Talk:Kingsmill massacre

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Recent Edits regarding justification for the massacre[edit]

This article is an essay in the justification of sectarian murder. Why has an article regarding the murder of people based upon their religion been turned into a monograph on republican allegations regarding other murders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aughrafin (talkcontribs)

Feel free to edit the article. Mooretwin (talk) 13:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I have edited the article, it quickly reverts to the original version, someone either has more time than I do, or is using a bot. I'm new to wikipedia, but not to Irish history, this article is a genuine disgrace. Aughrafin (talk) 13:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

It is also very badly written, even for a propaganda piece Aughrafin (talk) 14:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec)For a new editor you know terms used here like bot and vandalism strange. BigDunc 14:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Try reading these and then editing again - WP:NPOV and WP:V. Toodle pip!--Vintagekits (talk) 14:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm a new editor, not a new wikipedia user. Seriously, this is a very poor article, it is slanted, the links are extremely dodgy (since when was the Irish Daily Mail a newspaper of record?) Edits aimed at restoring balance are instantly reverted. I don't have time to engage in a editing war with political activists, but the fact remains, this article is a disgrace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aughrafin (talkcontribs) 14:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Well thanks for your input or lack there of! Toodle pip!--Vintagekits (talk) 14:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
So you claim that FAIR are a neutral source and the Irish Daily Mail isn't? BigDunc 14:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

"therof" is one word, not two. Whether you agree with them or not, FAIR represent the victims of massacres like Kingsmills, their site is an appropriate reference. The Irish Daily Mail is a down market tabloid, not a newspaper of record, using it to justify a point is like using the Sun or the Star, not appropriate. One of the other links is not to an original article, but to commentary upon it by 'Indymedia' a propaganda site. Aughrafin (talk) 14:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Bullshit FAIR are a group of sectarian bigots and are never neutral. The Daily Mail is a reputable newspaper. BigDunc 14:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
+1, -1.--Vintagekits (talk) 14:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course FAIR aren't neutral, that's not the point. They are a group representing the victims of the massacre which is supposedly the subject of this article, an appropriate link. The Daily Mail is a down market tabloid, not one to be relied upon, even if the article in question does flatter your prejudices. Aughrafin (talk) 14:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

My prejudices?? Do you know me, don't attempt to tell me what I think. BigDunc 14:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I respect people's right to their prejudices, even when they are nonsensical. "Tell you what you think"! Given the tone of your contributions to this article and the information on your user page, it is clear what you think on this subject. Different people have different opinions; turning an article regarding a sectarian massacre into an article justifying that massacre is hardly a useful exercise. Aughrafin (talk) 14:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Time to stop feeding the troll. BigDunc 14:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Can't get the ball, go for the man eh? Aughrafin (talk) 14:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The question remains, "This article is an essay in the justification of sectarian murder. Why has an article regarding the murder of people based upon their religion been turned into a monograph on republican allegations regarding other murders". Aughrafin (talk) 14:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead and improve it then using good well balanced sources and writing! Toddle pip old chap!--Vintagekits (talk) 14:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

"Toddle pip"? Aughrafin (talk) 15:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, here is an example, one of the links is to Indymedia Ireland, a questionable source, BigDunc repeatedly reverts the title to make it seem as though it is a link to the Sunday Times, a reliable source. How can that be balanced? Aughrafin (talk) 15:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, on closer inspection, THREE of the four links are to Indymedia Ireland, a questionable source, and have been misdescribed in the title. One link is fair enough, but three? Aughrafin (talk) 15:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I have been able to improve this article, thanks for your encouragement Vintagekits. Aughrafin (talk) 15:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the link to an unreliable source, ie sectarian organisation FAIR, as it does not contain any pertinent information not in the article. The indymedia links are to seperate stories, and are not duplicate. The attempt to claim details of an Irish government report are bias from the Daily Mail is inappropriate. O Fenian (talk) 15:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Aha, OFenian suddnly takes BigDuncs place - the 3 revert rule is subverted! This is ridiculous, the Irish Government report is already included in the links and I have left them there. One link to indymedia Ireland is fair enough, three is not. Aughrafin (talk) 15:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

They cover different aspects of the story, so how can one be sufficient? O Fenian (talk) 15:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
The new editor is aware of bots and 3RR don't think they are as new as they claim. BigDunc 15:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

VintageKits sent me links to a variety of articles which I have read. Out of 40 references used to justify statements of opinion in this artile, no less than 7 are from Indymedia. Indymedia is not a reliable source - it is a questionable source - they should not form the justification for a statement. Indymedia is a questionable source. The Irish Daily Mail is not a newspaper of record, using it in that way is unusual and of doubtful utility, but it is a newspaper at least. If you want to link to its articles, why not link to its site? l (talk) 15:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

What is more, the articles referenced are not relevant to the Kingsmill massacre, none of the victims was a member of the army or police, it was a purely sectarian massacre, whoever carried it out. These articles belong in an article regarding alleged collusion - there is a very extensive one as I'm sure you know - not in an article about the Kingsmill massacre. Aughrafin (talk) 15:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)#

My goodness, Republican Jacobite, you have lots of friends BigDunc! FAIR are an approprite external reference, I wouldn't base an article on what they say, but the truth is that they represent the victiims of this massacre and simply the fact that they exist is justification for the link - it adds to the material included in the article. Furthermore, Indymedia is a group with sympathies on one side of the argument in Ireland, FAIR are a group with sympathies on the other side, the Irish Government is sort of neutral, sort of, therefore with FAIR the links are balanced, without it they are unbalanced.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Aughrafin (talkcontribs)

Sir (I am assuming), you haven't idea who my friends are, and I would thank you not to engage in pointless speculation. However, looking at the numerous statements you have made above, you seem to have a problem with making assumptions about your fellow editors, and making comments about them as opposed to their edits. This is not appropriate. May I remind you to assume good faith.
Now, to the matter. It is very simple, FAIR pushes a POV, therefore the link is not appropriate, per WP:ELNO. Please read that link. Thanks. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 02:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
A link to FAIR, which represents the victims of the massacre, would seem to be entirely appropriate in an article about the massacre. I don't see how FAIR's "pushing of a POV" is relevant: all organisations push a POV. Generally, I think the criticisms of this article are valid: it gives the impression of being used as a vehicle for pushing allegations about collusion rather than as an article about the massacre: the implication being that the massacre of innocent workmen was somehow justifiable because collusion was happening at the same time. Mooretwin (talk) 08:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
More to the point, does FAIR consitute a WP:RS?

Motivation[edit]

Tagged alleged motive for massacre as it's unsourced.Autarch (talk) 19:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Man with the English accent[edit]

The article needs to elaborate on this man with "the pronounced English accent".--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not aware of any reliable sources elaborating on him. Willie Frazer said something, but he is not a reliable source. O Fenian (talk) 17:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
It comes from Alan Black the sole survivor. As he was present throughout the massacre I'm sure his reliability would not be questioned.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Ni offence to yer man, but he could've been SHITEING himself for the duration... Not sure that would actually INCREASE his reliability. Basket Feudalist 09:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Background[edit]

Does the background section need to be so full of events that whilst did happen in the area and are related aren't actually part of this massacre? Should it be slimmed down? Mabuska (talk) 21:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Could do with a trim alright. Jdorney (talk) 15:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I already removed the big Glenanne gang and Pat Finucane Centre paragraph near the end of the section before your response, as it goes into an entirely different topic altogether away from the Kingsmill massacre. Also how relevant is it now the list of events prior to the massacre now that its been declared that the IRA had planned this attack months in advance, before the list of events even happened? Rather they should be condensed down into a small paragraph that gives a general jist. Mabuska (talk) 12:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Careful, there's competing interpretations here. The IRA, according to Harnden's account, planned the attack in advance as a 'disproportionate retaliation' for the killing of catholics. Not that this is any kind of excuse for their actions but the background is important. That said, it could probably be summarised. Jdorney (talk) 18:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
As my last sentence said, i think it should be condensed down, to set the scene so to speak. Mabuska (talk) 20:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Ok then, work away. Jdorney (talk) 14:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Names of victims[edit]

I think it is appropriate to record the names of the victims, it has as much relevance to the topic as the various "responses". Is there any objection to this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oneill1921 (talkcontribs) 19:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The names are very relevant to the article and should be included. By all means go ahead. Just make sure they are sourced. Mabuska (talk) 21:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Ok, updated with sourced material. I have followed the format used in the "Bloody Sunday" page as opposed to that in the "Ballymurphy Massacre" as it fits in better to the overall appearance.--Oneill1921 (talk) 16:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)Oneill1921
Ok I've removed the list per WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTMEMORIAL please read the following linked discussions here and here. Thanks, --Domer48'fenian' 19:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Why does the Bloody Sunday (1972) article have a list of the dead? Not trying to pick a fight, just wondering why it warrants special treatment. JonChappleTalk 19:31, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
As a newbie to the site, this was the reason for my first request. I notice that both the Ballymurphy and Bloody Sunday massacres both contain the name of the victims, what is the reasoning on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oneill1921 (talkcontribs) 20:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
If we don't get a response within a few days, I'll restore the list here. JonChappleTalk 20:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
I think the victims ar list'd at Ballymurphy and Bloody Sunday becaus the circumstances of each deth is unsame. At Kingsmill, all the victims wer kill'd at the same time and in the same spot. ~Asarlaí 21:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't see why that would make a difference. The WP:VL essay Domer48 linked to above concludes by saying "Lists of victims of an event are inappropriate unless all listed victims have Wikipedia articles, or a section of an article, of their own." JonChappleTalk 22:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


Asarlai how does that make anything different?

To dispel Domer48's flimsy wikilawyering:

"Is this where Wikipedia wide policy is about to be decided, or is this just covering lists of dead from NI incidents in the troubles, or is it just the Birmingham Pub Bombings? --81.132.246.132 17:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)"
"No, just the specified articles. Dreamy \*/!$! 16:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)"
Looks like its not relevant to this article then as it wasn't listed in the dicsussion you linked to.

Can to illuminate us Domer48 with the details of how this fails all of the points you've marked out? I would agree if you put forward a compelling case that i couldn't argue with. Though if you want to use the above as reasonings for this article, then in the interest of neutrality you should also put them forward at Bloody Sunday and Ballymurphy - or are they different? Mabuska (talk) 23:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Ballymurphy and Bloody Sunday ar different becaus each victim died at different times, at different places and sumtimes in different ways. By listing the victims and wher/when/how each of them died we ar adding important info to those articles (in the Bloody Sunday inquiries such info was key). If we list'd the victims here it would be nothing more than a list of names. We could do nothing else with it becaus readers hav alredy been told the wher, when and how.
Note: I'm not stedfastly agenst adding the names, I'm just noting why this is different to Ballymurphy and Bloody Sunday.
~Asarlaí 00:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Claiming a mediation that was about the addition of an identical list to a Troubles article is of no relevance to this article is Wikilawyering in the extreme.

Every time discussions about victims lists have come up, the general consensus has always been that they add no encyclopedic information. They don't help the reader to understand the event, they serve no purpose.

Bloody Sunday does not contain a list of victims that is remotely similar to the list that was added to this article, and various discusions on that article's talk page have agreed with its inclusion. Since the victims of that day were subjected to a lengthy propaganda campaign to blacken their names and justify their murder, how is it not relevant to include the circumstances of their deaths? Shall we just remove the names and call them "Person A" and so on to avoid even the mere suggestion that it is a "victim list"? If someone wants to start a discussion there about incorporating the information into the article beter instead of section like that you know where the relevant talk page is, I'd personally be in favour of it. Note that doesn't mean go right ahead and just delete the section, as that's not what I said....2 lines of K303 12:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

That just about sums it up really. Thanks a chara.--Domer48'fenian' 14:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
So your implying Wikipedia should be used as a counter-propaganda tool then? How hard is it to simply say (at its most basic) that the victims were subject to attempts at blackening their names however were acquitted and found innocent after a lengthy process - with some examples given? Or does that dillute the counter-propaganda?
Also Domer48 rather than just simply agreeing with ONiH and avoiding the glaring question as to your poor wikilawyering, maybe you could answer the question - can to illuminate us Domer48 with the details of how this fails all of the points you've marked out? As you didn't respond to it, is it because you can't?
On ONiH's stance, maybe examples of "Every time discussions about victim lists have come up" would help illuminate us as i find it hard to take someones word on Wikipedia these days.
Just simple questions that hould have simple answers. Mabuska (talk) 10:42, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

The "justifications" offered up here on which "victims" are appropriate to list("were they subjected to a propaganda campaign", "did the victims die at different times, at different places" etc, etc) are not covered within the guidelines listed within the Wikipedia:NOTMEMORIAL and are not quoted and employed to prevent the victims being listed in other massacres, deaths and murders. We're also left with the bizarre situation that whilst it is apparently relevant to a greater understanding of the Kingsmills Massacre to list 4 of the victims' membership of the Orange Order but not their names?

But that is irrelevant to the main reason why I feel aggrieved at the removal of the victims list I posted. Firstly, I asked prior to posting the list whether it was appropriate- the answer was "yes" from someone, I guess, is an experienced operator on here. At this stage why did no one point out their objection? Secondly, the debate could or actually should have been held whilst the "the victims list" was still on the article- why the need to remove it first? It has been pointed out by "One Night in hackney" that he would be open to debate on the matter with the relation to Bloody Sunday but that "Note that doesn't mean go right ahead and just delete the section, as that's not what I said...."- why was I not granted that same "priviledge"? Oneill1921 (talk) 12:37, 10 September 2011 (UTC)Oneill1921

The general consensus has always been that lists of names add no encyclopaedic information to an article, explain why you think they do. Read the talk page discussions for the articles cited above. Hackney was talking about the Bloody Sunday article.--Domer48'fenian' 18:55, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Let's be honest here. Strip away all the wikilawyering, it boils down to this. Ballymurphy and Bloody Sunday: killers were British therefore list the victims. Kingsmill: killers were Irish republicans so no list of victims. Mooretwin (talk) 20:22, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Victims' names ar given in plenty of articles wher the killers wer republicans. ~Asarlaí 20:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
But not this one, because there are policies/guidelines that can be deployed to prevent it. Mooretwin (talk) 20:42, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
There is no policy or guidelines to prevent its inclusion - just poor wiki-lawyering that Domer48 has still failed to justify - as he can't, and no illumination from ONiH about these so called discussions. Now Domer48 is adding a new claim of "general consensus"? Where is your evidence for this Domer48? Like come on, you can only bluff so much - however its simply disruptive editing by Domer48 and ONiH.
"Victims' names ar given in plenty of articles wher the killers wer republicans." - then why not here? Mabuska (talk) 21:35, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Now that the assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks by Mabuska have ceased the addition of the names as they stand are against WP:MEMORIAL Mo ainm~Talk 20:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Told you. Mooretwin (talk) 22:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Care to expand on that Mooretwin you are no innocent either with the personal attacks on Domer. Mo ainm~Talk 08:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't see any personal attacks. JonChappleTalk 08:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Look again, claiming someone is wikilawyering is a personal attack as it is a is a pejorative term. Mo ainm~Talk 09:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
That's not a personal attack any more than claiming someone's adding original research, not abiding by NPOV, etc. It's a criticism of someone's editing, not an attack on the editor. JonCTalk 09:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Since when is a pejorative not an attack? It is being used to demean Domer, nothing else. HE is not using legal terms, violating the spirit of wikipedia misrepresenting policy or asserting that the technical interpretation of policy should override the underlying principles they expres, therefore it is solely being used in an attempt to demean and ignore the points raised by both Domer and Hackney. Mo ainm~Talk 09:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────"Look again, claiming someone is wikilawyering is a personal attack as it is a is a pejorative term." - But its not a personal attack when its being used in proper context. I firmly believe that Domer48 is violating the four key points of WP:WIKILAWYER, so its an discussion offense not an insult. They have also failed to say how any of the many policies they quote are actually violated even when asked. You yourself quote one of thsoe policies and don't say how its violated. That is a very poor arguement. If you want to talk about personal attacks, i'd say your hugely insulting comments to Ritchie 44 on your talk page merit a block on their own. Mabuska (talk) 13:31, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Since the doubters are not easily convinced, try these - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of General Slocum victims, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre (4th nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of victims of the Columbine High School massacre (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of General Slocum victims (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Continental Airlines Flight 3407 Victims, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/September 11th, 2001 victims list. Be aware I'm already aware of what you're probably going to say next about these, so you might want to read up on AFD outcomes before saying anything.

I'll ignore attempts to put words into my mouth that I never said, and reiterare my previous point. Are editors really suggesting that, given the circumstances of the deaths of those concerned were disputed for almost 40 years, that the article on Bloody Sunday should not detail the circumstances of the deaths of those involved? 2 lines of K303 11:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Is it time to refer this as a dispute to someone who is impartial? Opinions here differ. --Flexdream (talk) 14:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Re the comment about Bloody Sunday- whilst the circumstances of the deaths may have been disputed, the names of the dead were not- so therefore, what does naming them add to the understanding of the event? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oneill1921 (talkcontribs) 16:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Deal with the links which Hackney provided, and drop the inane points on Bloody Sunday the is no mileage left in it.--Domer48'fenian' 19:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia is inconsistent. Full victim lists are given in Passover_massacre and Dizengoff_Street_bus_bombing. Some victims are identified in Dublin_and_Monaghan_bombings. None are identified directly in Greysteel_massacre but there is a link to CAIN and a list of the victims. Do all these articles need to be amended then? This particular issue here should go to an appeal. I think the names of victims should either be included directly or given in a link, especially considering how much extra information is already in this article. I think a list helps the reader understand why at the time, and since then, this massacre is considered so shocking, as was intended by the perpetrators. --Flexdream (talk) 23:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Lists of names add no encyclopaedic information to an article! If you read the linked discussions above you will find that they are consistent.--Domer48'fenian' 08:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
You'll be deleting the list from Ballymurphy Massacre, then? Oh. Sorry, forgot: those were victims of the British armed forces and not of Irish "republicans". Mooretwin (talk) 12:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Domer - if you read my links you'll find they are not consistent. There are lots of examples and little consistency. 7_July_2005_London_bombings seems to have no list of victims, Milltown_Cemetery_attack names victims. Are you going to delete those names? --Flexdream (talk) 16:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Being told that (in your opinion) there is "no mileage left" in highlighting inconsistencies or refusal (beyond insult) to answer a specific point raised regarding one of those inconsistencies is not enough to objectively justify your argument. If I were a cynic, I would say that your definition of what and what doesn't comprise "enycyclopaedic" information is dependent on the religion or national identity of the victim--Oneill1921 (talk) 14:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)Oneill1921

Flexdream's suggestion of actual impartial views would be far better as your not going to get many of them here, especially when there is no consistency in the articles as pointed out by Flexdream, and there is obvious undeniable bias, i.e. include them for Bloody Sunday and Ballymurphy, but not for Kingsmills etc. The silence from the "against" crowd, when asked what would they should do about other articles that include names, is defeaning and quite frankly says it all. Is Mooretwins assertions that it appears that its yes for victims of the British Army and no for victims of the IRA far from wrong? Mabuska (talk) 15:51, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Is there anybody now who would still object to the victims' names being listed, just as they have been for instance with the Ballymurphy Massacre?--Flexdream (talk) 17:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Domer! Mooretwin (talk) 23:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Now, now, no need to make assumtpions. Mabuska (talk) 09:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes I object to lists of dead people being added to this article. Mo ainm~Talk 16:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Why exactly? And if you decide to quote a policy, please explain how your objection is vindicated by the content of the policy. Simply quoting a policy and not explaining how its relevant or even met is a red herring. Mabuska (talk) 17:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I object to listing the dead here as well. I believe it would be against point 4 of WP:MEMORIAL; it is just a list of information WP:IINFO; none of the dead are notable outside this article and we haven't done it at lots of other similar article such as Shankill Road bombing, Loughinisland massacre, Remembrance Day bombing or Greysteel massacre (to name but a few) so why here? Tell us what makes this article special? Bjmullan (talk) 17:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Bjmullan - I've already stated " None are identified directly in Greysteel massacre but there is a link to CAIN and a list of the victims." Will you be deleting that link then? What is 'notable' about the victims of the Ballymurphy Massacre who are listed? In fact, can you give any example of a 'massacre' by the British Army or Loyalists where the names of the victims are not available from the article? You state there are no names in the Loughinisland massacre - have you read it? That article states "The dead were Adrian Rogan (34), Malcolm Jenkinson (52), Barney Greene (87), Daniel McCreanor (59), Patrick O'Hare (35) and Eamon Byrne (39), all Catholic civilians." Are you going to delete that list now? If not, why not? Do you only object to a list of names where the massacre was carried out by Nationalists? --Flexdream (talk) 18:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Missed the names at Loughinisland massacre, but I'm sure other examples could be found. I wouldn't have any objection to the external link to CAIN as per the example you have given. Not sure what you mean by your question "Do you only object to a list of names where the massacre was carried out by Nationalists?". Do you know what AGF means? What about my other points regarding WP Policy? If we forget all the examples that both sides of the argument can bring to the discussion how does adding these names improve this article and stay clearly within policy? Bjmullan (talk) 21:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Bj - What I mean is, would you support deleting the list of names from the Loughinisland massacre and Ballymurphy Massacre articles? If not, why not? Can you find any examples of a list of names where the massacre was carried out by Nationalists? If there is relevant WP Policy it should be applied consistently. I'm happy for an impartial party to decide what the policy is. I think adding the names makes the article more comprehensive and useful. I'd expect any researcher or student to want that information where it's available. --Flexdream (talk) 22:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Flexdream, I have not edited at the articles you mention, nor are they on my watchlist. I suggest that you focus on the issues with this article. My support for the CAIN link still stands. Bjmullan (talk) 17:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
The issue with this article is that it is inconsistent with other articles, including the ones you've listed. But I appreciate you are being constructive as I think you are stating you'd support a link in this article to a list of victims. Is that what you mean?--Flexdream (talk) 21:25, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Just so everyone knows, the following 'Troubles'-related articles list the names of all victims:

'Troubles' articles that list all victims

~Asarlaí 23:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The list at South_Armagh_Sniper_(1990–1997) looks like a trophy list never mind anything else. Mabuska (talk) 00:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

To paraphrase someone else...If you decide to quote a policy, please explain how your argument for inclusion is vindicated by the content of the policy. Simply quoting a policy and not explaining how its relevant or even met is a red herring.

You might also want to read WP:NOT very carefully, especially the top part of the section about content. Then you can also read all the AFD discussions I linked to where consensus is that WP:MEMORIAL applies to lists of victims.

If a list of victims is just a list of names (and ages and the like) then it serves no useful purpose to the understanding of the topic. If it is more than just a list of names then it may help in the readers' understanding of the article. However the correct place to discuss if any such list in any other article is needed is not here.

The proposed list here serves no useful purpose, other than a memorial. As such, I object to its inclusion. 2 lines of K303 12:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Hackney - I've had a look at a few of your links. Thanks for giving these. The guidelines seems to refer to articles about the victim, or a list of victims. Not lists within an article which is about the event. For instance you give Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of victims of the Columbine High School massacre (2nd nomination) as an example. I'm inexperienced with Wikipedia but it seems to me that that article was deleted, and now redirects to the article Columbine High School massacre which clearly contains an unchallenged list of victims. So it seems to me from your links that this Kingsmills article can include a list of victims. No one is asking for a separate article listing the victims. So, let's follow the Columbine article example which you've cited. If not I think the only way to make progress here is to have an appeal. --Flexdream (talk) 21:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
There is clearly no consistency in the use of victim lists, so to argue against its use here whilst ignoring the inconsistency is i think wrong. More than likely Flexdream you will have to go down the dispute resolution path. A Request for Comments for outsider opinions should be your first port of call. Mabuska (talk) 23:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Mo ainm~Talk 18:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Such a cop-out. That can be applied to anything. Sod consistency, other stuff exists! JonCTalk 18:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Cop out maybe, but this is about the addition of a couple of names to this article but editors keep throwing up places were they exist so it is relevant, as I could show articles were they are not in it. Mo ainm~Talk 18:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
You're right, but it's also highlighted a wider issue of the need for consistency across these types of articles. We should have victim lists on some or not at all, that way no-one can be accused of pushing a POV. JonCTalk 19:14, 26 September 2011 (UTC)#
Mo - forget for a moment about other articles. WP:MEMORIAL does not exclude an article containing a list of names does it? That's why Columbine High School massacre contains a list, but there is not a separate article which is just a list. --Flexdream (talk) 20:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Flex, I am not mentioning other articles as they are not relevant to this, the addition of the names to this article adds nothing. If it was possible to put them into a paragraph like is done on the Bloody Sunday article then I wouldn't see to much of a problem but due to the nature of this attack it doesn't lend itself to doing that. Mo ainm~Talk 08:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Mo - I think a list or a paragraph of names here would be possible. This could be added to the last paragraph in 'The attack' section. Adding the names does add information. If I was a researcher reading this article I'd expect that information to be included where it's available. --Flexdream (talk) 17:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I did warn you to look into AFD outcomes before saying what I knew would be said. A common AFD outcome, particularly with content forks, is to merge the content back into the main article. The AFDs listed did not result in that outcome, the result was a straight delete. I see no list in the Columbine article that is remotely comparable to the proposed list for this article either. 2 lines of K303 12:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Hackney, I see that during the course of this discussion you removed most names from Loughinisland massacre on 23 September citing WP:MEMORIAL, but that edit was almost immediately reverted by User:Grapple_X denying WP:MEMORIAL. The list of names is still there. Do you think it's inclusion there still breaks WP:MEMORIAL?--Flexdream (talk) 17:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I see my name came up. WP:MEMORIAL does not apply to these things, it's a much more niche case denoting that an individual does not gain notability through death alone. For instance, a separate article for each victim would fall under WP:MEMORIAL and fail notability. However, the victims being mentioned in cited prose in an article on a notable event clearly is not a breach of this. GRAPPLE X 21:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Canvassed opinion noted. 2 lines of K303 12:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Names of victims 2[edit]

(I've not done an RfC before so I hope this is right) As you'll see from the talk page Talk:Kingsmill massacre#Names of victims there is a difference of opinion amongst several people about whether the names of victims can be included in the article. There is no consensus there and none in prospect, so I'd welcome the opinions and comments of anyone, especially anyone with no particular interest in the Northern Ireland 'Troubles'. Thanks. Flexdream (talk) 20:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

(see previous section above for background) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flexdream (talkcontribs) 21:20, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Just to expand upon this - some editors believe that it's against WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE, whilst others believe that it is not. There is a feeling that the issue is being discussed upon partisan lines and so non-partisan views would be greatly welcomed.
There is also no consistency on Wikipedia in regards to this issue for many articles list the victims, such as Columbine High School massacre, as well as the following list of Trouble's incidents:
'Troubles' articles that list all victims
So external opinion on this would be great as it is clear there is no Wikipedia-wide guidelines as to how to treat the issue, unless all those articles are violating WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. Mabuska (talk) 20:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Comparisons to other articles are irrelevant. That's like saying "those articles have unsourced [policy violating] material in, so why can't this one?". 2 lines of K303
I think it is clear that neither of those guidelines would be infringed. NOTMEMORIAL is clearly about not creating information about dead people which does not have encylopaedic relevance. NOTINDISCRIMINATE does not apply because 10 names can hardly be called excessively long. I think it would be good style not to include the names in the form of a list, though.
Think the spirit of WP:BLPNAME should considered in the sense of sparing a thought as to whether the living relatives of the victims would want the names to be in the article and whether the article would lose much by excluding the names. --FormerIP (talk) 21:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)--
The names of the victims of the Troubles can be easily found on the Internet, with an entire database of deaths during the Troubles available at CAIN, which was created and maintained by the University of Ulster, which gives it strong academic weight. Here is the direct link where the victims of this attack are listed. So i don't know if WP:BLPNAME would be broken in spirit. Mabuska (talk) 22:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
That's a database of deaths during the Troubles, this is an encyclopedia. The two aren't the same... 2 lines of K303 13:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Looking at what was removed, I think the opening blurb ("Nine of the dead, the textile workers, were from the village of Bessbrook, while the bus driver was from nearby Mountnorris. Four of the men were members of the Orange Order.") is clearly of encyclopedic nature and should be kept no matter what, although perhaps merged with another section if we get rid of the list. As this is not an overly long list, I have no objection to its inclusion in the article; such an action in my opinion would not violate NMemorial because the list is not the only focus of the article, and the deaths would have been reported widely at the time so they are verifiable. Also, please note that per WP:AOAL "An embedded list ... may include entries which are not sufficiently notable to deserve their own articles, and yet may yet be sufficiently notable to incorporate into the list." Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I would agree that "Nine of the dead, the textile workers, were from the village of Bessbrook, while the bus driver was from nearby Mountnorris. Four of the men were members of the Orange Order" is clearly of encyclopedic nature. That was in the article before the list was added and is still in the article now, there is no objection to the inclusion of it that I'm aware of. 2 lines of K303 13:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Short lists such as this are perfectly fine and appropriate. Leaving them out is also perfectly fine and appropriate. They should be of course be listed as "the dead" not "the victims". Rich Farmbrough, 15:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC).
Rich, thanks for your comments. When you say 'Leaving them out' I think you mean omitting them is ok, not that deleting them is ok i.e. it's ok to leave them out, but it wouldn't be ok to delete them. Is that what you mean?--Flexdream (talk) 16:17, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
I think he means that if someones decides not to add it then its ok, but if someone decides to add it then its ok, if you catch my drift. The issue of if it's already in or added however some users revert or wish to remove it for whatever reasons, partisan maybe, is still a unclear.Mabuska (talk) 23:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree --Flexdream (talk) 23:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me that there is no policy or guideline which applies. Therefore we have to fall back on what is encyclopaedic. We can have a perfectly good encyclopaedic article with or without the list of names. It seems to me that the list of names adds some value. There is, however, not a lot more that we want to say about these people, other than the circumstances of their deaths. We do not, by listing them, honour or dishonour the dead or wounded, we simply state that that they were killed or injured. I'm not sure what partisan purpose would be served by either adding or removing the names, possibly someone who is still fighting the battles of that era might feel it humanises or dehumanises the story. Wikipedia, however, is in the business of delivering significant verifiable information about notable topics, and, by and large, the names of people involved in events are significant. Rich Farmbrough, 12:47, 8 October 2011 (UTC).
I concur. Do the objectors, who where very vocal in their objections in the prior discussion, have anything they would wish to add? Mabuska (talk) 18:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
I have not taken part in the RfC to allow new blood to have there say, shame I can't say that about others who were involved in the discussion above. The problem Rich with the statement There is, however, not a lot more that we want to say about these people, other than the circumstances of their deaths is that in this case all the dead died the same way so all you end up with is a list of names which has no real value. Bjmullan (talk) 19:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
I strongly disagree that the list of names has no real value. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and we are its editors. Readers come here to acquire information and we, as editors must do our best to provide all that is necessary for their better understanding of the subject. The fact that articles such as the Omagh Bombings, Dublin and Monaghan Bombings, and Kingsmill Massacre (all of which were notable and especially in the former attack the victims received extensive media coverage) do not give the victims' names undermines the quality of Wikipedia. We cannot arbitrarily decide that the victims of Bloody Sunday and the Reavey and O'Dowd killings merit the inclusion of their respective names and the others do not. Up until now I have not spoken out against this policy, but I must do so now as it has been troubling me ever since my list of the Omagh Bombings' victims was removed.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
The problem with saying that the names have no real value is that it is based on assumption. In terms of story, there is by the same argument "no real value" in listing the types of weapons with which they were killed. "No real value" in the eyes of some, in saying that they were Protestants killed by Catholics, rather than Catholics killed by Protestants - or that it was part of the Troubles rather than the Punjab issues. It's all a question of how abstract you wan to be. On the other hand, in terms of fact, rather than story, the names, the location, the time of day, all feed into an understanding of the context. And for those studying the events, all these are material facts. They may not have explanatory value, but they may have other value. For example, certain names may be significant in their own right, or indicate kinship. And of course if they do have explanatory value, it may not be clear to us what that is. As encyclopaedists we regularly gather information that is of undetermined usefulness, but has been frequently proven to have significance, the three key types are, indeed, names, dates and places. Rich Farmbrough, 18:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC).
Well put, Rich. Let me also add that events such as Kingsmill are notable chiefly because people were killed, making them the protagonists of the article. It's of secondary importance that they were taken out of a certain make of vehicle and shot with a certain type of weapon. The guns were not just fired into the air, they connected with human flesh and organs bringing about the deaths of ten people. Therefore, the people have priority over everything else and need to be listed. What's more, if this info can be found at CAIN, then why have an article on the massacre in the first place? Just provide an external link to the website. If I were reviewing an article for GA of FAC I would never pass it if it failed to provide such relevent information such as names, dates, and location.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I've got plenty to say, but I'm pressed for time today so it will be tomorrow. Just in case there's any attempt at an premature close.... 2 lines of K303 12:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Hyper-include. I read the article and most linked articles; also read the discussion. I'm guided by the unavoidable, human-nature principle that "one murder is a tragedy; many murders are statistics". (I'm fully aware that this fact has been usurped by brutal leaders in History, sometimes to justify their murders. But this does not diminish, unfortunately, the truth of the statement.)
Having said that, if this were a 'regular', paper encyclopaedia, there would have been no issue: We cannot be listing victims' names in their hundreds - but we can certainly discuss about a number such as 6 or 16 victims!
And here is where internet space can show its value. Here's my proposal : Either list the names in full and hide them (using Collapse) or link to another Wikipedia page containing the list. Personally, I strongly prefer the former approach.
In any case, if an internet encyclopaedia cannot readily provide such assistance to a researcher, who will? -The Gnome (talk) 13:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
A memorial, just like this one
  • Exclude per WP:NOT, specifically WP:MEMORIAL, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:DIRECTORY. The list in itself has no encyclopedic relevance. Compare it to the image on the right, it's performing the exact same function. It has been upheld by consensus time and again that WP:MEMORIAL applies to lists of victims, see the AFDs. Those saying that the AFDs were about stand-alone articles failed to refute that a possible outcome of AFD is merge, and that the results were delete, not merge. In all the countless hours that have been wasted on this and the countless previous discussions, not one person has ever been able to provide a satisfactory agument as to what encyclopedic purposes a bare list of names and ages serves. There's constant Wikilawyering over the wording of WP:NOT, insisting on a blind adherence to the letter of the policy instead of following the spirit of it. WP:NOT#Content even addresses this in advance, reading "In any encyclopedia, information cannot be included solely for being true or useful. Although there are debates about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries, consensus is that the following are good examples of what Wikipedia is not. The examples under each section are not intended to be exhaustive". So that instantly dismisses the "true" and "useful" argument, and countless others that try and insist on the letter of the policy instead of the spirit of it. That list is a memorial just like the image on the right, and serves no encyclopedic purpose. 2 lines of K303 13:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Only this comment : WP:MEMORIAL, as well as all the directives in that sub-section of WP:What Wikipedia is NOT address the use of space for the affairs of Wikipedia editors' themselves. The title is telling: "Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, social network, or memorial site [for deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances]". Then the wording of the policy : "Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements" - which is something the victims of that particularly massacre clearly do. Victims of murders (of serial killers, for instance) are mentioned in detail when the killing is notable enough. -The Gnome (talk) 16:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
2 lines of K303 - You've already made these points and we know your opinion. The RfC is for opinions from uninvolved editors. You have mentioned AFDs before, are you still maintaining that you "see no list in the Columbine article that is remotely comparable to the proposed list for this article"? That was an example you chose. --Flexdream (talk) 19:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Involved editors can comment in RfC's as long as it's in a constructive way, it's all part of discussion and collaboration, as long as enough space is given for outside input. At ONiH (2 lines of K) on AfD merges - depends if there is anything for the AfD to be merged with. If not then its obviously going to be deleted. A stand-alone article list obviously doesn't provide much use, however within an article about the incident it helps add highly notable encyclopedic content. Mabuska (talk) 22:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Subjects of articles do indeed need to meet WP:GNG, to be mentioned in an article, however, all that is required is significance. This distinction is often missed. Rich Farmbrough, 10:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC).

Further responses to the RfC seemed to have dried up now. It seems to me that all the contributions from uninvolved editors allow for having the names included, and that none of them think the names should be excluded or deleted. I think RfC is just for advice, but is there now consensus to include the list of names in the article?--Flexdream (talk) 22:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree that the uninvolved editors seem to at least not to dismiss the idea (I am still to be convinced). I think a good next step is for those editors who would like the list to be included to show in what context, what it would contain and where this list would be in the article to see if that moves things on. Bjmullan (talk) 22:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

This is a memorial, and no one has refuted that point. All we've heard is wikilawyering over the letter of the policy while ignoring its spirit. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 23:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Bjmullan - that could be a constructive way forward, but RepublicanJacobite's comments show we still don't have a consensus. I think further discussion here will not achieve consensus. I think the only option now is to refer this for a decision on inclusion, and leave formatting for a later day.--Flexdream (talk) 23:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
RJ has made a valid point which needs to be addressed. I have decline to comment to allow for fresh alternative views, and this has not happened. My view has remained the same and I have yet to be persuaded by any of the arguments presented thus far.--Domer48'fenian' 00:02, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Why not list them in a collapsed box as one editor has suggested? I still maintain that this incident is notable enough to include the names. It was indeed one of the watershed events of the Troubles and attracted international notice. I had never heard of the Springfield Massacre until the mid-80s when my boyfriend told me about it having witnessed it himself. Yet, that article includes the names of the victims. Why do we have this cherry-picking?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:10, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I think I should raise a Wikipedia:Requests_for_Mediation and remove the RfC tag. Anyone got any comments or suggestions on that?--Flexdream (talk) 09:07, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

That's a non-argument for inclusion as already mentioned. You're saying the equivalent of "that article has unsourced material in, why can't this one?". As soon as the list is removed from that article your argument ceases to exist, hence a non-argument. 2 lines of K303 12:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Will mediation call on editors to address the issues raised in this and previous treads by Hackney, Bjmullan, RJ and myself?--Domer48'fenian' 09:40, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
You can read what it says. I'd expect the mediators to look at the issues raised by all the editors, not just by some of them. I'm sure everyone will be able to have their say.--Flexdream (talk) 10:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Exclude list of dead per WP:NOT. Also concur with Domer on the mediation issue.Mo ainm~Talk 11:30, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Arbitary break[edit]

A memorial, just like this one

Various points still not addressed, or expansion upon previous points in reply to issues raised.

  • Well will you look at that. Every single article had a clear merge target, that could be found very simply. So what are we getting arguments about needing an article to merge to??? That's a rhetorical question by the way... So to summarise, every single article from the AFDs I listed had a clear merge target, so attempting to insinuate that the articles were deleted due not to merge targets being available is pure disruption.

There's various other points that need to be discussed, particular the other parts of WP:NOT, but there's enough there for continued discussion as it might be simpler to address one point at a time since some editors seem to struggle otherwise... 2 lines of K303 12:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Hackney, thanks for summarising your points. As we're not going to get consensus I think we should go for arbitration rather than mediation. Does anyone else agree/disagree?--Flexdream (talk) 21:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree. Partisan motives are still to the fore in the opposition to listing victims of republicans whilst clearly listing victims of the British army and loyalists. Mabuska (talk) 21:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, little seems to have changed consensus-wise despite the RfC response. Restating positions is not going to move things forward. Has anyone anything to add about going to arbitration? --Flexdream (talk) 22:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
I'd suggest asking an admin for what step to take next. Arbitration is a last resort as far as i'm aware and there are other options, however i'm sure they'd all end up with the same result but at least by going through each stage you can build a greater platform of opinion on the matter which shoul alays be done, and if it follows the outside opinion provided in the RfC above, then arbitration may not be needed, or may make it even quicker and simpler. In fact i'd get an admin to pass judgement on the above RfC first to see if a decision can be made seeing as no outside opinion in the RfC agreed with the objectors. Mabuska (talk) 22:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't summarising, I was continuing discussion. It's your failure to discuss that is causing the problem right now. If you want to go for abritration, mediation or fornication then knock yourself out, but the comment above shows twofold why it's doomed to failure. 2 lines of K303 12:45, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree, both the failure to discuss the points raised and assumptions of bad faith is a problem and preventing consensus. Ignoring the points raised is hardly a valid reason for looking for another forum. --Domer48'fenian' 19:47, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
  • meh I agree that per NOT a memorial, a list of victims' names is not appropriate. Hipocrite (talk) 14:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Hackney - what's 'fornication' go to do with it? You just keep repeating the same points, even when they've been answered. You say that Columbine High School massacre does not have a list of victims. For the third time, yes it does. They are named in the text, and given in 2 infoboxes. We're just going round in circles here. Ditto for Virginia Tech massacre where 1 infobox is used. I'd not looked at the September_11_attacks as it was always unlikely anyone would list several thousand names within an article. Your interpretation of WP:NOT and WP:MEMORIAL was not supported by any of the impartial editors who responded to the RfC. You've also not replied to my question regarding your edits to Loughinisland massacre on 23 September. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flexdream (talkcontribs) 17:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Taking each sentence in turn

  • "Hackney - what's 'fornication' go to do with it?"

Think about it, you'll get there eventually.

  • "You just keep repeating the same points, even when they've been answered"

I could say exactly the same thing. I'll also say you're talking bollocks, that's unless you're prepared to provide diffs refuting every single point I've made.

  • "You say that Columbine High School massacre does not have a list of victims. For the third time, yes it does."

You're talking bollocks, again. Here are all the times I have mentioned the word Columbine on this talk page, complete with diffs. "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of victims of the Columbine High School massacre (2nd nomination)" and "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of victims of the Columbine High School massacre had a merge target at Columbine High School massacre" and "I see no list in the Columbine article that is remotely comparable to the proposed list for this article either". Since the first diff is irrelevant, you can only be referring to the second diff and thus it appears you do not understand the meaning of the word "comparable".

  • "They are named in the text, and given in 2 infoboxes."

You might want to look up the meaning of "comparable" again.

  • "We're just going round in circles here"

The sooner you start discussing the points raised instead of ignoring them, the sooner that stops. You, and others, keep repeating the same points refuted time after time.

  • "Ditto for Virginia Tech massacre where 1 infobox is used."

False comparison, oh look there's a variation of comparable again. It is hardly feasible to link to Jamie Bishop, Liviu Librescu, Jocelyne Couture-Nowak and Kevin Granata without mentioning their names. Got any articles for the people killed as Kingsmill? Didn't think so.... You might also like to know I picked Columbine and Virginia Tech out of the many available for a very specific reason...

  • "I'd not looked at the September_11_attacks as it was always unlikely anyone would list several thousand names within an article."

Why not? Are you saying all the bleeding hearts violin playing arguments from here don't apply equally well to that article? Doesn't consistency matter?

  • "Your interpretation of WP:NOT and WP:MEMORIAL was not supported by any of the impartial editors who responded to the RfC."

It would appear in addition to not understanding the word comparable, that you do not understand what "I agree that per NOT a memorial, a list of victims' names is not appropriate" means, amongst other things. The positioning of your comment in relation to that one has also caused my irony detector to explode. I also reject your use of "impartial" to describe certain editors, unless you have evidence to suggest that editors you choose not to apply the label to are not "impartial"?

  • "You've also not replied to my question regarding your edits to Loughinisland massacre on 23 September."

I chose not to waste my time answering a ridiculous question that my answer to is already well known. In addition to my other suggestions, I would also suggest brushing up on when to use singular versus plural nouns, either that or brush up on your maths.

I really look forward to the predicable reply to this as well, as I already know what's coming. 2 lines of K303 13:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


Who is happy with mediation on this topic? Mediation is a voluntary process and can't be imposed if people aren't agreed. --Flexdream (talk) 22:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I would be happy with whatever result arises from mediation.--Oneill1921 (talk) 08:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Mediation should only be considered, when the issues raised by a number of editors including ONIH have been addressed. Having not been able to address reasonable questions on this RfC, should not be sufficient reason to open another forum where the same questions will have to be raised.--Domer48'fenian' 09:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
If they want to go for mediation then let them, I've no problem with it. Maybe when that starts they will attempt to address the points, instead of constantly ignoring them. 2 lines of K303 12:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Exclude Outside view, coming from the RfC page. WP:NotMemorial is pretty clear that we should not include a list. The incident itself was noteworthy, but not the names of the people killed. FurrySings (talk) 07:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Pots and kettles still to the fore i see. Simple question that should have a simple answer: how exactly does this fail WP:MEMORIAL?

Memorials. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements

So who is memorialising deceases friends, relatives, or acquanitances? Who is memorialising others who do not meet notability requirements? No-one.

For WP:MEMORIAL to have relevance to this discussion it must be determined whether the names meet notability requirements. Most editors agree they are notable. The names of the victims are also well covered in sources including the academic CAIN archive. So how exactly do they fail WP:NOTABLE?

Why are victims of the British notable enough for mention whilst victims of republicans aren't? The manner of how they died is hardly a compelling arguement. Didn't everyone who died on Bloody Sunday not die from gunshot wounds? Is that not the same as Kingsmill?

These are points made before that have been ignored by the objectors who complain that their questions go unanswered. Maybe they should answer the questions asked of their policy quoting before demanding other editors answer their questions, especially seeing as it their policy quoting that is being used to object to the material meaning the onus is on them to prove how those policies are met and so far i have seen no evidence of how the victims don't meet WP:NOTABLE. If it can be proved they they don't then and only then does WP:MEMORIAL apply as the notability requirement would have failed. Mabuska (talk) 17:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Mabuska. If the victims of the Springfield Massacre (which as I have stated before attracted very little media attention outside the North) are deemed notable enough to be mentioned in the respective article, then surely those who died at Kingsmill (a watershed event which attracted lots of international attention) can- and should be- be listed. The dead men do not fall under WP: Memorial as they are not our deceased friends or relatives. The memorial commemorating the victims of the 1974 motorway coach bombing has no bearing on this discussion whatsoever as there isn't even an article about the event. The suggestions that the Kingsmill massacre victims do not need to be listed shows biased editing in the extreme. We cannot list the victims of the British Army, the UVF, UDA, etc, and yet dismiss the victims of republican violence as being of no account.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
"The memorial commemorating the victims of the 1974 motorway coach bombing has no bearing on this discussion whatsoever as there isn't even an article about the event." ...DUH. Where do ya think the picture's from??? Basket Feudalist 10:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Came here on an RFC invite. My opinion is, unless any of the deceased are notable in sources, then they shouldn't be included in the article. Quinn BEAUTIFUL DAY 23:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Jeanne boleyn's proposal[edit]

I have a proposal which would list the names in an unobtrusive manner without it reading as a memorial. In The attacks section following the sentence: Ten of them were killed and only one, Alan Black survived, despite having eighteen gunshots wounds., I propose this additional sentence: The dead men were: John Bryans (50), Robert Chambers (18), Reginald Chapman (29), Walter Chapman (35), Robert Freeburn (56), Joseph Lemmon (49), John McConville (20), James McWhirter (63), Kenneth Worton (24), Robert Walker (46). It is providing information on the dead without listing them in a separate section as a memorial. Please indicate below whether you support or oppose this attempt at a compromise.

  • Support It is providing information on the dead in the main body of the text but not in a separate section as a memorial. The event was notable in itself so those killed merit being mentioned, despite not being notable in themselves. My proposal does not violate WP:Memorial as these are neither family or friends.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Your proposal is to add a list? How is it any different to this latest RfC, when you are making the exact same proposal and suggesting its a compromise? You clearly state that you wish to "list the names" despite the fact that they are not "notable in themselves," all be it in another section. You wish to blend the "list" into a body of text making it "unobtrusive" or less visible, in fact hidden. You want us to slip a "list" into the article, by making it less obvious that it is "list"?--Domer48'fenian' 12:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


At least it's some form of compromise. Where has the compromising been the "no" camp? Where is the response to the questions i asked which you've decided to ignore whilst deciding to respond to put down Jeanne's idea? Is that the spirit of collaboration?

A proposal i've been thinking of over the past while is instead of providing a list in articles, we could provide a clear and noticable external link in the article to CAIN or another credible and academic website that lists the dead. However i think it should be brought up at the WikiProjects as obviously this issue involves a far greater scope than this one article. Mabuska (talk) 13:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

No objection to an external link. Object to the other proposal, per lengthy previous discusions that scarely need repeating at length. 2 lines of K303 13:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Any answers to my questions in the preceding section? Mabuska (talk) 14:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) As a side-note when editing Howth gun-running not too long ago i came across a list of non-notable victims at the hands of the British here. The source provided was dead however i never removed the information as it adds to the article in the same way a list would here so i added a citation needed tag. Despite that yet again another example where (almost) any victim of the British is mentioned... Mabuska (talk) 14:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
This obvious bias against British/loyalist victims has indeed been noticed on other websites much to Wikipedia's detriment. Let me just ask why the men shot at Kingsmill are any less notable than those killed at Bloody Sunday? And don't the people blown up in Dublin and Omagh merit a list when those shot at Ballymurphy and Loughgall do? They are ALL victims of The Troubles. Where's the diff?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Also to counter Domer48's arguement against your proposal please read Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(embedded_lists)#Prose_versus_lists. Your proposal Jeanne can be considered prose, rather than a list, even if it "lists" names, but the use of the word list in this aspect equates to "stating something" rather than a style of format, so an arguement on that is simply pedantic semantics. Mabuska (talk) 11:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Oh not the same tired argument I've already refuted more than once, do you even bother reading Jeanne boleyn? How do you suggest we provide a link to Jim Lynagh without mentioning his name? Perhaps it should be Person A? The list at Bloody Sunday is not remotely comparable to the list here, it fulfils a real purpose to start with!
A quick look at the history of Howth gun running shows that neither myself, Domer, Mo ainm or RepublicanJacobite have edited the article at all. So how, pray tell, is that evidence of anything? If the list bothers you that much then go right ahead and remove it, and that applies to other articles (with the obvious exception of Bloody Sunday and Loughgall for reasons already discussed). But we all know you won't as it kills your arguments here stone dead. Go on, do it. If you don't, you lose all right to complain about other articles in my opinion.
Is there actually any evidence to support these spurious allegations? Put up or shut up. 2 lines of K303 12:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


And your suggestion is simply WP:Wikilawyering! And needs no further comment. As to Jeanne's accusation of bias, and if at this stage editors are still going on about Bloody Sunday, there is no point even attempting to cite again the difference. Now would you both like to play the ball and not the player, are is it the sum total of your arguments? --Domer48'fenian' 15:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Actually, Domer I believe the ball is in your court and not mine. I have posed a question and you refuse to answer. Why are the victims of Bloody Sunday, Springfield, Ballymurphy, Loughgall and Dummurry notable and those at Kingsmill are not?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Care to explain how it is Domer48? Hackney had no objections it. Care to enlighten us to any compromise proposals you've made? No doubt more questions that'll remain unanswered. Refusing to answer the valid questions made by me an Jeanne only further implies the objections are motivated by bias. Answering the questions head on would stop the implying. Mabuska (talk) 18:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
It seems to be that Domer is objecting to Jeanne boleyn's proposal, which I also objected to. I believe the second part of that should be made clear. I do not believe he is referring to the external link suggestion, but I am sure he can speak for himself. 2 lines of K303 12:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I am happy with Jeanne Boleyn's proposal. I also agree with Mabuska that there is a general point to be considered here. --Flexdream (talk) 15:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
  • This is still a list of the dead and should not be added, just because you put 16 words in front of the list hardly makes it prose. Mo ainm~Talk 18:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Jeanne, if you can't see the difference in the articles you have mentioned, and this one there is not much more that can be said that has not been said a number of times. I suggest you deal with this article, and if you want to go to the articles you have listed above and start a discussion go right ahead.--Domer48'fenian' 19:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I am not for an instant suggesting that any names should be removed from the afore-mentioned articles. What I'm saying is that the names should be added here. I have no agenda, I just think the article would be improved by providing the names.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Jeanne, I did not say you were asking that the names on the other articles should be removed. I ask you why you can't see the difference between this article and the ones you listed above? I have no problem interacting with you at all, but suggesting that I have refused to answer a question is wrong. The question has been answered a number of times! You say that the list of names would improve the article? What encyclopaedic value is there in a list of names, how would they improve the article?--Domer48'fenian' 20:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The Loughgall piece mentioned by Jean contains a picture of a commemoration stone to the IRA members shot on that occasion; such a commemoration also exists for the victims of the Kingsmill Massacre. I would suggest, as a compromise, this is included as a pictorial addition to this this piece.

However, in the wider picture, for Wikipedia to retain any kind of credibility with regards to its recording of the events of the Troubles then a more neutral policy re the listing of victims must be reached. That particular ball is not in the court of those with the obvious political or sectarian axe to bear but with those who believe that Wikipedia still has a role to play as an objective, prejudice-blind archivist of *our* conflict.--Oneill1921 (talk) 21:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

What is not neutral about not adding lists of dead people? Mo ainm~Talk 21:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Please refrain from double negatives. Whilst the vast majority of questions have still remained ignored and unanswered (surprise, surprise) no doubt as they can't be answered without showing blatant flaws in the against arguements - might i ask one question of you all - if this is simply a list of the dead and not neutral, then surely we must also remove all the lists of names of victims of the British/loyalists, such as at Bloody Sunday, for how can "they all died in different circumstances" be a case for keeping it when like Kingsmill, they all died from gunshot wounds. Silly me no point asing questions that'll not be answered otherwise reasons to assume bad faith would come back to the fore. Mabuska (talk) 11:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

You take weeks to answer my questions, if you bother at all, so you shouldn't object to waiting a few days for me to reply.

  • For WP:MEMORIAL to have relevance to this discussion it must be determined whether the names meet notability requirements. Most editors agree they are notable. The names of the victims are also well covered in sources including the academic CAIN archive. So how exactly do they fail WP:NOTABLE?

Do you intend to just keep repeating the same discredited rubbish and hope nobody notices? The CAIN archive is a database containing every single person killed during the Troubles, so how is inclusion in it any indication of notability for each person? You'll also have to show where "Most editors agree they are notable" happened, or is it yet another case of "I'll make it up and hope nobody notices"? I don't see anyone explaining how any single person killed meets WP:Notability (people), where did it happen?

  • Why are victims of the British notable enough for mention whilst victims of republicans aren't? The manner of how they died is hardly a compelling arguement. Didn't everyone who died on Bloody Sunday not die from gunshot wounds? Is that not the same as Kingsmill?

Irrelevant, misleading and already refuted question. Take your problem with content of other articles to the relevant talk page, in this case Talk:Bloody Sunday (1972). Are you seriously suggesting there was no dispute over the circumstances of the deaths of those killed on Bloody Sunday? 2 lines of K303 12:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Arbitary break 2[edit]

Have you decided what your position is now on the names listed in Loughinisland Massacre?--Flexdream (talk) 13:08, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Take your problem with content of other articles to the relevant talk page, in this case Talk:Loughinisland Massacre.--Domer48'fenian' 13:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
So you're saying you don't have a problem with the listing of the victim's names in Loughinisland Massacre? I don't have a problem with the names being listed so why should I go to that talk page when no-one there is asking for the names to be deleted? If you think they should be deleted you can post there. If you don't think they should be deleted there, but think they should be deleted here, then that's your position. --Flexdream (talk) 23:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Kindly do not insinuate that I do not know what my position is, since it is still, and always will be, the one already stated. 2 lines of K303 13:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Just because you label someones arguements as "discredited rubbish" doesn't mean that they are and several other editors agree with my so called "rubbish". Your arguements can be just as easily slated as that, at least my arguement is consistent - mention victims of both republicans and the British or none at all, rather than cherry-picking. And such dismissive comments such as take it to that article's talk page when asked for opinion on another article is a poor way to avoid showing double-standards. As this is an issue that will affect many articles, the best way for it to be dealt with is at the relevant WikiProjects where more opinion can be sought and such dismissive statements such as take it to the "relevant talk page" hold no weight. Mabuska (talk) 13:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Didn't realise 'lists' had become a general issue of dispute on Troubles articles. It looks like this is the place for centralised discussion. When I come across such an article I'd like to know a bit about who was killed, who was related to who, who was 'involved', what other family members were 'involved' and how. If two people are killed in an 'incident' and are named; is that a list and therefore no mention should be made? Most fatalities won't be notable in the sense of meriting a Wikipedia article, but that doesn't mean that the 'memorial' clause applies. A bit of biographical detail gives context if integrated in the general narrative and appropriately ref'd. Agree in the main with Jeanne's take, excepting that the opinion of those outside the project matters not a jot. RashersTierney (talk) 22:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Unless Flexdream does, i intend to move the discussion to a more appropriate venue so a centralised discussion on all affected articles can be discussed leaving no option for the "take it that article's talk page" dismissal. Mabuska (talk) 22:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Why move discussion somewhere else if you're not willing to discuss here? I notice you apparently still haven't attempted to edit any of the articles you're complaining about, despite me saying to go right ahead. 2 lines of K303 13:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Maybe i like to get a general consensus for things rather than possibly start an edit-war. On not willing to discuss: all i'll simply say is pots and kettles. Dare i mention the sneaky removal of other lists without discussion whilst this discussion is still on-going? Also on discussing, sometimes you need WP:AGF to be able to, however its in short supply here. Mabuska (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Irish-nationalist editors still trying to exclude the names of the victims of Irish-nationalist violence? Now why am I not surprised.

  • Support Jeanne Boleyn's proposal. Mooretwin (talk) 15:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Just incase anyone thinks this is heading for a die-out due to its slightly protracted nature, i'm suggesting a month break on this issue - especially as it'll give more time to compile that which needs to be compiled for the general arguement. Mabuska (talk) 11:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Fine by me. A lot of people have contributed, and I think it's a general topic, not specific to this article. --Flexdream (talk) 13:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Christianity[edit]

I just noticed RepublicanJacobite reverted Brocach's edit to the WikiProject Christianity template above where Brocach removed the Catholicism parameters. Two points:

  1. Other than the sectarian nature of this atrocity, what exactly in this article merits the inclusion of the Chrisitianity WikiProject tag at all especially when most Troubles articles don't have it.
  2. Why is the Catholicism parameter given when the event also involved Protestants? Wouldn't it be better to have no sectarian tag in the WikiProject if the template even merits inclusion.

Mabuska (talk) 11:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Well said, Mabuska. Since when do Troubles-related articles have this WikiProject tag. Another thing, this issue about listing the victims needs to be resolved. Kingsmill was one of the watershed events of The Troubles attracting international media attention and condemnation. Not to list the names is providing a disservice to readers who come to this article looking for basic information. We can list the make of weapons used in the attack but not the people those weapons killed!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
In the absence of any attempt to explain why this article needs a 'Catholicism' link, or 'Christianity' for that matter, I have removed the template. Brocach (talk) 14:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Reaveys=yes, Kingsmill=no?![edit]

Why is it the names of the Reaveys are listed in this article-which is about the Kingsmill Massacre, and yet the victims of the latter supposedly cannot be listed per "Wikipedia is not a memorial"?! This is naked POV. If we can list the Reavey victims on this page, we can certainly list the Kingsmill victims!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
The larger POV problem is that "Reavey" is mentioned almost 30 times in the article, an overemphasis that exists because a certain POV holds that Kingsmill was not an atrocity but justice for the Reaveys. The victimization of the Reaveys is thus played up while the Kingsmill victims remain anonymous.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Kingsmill_massacre#Loyalist_response seems likewise biased and overly bloated and containing alot of not directly relevant material to the article whilst the "republican response" has been kept quite short. Mabuska (talk) 23:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
It is so blatantly POV, I fail to see how it received a B-Class rating. Virtually nothing about the ambush itself, yet paragraphs about the likely motive.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
That's a quote, and that quote and the following one don't actually need to be quoted so why don't you go right ahead and paraphrase them and remove the names? Or would you prefer to just carry on bitching about it instead? 2 lines of K303 10:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Cranky today? All you had to say was to be bold - however raising the issue on the talk page, or "bitching" as you call it, is hardly a bad course of action especially when certain editors respond to bold edits by reverting changes that don't agree with them thus possibly instigating an edit-war. Is it not better to get agreement beforehand by skipping the B and R of WP:BRD, especially on potentially troublesome edits? Mabuska (talk) 11:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
In my past experience of this issue people don't tend to edit articles even when I say to go right ahead, so I thought I'd hammer the point home.... 2 lines of K303 11:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Are you saying I don't edit articles?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Image is needed[edit]

An image of Kingsmill or the surrounding area would enhance the quality of the article.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I sercht the Commons, Geograph and Flickr for free images of the ambush site or memorial but still can't find any. I think it'd be best to upload a fair use image of the aftermath (the bullet-riddled van for example). ~Asarlaí 16:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Good idea.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Done. How does it look?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Personally, I don't think it is a good image, small and with little detail at best it looks like a van with the back door open. Also WP:NFCC#7 and WP:NFCCC#1 too, there's no way a simple picture of a van with bullet holes in passes both those, as a piece of text saying that the van had bullet holes in provides the same information.Mo ainm~Talk 17:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I think it's fine. I'v only ever found three pictures of the aftermath; all of them showing nothing but the bullet-riddled van. Only this one shows the bullet holes very clearly. ~Asarlaí 17:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
The beeb uses the same image except in colour. RashersTierney (talk) 18:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Anyroad, it's the best I could come up with. I'm sure there are other pics around but I've never come across them. The RUC have most likely never released them to the media.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
@ ~Asarlaí could you provide a rationale that includes why it passes #1 and #7, since "I think it's fine" doesn't carry any weight at all when it comes to policy. Mo ainm~Talk 18:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Time of attack[edit]

Would anyone happen to know at what time the attack took place? All reports say evening but fail to give a precise time.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The time has since been added (c. 17:30).--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Guineapig333 additions[edit]

Way too problematic per WP:BLP (in most cases) in my opinion. "HET says the six men convicted of using these same weapons in other circumstances were not directly connected to the Kingsmills shootings" - so why were they in here? It's not for Wikipedia to insinuate guilt by including them anyway. As anyone paying attention to the Colin Duffy case knows, fingerprints don't mean anything on their own, especially when dealing with weapons that are used by more than one person. 2 lines of K303 13:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree the names should be quickly removed as they could cause problems with BLP.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Celtic - why have you removed the HET details about the chief suspect without any explanation??? Why have you removed the Irish Daily Mirror report naming him without any explanation??? As for WP:BLP.

why are the names of living people given in the Glennane Gang article, a closely related issue? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenanne_gang#Alleged_members

Perhaps you would join with me in pressing to have any living persons on that list edited from that entry? Why should the six names be included? The HET report did not says the six men convicted of using the Kingsmills weapons in other circumstances "were not directly connected to the Kingsmills shootings". It did say the six were convicted of using the Kingsmills weapons in other terrorist attacks. In other words, HET nowhere exonerated the six, by naming them in the Kingsmills report it implicated them. As for BLP Jeanne Boleyn, the guidelines say;- "A living person accused of a crime is not guilty unless and until convicted by a court. For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime when the person has not yet been convicted.[6]"

Jeanne;- all six of these named people have indeed been convicted of very serious terrorist offences. HET is a branch of the Police Service of Northern Ireland and is a statutory body created to investigate Troubles related killings. It is an unassailable fact that the six named men were convicted of using the Kingsmills weapons for other terrorist offences and that a statutory body assigned to investigate the Troubles, HET, implicated them by name in their report on Kingsmills. That is a significant fact. Legally speaking the six have no reputation left to defend in relation to commission of terrorist offences from that era.

Why should the six be named here;- 1) Because the HET report on the Kingsmills massacre implicated them as part of their investigation, based on the ballistics evidence. 2) Because they were convicted of using the *Kingsmills weapons* for terrorist offences. 3) Because unlike Duffy they *have* been convicted of terrorist offences. 4) Because these six names are already *in the public domain* in relation to Kingsmills, thanks to the HET report. 5) Because the additions also included comments from a brother of one of the victims who said he did not feel that HET had properly investigated the six named men for possible involvement in Kingsmills ie on issue of alibis. If you object to these names being under the perpetrator heading then they are perfectly valid under the HET report heading. The fact that you have removed all the information without any any comment about the chief suspect is also of serious concern.

I have compared the Glennane Gang page, Kingsmills Masssacre page and Bloody Sunday page; The rule appears to be that Catholic victims and Protestant perpetrators can be named but Protestant victims and Catholic perpetrators cannot. I read into this that certain editor consciences cannot abide the possibility of humanising Protestant victims of republican violence and cannot abide the possibility of demonising republican perpetrators. Otherwise can someone explain the discrepancy?

Guineapig333 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guineapig333 (talkcontribs) 15:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Guineapig, I edit all Troubles-related articles from a NPOV. I am not in the least interested in demonising anybody or any group. I am however interested in presenting the facts in an encyclopedic, informative manner. I have no political/religious bias. My only objection was that the article could violate BLP, nothing else. You do not know me nor my politics, so please don't level false accusations of bias against me. I just happen to take BLP issues very seriously. If you have concerns regarding the Glenanne Gang article bring them up over at the article's talk page. If you had bothered to read the earlier comments I made above regarding listing the names of the Kingsmill victims you would have seen that I was and still am in favour of listing them in the article.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Jeanne. I did not have you in mind at all when I wrote my comments about apparent inconsistencies in the three articles. I read your profile and was, in fact, putting my faith in you for a reasonable response to my queries raised. Comments I meant specifically for you were addressed to you alone. This is the first time I have engaged with wikipedia, so if you would allow for that a little I would be very grateful, please.

But more importantly, I would be grateful if you could deal with the issue at hand. The Police Service of Northern Ireland HET branch have named and implicated six convicted terrorists as being linked to the Kingsmills massacre by ballistic evidence; also they have said in the report that the chief suspect was successfully sued by the Omagh bomb families for his role in that bombing.

I would also note that at least some of those six named in the HET report are now dead, for example, Raymond McCreesh, who was a hunger striker.

I would be grateful if you would give me some feedback on the specific points I have raised above about why the six people named and implicated by the official police report on Kingsmills should be mentioned here.

Many thanks. Guineapig333. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guineapig333 (talkcontribs) 23:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Bring up irrelevant comparisons to other articles is just that - irrelevant. I'll briefly outline why - to the best of my knowledge (and someone shout me down if I'm wrong) we're not including anyone as an alleged member based on what essentially amounts to an editor's original research that he was later convicted of an attack that isn't attributed to the Glenanne Gang but the gun used had been used in a known Glenanne gang attack. If there is such a person on the list go right ahead and tell me who they are, otherwise it's a false comparison.
It seems you're a bit selective on your source reading, especially The Newsletter. "I was very disappointed that nobody responsible for these killings was named in the report" is a quote from a relative, and "The HET report named six individuals who had been convicted of various terror attacks linked to the 11 weapons used in the slaughter at Kingsmills. However, the HET was careful to say that it could not assume that the six named individuals were personally involved in Kingsmills, just that they had been convicted of other crimes in which the same weapons were used." is a quote from the writer of the article.
Since it appears you know very little about IRA, and indeed any other paramilitary group in Northern Ireland, weapons, a brief lesson is in order. Weapons are not generally taken home by individual members and kept hanging over the fireplace. Each unit generally has their own arms dump where their weapons are kept, and they are removed from the arms dump when needed and distributed accordingly. They do not belong to a single person, and therefore someone being convicted of using a weapon in one attack isn't proof that they used the same weapon in an earlier attack. That isn't even specific to Northern Ireland paramilitaries, if you're caught in possession of a murder weapon years after the event that's only circumstantial evidence - it doesn't prove you were the person who pulled the trigger at the time does it? Take into account the fact that paramilitary weapons are generally shared weapons and the circumstantial evidence becomes even smaller. As I said right at the top fingerprints on their own mean absolutely nothing. You can just imagine the following courtroom exchange:
  • Barrister: How do you account for your fingerprints on the murder weapon?
  • Defendant: My fingerprints are on the murder weapon due to the fact I used it in an attack on [insert date], an attack for which I have already been convicted and served a prison sentence.
Bear in mind it doesn't matter if it's the prosecuting or defending barrister that asks the question either, so the question can easily get asked. So how do you get from there to beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was responsible for Kingsmill? You don't. The HET made it very clear it could not assume the named people were involved, because they understand the history of IRA weapons. A fingerprint on a gun simply means the person handled the gun at some point in history, it doesn't prove when the person handled it and it doesn't prove where they handled it. That's why the HET very much err on the side of caution, yet for some reason you think we should do the opposite. No thanks. 2 lines of K303 10:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


Dear One night in Hackney. The Irish Times have made the same case as the News Letter ref the chief suspect and Raymond McCreesh, deceased;- http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0622/1224299384987.html

"No one has ever been convicted of the killings, although the report makes clear that one of the chief suspects is a former IRA member, subsequently a senior dissident republican. He was held as being one of those responsible for the Real IRA Omagh bombing of 1998, in which 29 people including a woman pregnant with twins, were murdered. "Raymond McCreesh, who died on hunger strike in 1981, is named as one of those linked to an Armalite rifle used in an attempted murder attack on security personnel in June 1976, and which was also used in the Kingsmill Massacre just six months earlier."

This is obviously not original research.

There is no stated intention, or need to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt here. A properly constituted police investigation into Kingsmills published the results reported above in the Irish Times.

Are we using the same standards here as are used to name the members of the Glennane Gang on wikipedia?

sincerely Guineapig333. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guineapig333 (talkcontribs) 11:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

You can bang on about Glenanne as much as you like, it's a false comparison. I already demolished your argument about it once and challenged you to provide a single example of someone who is not named as a suspected Glenanne gang member by a reliable source who is on the list - you failed to do so. Instead you just spout the same discredited argument again. I won't bother addressing it again, so I wouldn't recommend you bring it up again.
I refer again to your selective reading - "Raymond McCreesh, who died on hunger strike in 1981, is named as one of those linked to an Armalite rifle used in an attempted murder attack on security personnel in June 1976, and which was also used in the Kingsmill Massacre just six months earlier." You're drawing the conclusion the source doesn't. Or if you prefer we can go back to the Newsletter - "However, the HET was careful to say that it could not assume that the six named individuals were personally involved in Kingsmills, just that they had been convicted of other crimes in which the same weapons were used". Neither the report, or the Irish Times article, or any other reliable source I've seen so far, is willing to state the six named were actually suspected of taking part at Kingsmill. Why not? Because they understand that being in possession of a weapon at one point in history doesn't prove someone was in possession of it at another point in history, especially when dealing with paramilitary weapons that are used by multiple people. You can blow and stamp your feet at much as you like, you've no way round "However, the HET was careful to say that it could not assume that the six named individuals were personally involved in Kingsmills, just that they had been convicted of other crimes in which the same weapons were used". Your "properly constituted police investigation" has not named the six as perpetrators, alleged perpetrators or suspected perpetrators, so why won't you accept the results of it?
Or we can look into this even deeper, how about lots of quotes from here?
“Whilst linkage is extremely important information to investigators,” the HET report said, “it is limited in that although it links weapons to other crimes, it does not necessarily implicate individuals.
“This is because paramilitary groups held their illegal weapons in pools or armouries under the control of a self-styled ‘quartermaster’. Weapons were often issued for a specific purpose/offence and returned.
Therefore the multiple use of a specific weapon by various individuals at different locations and different time periods frequently occurred. This is certainly the case with the weapons used in the Kingsmills murders,” HET said. [my emphasis]
Which is essentially what I said anyway, and pay particular attention to the last paragraph which I've bolded for you. UTV and the Belfast Telegraph also make the report says that by December 1976 all the suspects were living in the Republic. Looks like I'll have to piss on your bonfire again and point out that by December 1976 three out of the six named people were in prison in Northern Ireland awaiting trial!! 2 lines of K303 10:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


Ok guys. I think we have all said our piece, except for the fact that nobody is addressing the HET point about the chief suspect. I propose that a very boiled down version of these facts in inserted in the article. ie HET said the chief suspect had been sued by the Omagh bomb families; that six IRA men were convicted of using the same weapons in other offences, one of them being Raymond McCreesh deceased, and that HET gave qualifications to the ballistics evidence link.

Jeanne - I am asking you how long this debate must go on please and what is the process to settle it? Many thanks. Guinesspig333 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guineapig333 (talkcontribs) 10:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

BTW - it has been argued that some of the six men linked to Kingsmills by ballistics were in jail at the time of Kingsmills. Are there verifiable sources for this? Guineapig333 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guineapig333 (talkcontribs) 10:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

"it has been argued that some of the six men linked to Kingsmills by ballistics were in jail at the time of Kingsmills" - argued by who? 2 lines of K303 10:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Jean - what process is required to resolve this debate - please can you advise? I have not seen any input from you for some time. Also, you said you were in favour of the Kingsmills victims being named in this article. Does that mean I can go ahead and add them? Thanks Guineapig333. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guineapig333 (talkcontribs) 12:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

No, there is no consensus for inclusion of either set of names. 2 lines of K303 12:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Guineapig333, I am not the head buck cat around here; my authority does not go beyond the computer screen before me. I am just an ordinary editor like anyone else, and the only process required for inclusion of names is to gain consensus amongst editors.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Giving the motive in the infobox[edit]

By giving the alleged motive in the article's infobox opens the floodgates to more of the same on other Troubles-related articles. Soon we will have motive for the Dublin and Monaghan bombings: Sunningdale Agreement, motive of Miami Showband attack: wipe out the band and discredit them as having been smugglers for the IRA, motive of Bayardo attack: revenge for Miami Showband massacre, motive for Shankill Road bombing: to kill Johnny Adair, motive for Greysteel attack: revenge for Shankill bombing, and so on. Besides this appears to be strongly POV. Although the gunmen claimed they were avenging the Reavey-O'Dowd killings, there is reasonable doubt to this claim as the attack was carried out on such short notice. This is untypical of the South Armagh IRA's modus operandi as has been pointed out at the Smithwick Tribunal into the killings of RUC officers Harry Breen and Robert Buchanan at Jonesborough. I think we should remove the motive from the infobox. Comments from other editors?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

According to the HET report into the shootings, the IRA had planned this attack in advance and that the Reavey-O'Dowd killings were the catalyst. Catalyst is not motive.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree with the removal of motive form the infobox, very improbable we could ever know what the motive for any event that happened during the Troubles. Mo ainm~Talk 08:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I shall remove it. Listing the motives in Troubles-related infoboxes would only lead to a wave of speculation and OR.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

OR and source misuse[edit]

User:Gob Lofa, where in the source you added does it state that Reavey took out the case? I don't see any mention of that in the source. Secondly your presenting speculation as fact in regards to UDR involvement. Care to clarify? Mabuska (talk) 20:54, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I've added more references and the court's ruling. John Weir wasn't speculating. Gob Lofa (talk) 23:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
What has that got to do with the fact your claiming that Reavey filed the case with the ECHR despite the source you providing not stating so? Mabuska (talk) 00:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
It does. Gob Lofa (talk) 22:54, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Detailed claims[edit]

Mabuska, "detailed" is the exact adjective used by the source. Why are you insisting this is not the case in your edit summary? Gob Lofa (talk) 22:55, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Mabuska? Gob Lofa (talk) 23:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)