another specious argument. We are not excluding the victims, they are in the first sentence of the article, the infobox and the main body of the article.

"The problem is that at the moment the "mere list" keeps getting deleted so the process of developing that section is "stuck" at the stage of putting up a list. Many WP articles evolve from basic beginnings to more mature content.", again irrelevant. If someone could come along and add more information than a "mere list" it would have been done, but there isn't information available. In fact, your argument suggests that you think a "mere list" is unacceptable.

The best way to handle such lists is at present, especially in short articles. Include a promiment external link to the names of the dead, clearly labelled as such. That way anyone who wants access to the information can do so with ease. --Domer48 17:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but if we had a list, and references for all of the dead, like this:
  • George Washington[1]

Would that be better? Dreamy § 20:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes! Thats it? You respond with just Yes?, I think we can do a little better than that, can't we? Dreamy § are you the mediator, or a Participant? --Domer48 22:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I am the mediator, I do not force a desision on you, or anyone, I try to help come up with a compromise. And by "Yes", I meant that I was aknowledging what was stated. Dreamy § 01:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Featured Articles such as École Polytechnique massacre are considered to be the best articles in Wikipedia, as determined by Wikipedia's editors. Domer cannot say with any credibility that this is not the case. I further note that he refers to those killed as dead brummies. I will add details of where the victims lived so that, hopefully this ignorance will not be repeated. You will note that this information is not available on the Internet.Aatomic1 13:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Simply because some editors don't know the MOS, doesn't mean they are right. And please stop trying to add the list. One Night In Hackney303 16:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
If you have a problem with Featured Article I suggest you raise it there. You have provided no reason for reverting my edit Aatomic1 16:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
There's no need to raise anything. The MOS is quite clear on lists, prose is preferred. You know full well why your edit has been reverted, mediation is ongoing. One Night In Hackney303 16:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
There is no need for ONiH to provide a reason or does that apply to everyone? Aatomic1 16:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Why are you trying to add the information that is the subject of the disupte that caused the mediation, when the mediation is ongoing? One Night In Hackney303 16:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
From domer's comments above there is an obvious need to enlighten the ignorant. I have answered your question but you have yet to provide a reason for your revert. Aatomic1 16:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I've warned you about your "ignorant," comment, and do not accept your answer. As to the second part of your comment, what are you on about? --Domer48 18:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Second part of which comment? Aatomic1 18:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

"I have answered your question but you have yet to provide a reason for your revert." --Domer48 18:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

That was aimed at ONiH in respect of this Aatomic1 19:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I've already said why you were reverted, as you and everyone else are well aware. One Night In Hackney303 19:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[1] MJB Comment added by Aatomic1 18:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Except the Bloody Sunday list is essential to the article and has encyclopedic value, and the proponents of adding it to this article have never been able to explain what encyclopedic equivalent value a list would have in this article. One Night In Hackney303 19:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Apart from the fact that an encyclopedic article notable really only for the deaths of the victims which omits those victims seems... one-sided, censored, silly? BastunBaStun not BaTsun 21:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't omit the victims, and you also don't understand the historical significance of the event either. I see you're still ducking the "encyclopedic value" question, care to answer it? One Night In Hackney303 22:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm fully aware of the historical importance, believe me :-) As to encyclopedic value, its obvious (to me) that the names and relevant details of victims add to that value - whether we're talking about Birmingham, Woolwich, Dublin, Monaghan or Bloody Sunday. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 12:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
If "I'm fully aware of the historical importance" is true, then you wouldn't have said "that an encyclopedic article notable really only for the deaths of the victims". Why are you still mentioning Bloody Sunday? The difference has been explained countless times, it's clutching at straws to keep bringing it up. One Night In Hackney303 18:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Aatomic1 attitude is becoming unacceptable. That they now simply wish to make a point is quite clear. This whole discussion is futile while this continues. --Domer48 21:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Technically there are others that do wish the list to be added, so we must keep this open, regardless of what one user is trying to do. If no other users want the list added, then the case will be closed as no list addition. Dreamy § 22:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
As long as Aatomic1 is ignoring this mediation and removing efforts to stop an edit war this is futile. BigDunc 22:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
One question. Are there any editors currently wishing the list to be added to the article, other than Aatomic1? Dreamy § 22:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
A better question. Does anyone think the current solution is an acceptable compromise? One Night In Hackney303 22:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

What is the current solution? Dreamy § 22:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

An editor made this addition. Might need some tweaking, but it's a middle ground. One Night In Hackney303 22:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

...ie it is not a solution Aatomic1 22:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Why is it not a solution? Dreamy § 22:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
An external link seems to me to be a fair solution to this matter. BigDunc 22:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I can live with it, and it seems to me to be a fair solution.--Domer48 22:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[2] Aatomic1 22:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Not relevant. Repeating other people's comments that have already been rebutted at length is very pointless. One Night In Hackney303 22:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

So we accept his solution but not his reasoning? Aatomic1 22:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Bloody Sunday is a special case that has been discussed at length, see above. One Night In Hackney303 23:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Is your answer to everything going to refer to the Bloody Sunday Article it's not like for like this argument has been covered Ad nauseam . BigDunc 22:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I have never referred to Bloody Sunday...ever Aatomic1 22:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Then what was your link about. BigDunc 22:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Same editor as this comment Aatomic1 22:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Stop please with the circular arguements, move on. --Domer48 23:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Precisely!! Aatomic1 23:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Why should this edit not be included in the article? Aatomic1 23:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

That's not a compromise. One Night In Hackney303 23:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

It is a compromise Aatomic1 00:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the same memorial you've repeatedly tried to add, except there's added irrelevance. One Night In Hackney303 00:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit Break

Aatomic1 that's not a compromise. Now please discuss what is considered a compromise. --Domer48 00:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It is a compromise - instead of arguing over ever single incident of The Troubles we provide a list of all the dead Aatomic1 00:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Like I've already said Aatomic1 is just out to make a point and this is just the latest. So is this discussion over? --Domer48 09:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


Discuss:

WP:NNC is quite clearly inclusionist in tone[2]:

Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content [3]

  • Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles, which is governed by other guidelines such as those on using reliable sources and on handling trivia. The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standard of the notability guidelines[4].

Aatomic1 18:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Still trying to make a point, so are you dropping the list from the article then? I'd be surprised if your memorial list will last. --Domer48 19:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

And what is the exact point, I am being accused of? Aatomic1 (talk) 23:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me that this warning fell on deaf ears and user Aatomic1 is just out to make a point be repeatedly putting the list of the dead into articles and ignoring advice not to edit war. BigDunc (talk) 09:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
No you are wrong I have done as asked. Aatomic1 (talk) 09:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

This just flies in the face of what mediation is about. How you can edit war on one article and ignore discussion. Start on another article and act like a bull in a china shop. This dispite the fact that they were warned? It is becoming a joke!--Domer48 (talk) 09:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

This is obviously not getting anywhere. Aatomic1 stop, or you will be blocked. I will make sure that it happens. I am almost convinced that this case should be closed as do not include the list of the dead. <DREAMAFTER><TALK> 12:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

And that discussion has what, to do with your edit warring, despite being warned? --Domer48 (talk) 14:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

And I quote
“ Edit warring occurs when individual editors or groups of editors repeatedly revert content edits to a page or subject area. ”
Hence, it is considered edit warring, as you continue to "revert" our edits by continuing to add the content, and we constantly revert you. Please stop. <DREAMAFTER><TALK> 00:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Aatomic1 - please stop adding the content until the mediation is over.

Dreamafter - you sound above as if you are going to arrive at a decision on one side because an editor on another side is pissing you off - that would be improper.

The facts are - we have a policy called WP:NOT which includes a section WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. The latter relates to subjects of articles and forbids memorials. A list of those killed in an event, included as part of an article, is not in itself a memorial. Note the context of the policy section in question - it is clearly talking about using WP for personal webspace - blogging, social networking, personal web pages or file storage, dating, or online memorials. Online memorials look like the ones here. Not a mere list of victims of an event. As has been pointed out, many articles on WP do incorporate such lists:

Many other articles are indeed lists of victims:

Ultimately what needs to be decided, it seems, is if articles relating to The Troubles can incorporate such lists, because despite being aware of such articles, those opposing their inclusion in Birmingham pub bombings do not seem in any way inclined to attempt removing the lists/articles above on their stated policy grounds, despite the fact that they are very easy to find. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 00:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the mediator has looked at the discussion and considers the mediation has produced a clear outcome! The inclusionists can't come up with a single decent reason to include the list, so are refusing to actually discuss points (simply posting links in Aatomic1's case). The edit warring though has pissed us all of I think you will agree. Now address the point raised, and stop running around in circles. --Domer48 (talk) 10:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
And what is this about taking a leaf out of someone elses book? --Domer48 (talk) 10:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Can we at least agree to stop adding lists till we have reached an agreeable out come. Because this helps no one and will make us all look bad. --Domer48 (talk) 11:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
1. I'm happy to with the mediator's decision, Domer - I trust you will be too, even if Dreamafter decides against you - rather than opening up the argument again when he almost went the other way last time...
2. I'm more than happy to take a leaf out of someone else's book if its a good, well put point.
3. Yes, I asked that just above, too. I don't think I have added anything back since the mediation started back in August (!), even where long standing lists have been removed by WP:IR members aware of the mediation. Regards, BastunBaStun not BaTsun 11:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree: You are aware of the mediation. --Domer48 (talk) 13:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I am indeed. You'll notice that in the diff you posted, I added a wikilink to Volunteer (Irish republican - as per my edit summary, according to finding of the previous mediation cabal case on the use of the word "volunteer" in relation to *IRA members. I didn't add the list (which had been there for a long time) or take it away. That was done by Vintagekits in the next edit. Sorry for any confusion over which mediation case I was referring to. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 14:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Wow...this is a messy page. However, I still see the same circular arguments as always, with the people who object to the inclusion of the names still insisting on trying to apply WP policies that simply don't apply, e.g. WP:Memorial. There is not a single WP policy that suggests that names of victims of a bombing like the Birmingham pub bombings shouldn't be included on the article about the bombings. Hughsheehy (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Let me strongly agree with Hughsheehy. WP:Memorial policy does not apply to victims of terrorist acts so notable that they changed history of countries for many years, such as 9/11 or Beslan school massacre. The victims of such terrorist acts are notable enough to be mentioned in a list. They are not our "relatives or friends to be fondly remembered" as stated in WP:Memorial. They are notable subjects of notable events and as such have place in encyclopedia.Biophys (talk) 17:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
List of victims of the Beslan school massacre turned out to be a recreation of Casualties of the Beslan school hostage crisis which was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casualties of the Beslan school hostage crisis. Article deleted per WP:NOT#MEMORIAL, which arose because "it was determined that Wikipedia was not the proper place for the list of the dead from a tragedy". There's also:
That enough proof that lists of dead fall under the policy? Bastun's WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument above is therefore irrelevant, firstly many of them relate to shootings and secondly what's to say those articles should exist? One Night In Hackney303 18:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
No, that does not prove anything at all. My argument (see above) remains completely valid. By the way, following my edits on this subject and reverting them is a typical WP:POINT behavior, I believe.Biophys (talk) 19:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Following your edits?! Let's get one thing straight for the benefit of everyone else. The redlinked Beslan article above you recreated against the deletion policy. I tagged it for deletion, it was deleted, and in return you stalked me and added the list back to the Birmingham article. One Night In Hackney303 19:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Another deep breath and patient explanation that there has been no proposal and no attempt to make an article solely consisting of the list of the victims and AFAIK none of the people proposing to include a treatment of the victims are relatives or friends of the victims. That is what WP:Memorial would apply to. WP:Memorial does NOT apply to, and says it does not apply to, the content of articles. "Memorials. Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered." The subject of the article is the bombing. The most relevant fact of the bombing is that it killed those people. Hughsheehy (talk) 19:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, reading WP:Memorial again, I'm not sure that it applies to articles that are lists of victims either, even if that's been the result of several discussions. The policy seems to relate to memorial pages about individuals...not lists of groups that are notable by their central involvement in a notable event. Otherwise one might well argue that there's no place for an article on the Birmingham Six, or at least that their names should not be mentioned in the article, since they were not individually notable for anything other than being one of the Birmingham Six. That's pretty much what the "anti-list" people are arguing, but for a different bunch of people. Hughsheehy (talk) 19:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
All the "pro-list" people ever do is quibble over the wording of a policy, and ignore every other point that's been made. "The most relevant fact of the bombing is that it killed those people" - yes, that's why that fact is in the lead, in the infobox and in the article. You're confusing that with a list of dead, which isn't the same thing at all. One Night In Hackney303 19:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
That's simply NOT true. Not only have we not ignored every other point that's been made, we've pointed out why the "anti" points are simply nonsense. Let's look at the potential impact of the "anti" arguments. Since the Birmingham Six are not individually notable, it would be prohibited to have a list of their names on the article of the Birmingham Six. Since the Members of the Jesse James Gang are not individually notable except as members of the Jesse James Gang, it would be prohibited to have a list of their names on the article on the Jesse James Gang. The "anti" arguments are simply a mis-reading or deliberate misapplication of WP policy. That has been amply illustrated by several previous arguments. Hughsheehy (talk) 18:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid it is true. Your argument above is nonsensical. If the article was titled Victims of the Birmingham pub bombings it would make sense, but it isn't. Birmingham Six is about a group of people, Jesse James Gang would be about a group of people, Birmingham pub bombings is about an event. The interpretation that lists of dead should not be included for the sole purpose of being a memorial has been backed up by admins on countless occasions, for example Wikipedia was not the proper place for the list of the dead from a tragedy. Despite all and sundry asking the question, nobody has ever been able to say what encyclopedic value a list of names has, because there isn't any. One Night In Hackney303 20:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
This is a textbook case of not following Wikipedia policies for whatever political convictions. An article is about a terrorism act. Hence the information about both terrorists and victims is relevant and should be included. For example, in the article Nuclear receptors, one would naturally provide the list of nuclear receptors. See [5]. In the article about terrorism act one would naturally provide lists of terrorists and victims. There is absolutely no difference.Biophys (talk) 20:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

As usual ONIH’s comments are being ignored. Ignoring the points dose not make them go away. --Domer48 (talk) 20:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

What is "ONIH"? I have no idea.Biophys (talk) 20:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
"ONIH" or "One Night In Hackney". A username. <DREAMAFTER><TALK> 20:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I do not make a decision, I only implement the chosen comprimise. <DREAMAFTER><TALK> 20:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
If you will only "implement the chosen compromise" then I suggest that after several months of circular arguments it's time for an alternative process. This is not converging on compromise. Hughsheehy (talk) 18:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah so stop editing the article Aatomic1 (talk) 20:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring again Aatomic1 (talk), despite being warned by the mediator. Show a little respect to the mediator, and the rest of us in the process. --Domer48 (talk) 21:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring again Domer48 (talk), despite being warned by Arbitrators. Show a little respect to the mediator, and the rest of us in the process. Aatomic1 (talk) 21:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Technically, you are the one edit warring, as he is only reverting you. The page is now fully protected anyways. <DREAMAFTER><TALK> 21:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I just provided an outside opinion on WP policies - see my comments about notability and science articles above. But let's be honest here. This is not about WP guidelines. This is all about political convictions. Let's forget about WP policies for a moment. Not only terrorism is terribly efficient to achieve its political objectives, but it makes terrorists famous and erases completely the victims - erases them from the face of the Earth and from people's memory. Finally, we are arguing here to delete them even from Wikipedia. Well, that is my POV. What is yours? Biophys (talk) 21:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] edit dux

While I may not agree with all that Hugh has to say, I agree with this. Whats the point having mediation if one editor will continue to edit war if it dose not go their way? --Domer48 (talk) 20:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

My opinion is that this mediation is now rendered pointless due to the actions of Aatomic1. Successive blocks have failed to stop him edit warring, he's also created sockpuppets to continue edit warring when blocked. He's failed to engage in any meaningful discussion, in fact his contributions here are little more than very poor trolling. Despite requests from admins, the mediator and Bastun he's continued edit warring, and based on all this the likelihood of him accepting the result of any outcome is nil in my opinion. Anyone else agree? One Night In Hackney303 20:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
This comment would indicate that there are maybe other reasons for mediation being doomed to fail. Aatomic1 (talk) 20:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Agree with One Night In Hackney303, I've reported this at the troubles ArbCom. They are also trying this on other articles just to make a point. --Domer48 (talk) 20:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to close this case with the comment of : "Going no where, so closed as "do not add the list"." Unless someone, other than Aatomic1, wishes other wise. And can I have a list of the sockpuppets that he has created? <DREAMAFTER><TALK> 21:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Or, I will close it in one full hour from my previous comment. <DREAMAFTER><TALK> 21:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Sockpuppets were GingerAstaire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) and Banksareas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), both used to continue edit warring while he was blocked. One Night In Hackney303 21:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the closing of this mediation, on the finding of "do not add list". Also any editor that continues to edit war after that should be placed on revert probation as per the troubles mediation, and blocked if they then continue.--Padraig (talk) 21:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I agrre with the revert probation and block comment. <DREAMAFTER><TALK> 21:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, what's happening here? Several editors are saying that the list of names should be included, yet I have Dreamafter putting comments on my page saying that Aatomic is the only one. He´s not. Also, this diff [6] is very telling. As for the argument above that the information about the victims is not encyclopaediac, it´s nonsense. My FIRST reaction to the article on the Birmingham Bombings was that there was no information on the victims and that there ought to be because the information was of prime relevance to the bombing. Who was killed. How many men, how many women, how old, what types of people, what injuries, etc. The names of the victims is the MINIMUM that should be there. WP:MEMORIAL does NOT apply. Nor do any of the other arguments for exclusion. Hughsheehy (talk) 09:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
The mediation has ended due to the actions of Aatomic1. There's nothing stopping a sentence about the dead being added, such as "the dead comprised x men and y women, from ages ranging from x to y". One Night In Hackney303 09:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I wish to protest at the stated reason for the closure of this mediation. The actions of one disruptive/sockpuppeting editor in no way take away from the arguments (pro and con) of the others taking part in the mediation. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 12:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The reason that it closed was that it was only contested by Aatomic1, and he was circumventing the rules and guidelines of the mediation. I can change the reason if you like? <DREAMAFTER><TALK> 12:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Just for all of your information, Aatomic1 was put on probation for doing so. <DREAMAFTER><TALK> 13:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
"The reason that it closed was that it was only contested by Aatomic1". Please explain, I don't understand this. If you're talking about the inclusion of the victims, that was supported by at least Aatomic1, me, HughSheehy, Biophys, and JackyD (and others on the article page). If you're talking about the mediation, I certainly had no warning or notice it was about to close. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 14:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, we could compromise by adding "the dead comprised x men and y women, from ages ranging from x to y". Or something like that. <DREAMAFTER><TALK> 16:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
The Mediation has ended was "due to the actions of Aatomic1" and "the reason that is closed was that it was only contested by Aatomic1"? Aatomic1's misbehaviour (if any) isn't relevant to the arguments. Also, he was NOT the only one involved in the discussion on the "pro" side. Further, since the "anti" side have been deleting lists from all sorts of other articles using this mediation and other previously inconclusive discussions as supporting arguments, this needs to move from an apparently failed mediation to a more formal policy review. As for the proposed compromise, I find it pretty much entirely beside the point. It would suggest that putting ANY information on the victims is some sort of concession, which I find an incredible (bad) idea. Hughsheehy (talk) 17:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
The above comment shows you were never interested in mediation to begin with, only using it as a vehicle to try and force through your preferred version. Compromise is essential in situations like this. What previously inconclusive discussions? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casualties of the Beslan school hostage crisis - conclusive. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comair 5191 Passenger and Crew List - conclusive. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hillsborough disaster casualties - conclusive. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/September 11 Attack Casualties - conclusive. One Night In Hackney303 18:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
The above shows no such thing. The above shows that I'm sticking to the point. As for conclusive, those articles are lists of dead, not lists within an article. In any case, several similar articles have been proposed for deletion and kept. IF (and I mean IF) WP:Memorial applies to lists of dead of notable events - which I don't necessarily agree with - it still does NOT apply to the content of articles.
Worse, after several months, it's now clear that this mediation has not been a mediation. There has been nothing more than a forum for repetition of arguments and then a closure on a false basis. Hughsheehy (talk) 19:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
The only repetition has come from you and your ilk, other people have presented point after point that have not been rebutted, you simply retreat to your same repetitive and flawed arguments. Worse still here you were advocating a compromise, now you are rejecting any compromise that falls short of what you want. The "anti-list" people are moving towards compromise, yet you are not willing to give an inch, that's why this mediation has failed because you are seemingly unwilling to compromise. Please tell me which part of "Wikipedia was not the proper place for the list of the dead from a tragedy" you don't understand? Policies apply to content, not articles. One Night In Hackney303 19:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

<Reduce indent> No, again. (i) My arguments are not flawed and all the "anti" points have been rebutted multiple times. (ii) I was not advocating a compromise, I was saying that if all mediation would lead to is implementation of a compromise and there was no prospect of compromise then we needed to use an alternative resolution process. (iii) I can't find any policy that matches the text you put in quotes. Also, the policy that you quote itself says that it applies to articles not to content. The policy says "Memorials. Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered." The subject is the Birmingham Pub Bombings, which is notable. The victims are a fundamental part of the notability of the event. AFAIK I neither know nor am related to any of the victims and my argument for their inclusion is simply because it is something than an encyclopedia like WP can and should include. Finally, what he heck is my "ilk"? Are we starting some ad hominem arguments here? Hughsheehy (talk) 19:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

"I was not advocating a compromise" - that's why this is doomed to fail. You are unwilling to compromise, you are insisting on having your own way. Well sorry, Wikipedia doesn't work like that. The "anti-list" people have shown they are willing to compromise, you have just shown you're not willing to compromise. Why do you think deletion discussions are closed as "delete" and not "merge"? Because "Wikipedia was not the proper place for the list of the dead from a tragedy". One Night In Hackney303 20:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with the one sentence addition as a compromise, as per mediation. "I was not advocating a compromise", is going to get us no where. --Domer48 (talk) 20:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I think adding that "the dead comprised x men and y women, from ages ranging from x to y" as suggested by Dreamafter is quite adequate in these articles, it gives the details of the dead which is all that is necessary in an encyclopeadic article.--Padraig (talk) 20:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

And just to finally nail the WP:NOT coffin lid tightly down, please read the entire policy. That entire section is under a heading called "Content", it applies to content of articles. One Night In Hackney303 20:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok, again, lots of misrepresentation of what was said and what's in or not in policy. I was not advocating a compromise, I was commenting on process in a situation where compromise doesn't seem likely. That doesn't mean I am unwilling to compromise, whatever ONIH or Domer48 or anyone else likes to say and no matter how many times they repeat it.
As for the idea that giving a rough characterisation of the victims is a compromise in this case, it's not. There is no way in which anyone could ever seriously argued that sort of information should be excluded from the article under ANY policy. Calling such a suggestion a compromise solution is nonsense.
As for "nailing the coffin" on the policy, the whole section in the WP:NOT is about content of WP. The section on WP:Memorial specifically applies itself to SUBJECTS OF ARTICLES and additionally talks about memorials of friends and relatives being the area of prohibition, which is NOT the case here. We're talking about the names of the victims of one of The Trouble's most horrible bombings being excluded from an article on the specific bombing by misapplying a WP policy. It would be a disgrace. It would NOT be supported by WP policy.
Finally, the way this mediation has been handled seems most unusual. No activity for months, then a one hour "close it down" on the incorrect basis that only one editor is supporting one of the sides? Hardly reasonable. Hughsheehy (talk) 21:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

"one of The Trouble's most horrible bombings," is this about the list or is it personal? This is about policies. I have yet to see any evidence of Hugh wishing to compromise. --Domer48 (talk) 21:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe that it is generally considered as one of the Trouble's most horrible bombings....one of the Troubles largest casualty figures. It would rank alongside Eniskillen, The Dublin/Monaghan bombings, etc. It is a VERY NOTABLE event. Other than that I have no personal connection to it whatsoever....do you? Hughsheehy (talk) 22:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Hughsheehy, I agree that it was a VERY NOTABLE EVENT, but none of the victims themselves where notable, so what purpose or value does a list of names provide, it dosen't help explain what happened in any way or the reason behind the bombing etc, giving details of the number of dead is sufficent.--Padraig (talk) 23:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
You yourself aren't being very helpful. Please suggest a compromise, rather than the old arguement of just adding the list. <DREAMAFTER><TALK> 21:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm trying to be as helpful as I can. I'm sticking to the point and arguing on what policies actually say. Are you suggesting that the "old argument of just adding the list" is not - in your view - an acceptable outcome? Hughsheehy (talk) 22:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
No, you're sticking to your interpretation of policy which has been showed to be not supported by consensus in various discussions, whether they be on the help desk, noticeboards or AfD debates. If you're not willing to compromise this mediation should be closed again. One Night In Hackney303 22:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
No, as far as I can see my interpretation is supported by several other Afd discussions, help desk discussions, noticeboards, etc and - more importantly - by the plain text of the policy which have been referenced by the other editors on the "pro" side. Just because you're ignoring these other discussions doesn't mean they don't exist. I'll be away for a while, but will be back. Hughsheehy (talk) 22:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Except that the policy says it applies to content. Why were deletion debates as list of victims of other tragedies closed as "delete" and not "merge" to the parent articles? Because the content wasn't suitable for Wikipedia, not because the articles weren't suitable for Wikipedia. You've still shown no willingness to compromise. One Night In Hackney303 23:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore you said "Who was killed. How many men, how many women, how old, what types of people, what injuries". So as a compromise it was suggested (and agreed to by several parties and the mediator) that something along the lines of "the dead comprised x men and y women, from ages ranging from x to y" should be added. What types of people is irrelevant, does it matter if they were butchers, bakers or candlestick makers? You said what you wanted, a compromise was proposed, and you've instantly rejected it. One Night In Hackney303 23:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Are you talking to Domer48 or Hughsheehy? One Night In Hackney303 21:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Hughsheehy. <DREAMAFTER><TALK> 22:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.