Wikipedia:Irish wikipedians' notice board/Archive19

This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Category:Massacres in the United Kingdom

Kittybrewster created this category today. Most of the articles currently in it are fine, eg Dunblane, Hungerford etc. But I can see this being problematic for Irish articles as "massacre" is such a POV term, especially in Troubles related articles. I think the articles which could potentially be included in it are better and sufficiently categorised elsewhere - ie the "terrorism" categories (where appropriate of course) and "the Troubles" categories.

It also raises the question of naming of articles again. And on a side note, should Bloody Sunday (1972) be categorised as a terrorist incident? There are no claims or references in the article that it was. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 12:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I would say that Bloody Sunday (1972) shold be in that category, I would also say that [[:Category:Massacres in the United Kingdom]] should be deleted and it is horribly POV. Thats just my Define2c.--Vintagekits

I was about to remove the Troubles articles that have been added, until I saw this discussion. Incidents are either a massacre or a terrorist incident, not both. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Why not both? Massacre means multiple killing to my mind. - Kittybrewster ☎ 13:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

And there's the problem. Massacre is one of those Humpty Dumpty words that means exactly what the writer wants it to. As for multiple, isn't that an antonym of singular, in which case massacre would mean two or more killings? Even in the Daily Mail that kind of exaggeration might be considered an abuse of the English language. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I am uneasy about including a "mere" three killings. I think of it as seven or more (five if they are children). But there is no WP:RS for that. But I don't see it as POV. - Kittybrewster ☎ 14:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The nominator of this discussion already said Troubles articles are, "over-categorised" this is just making it worse. --Domer48 13:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Could well be. I came across Category:Massacres by country and added UK. - Kittybrewster ☎ 13:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Definition I found The word massacre has a number of meanings, but most commonly refers to individual events of deliberate and direct mass killing, especially of noncombatant civilians or without any reasonable means of defense, that would often qualify as war crimes or atrocities. ... Massacre hardly fitting for where you wanted to use it Kitty. BigDunc 15:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

We're generally agreed on the massacre cat then? What about Bloody Sunday (1972) terrorist category? Category:Military scandals instead? That's how the My Lai Massacre is categorised. The Haditha killings killings too. I'm trying to find a comparable incident (ie government shootings) that is categorised as a terrorist incident, and coming up with a blank. Even the Amritsar Massacre isn't. Category:Allegations of state terrorism? Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 16:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually Amtitsar is included - see Jallianwala Bagh massacre. - Kittybrewster ☎ 11:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking about terrorist categories, the Amtitsar article isn't in a terrorist cat. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 12:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I have sympathy with a lot of concerns raised about the definitional and POV problems of this category, but Category:Massacres and its subcats is fairly well-established. May I suggest that the aim should be to apply a consistent definition across Category:Massacres and all its subcats? The main article Massacres seems to me to offer a more precise definition than the whatever-you-want-it-to mean definition in Category:Massacres. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Still seems like overcategorisation to me. By the wording of the Massacre article almost all incidents with several deaths could be included. Including killings by both sets of paramilitaries and the security services, per the text of the article "the victims have no reasonable means of defense and pose no immediate physical threat to the assailants.". The Warrenpoint Ambush could even be included. The only exception would be something like the Loughgall Ambush. I think the end result would be the category would be removed from some articles and kept in others, therefore pushing one POV. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 12:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I am a bit confused by the meandering here. I think Vintagekits began the thread by worrying whether and if so which "massacres" should be included in that category (which is a fair question) and asserting that "massacre" is somehow POV (with which I disagree). And then the issue veered to whether terrorist related categories are POV (different issue) and whether they should be included in the massacre category (my view is why not, while ONIH says one or the other but not both). - Kittybrewster ☎ 14:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Apologies KB, when I started the discussion it was to discuss the usage of the massacre categories in NI articles. But I added on another question about the Bloody Sunday article being in the Terrorist incidents in the 1970s category, which I dispute. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 15:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

"In what republicans describe as the Loughgall massacre in May, 1987" ;) I've nothing against the category existing for things like the Hungerford massacre and Dunblane massacre, but it doesn't fit with majority of the Troubles articles and it's best not used on them. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, they shouldn't be used on any Troubles article. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 15:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Hold on, guys, you've lost me here. Birmingham pub bombings is in Category:Massacres in the United Kingdom. If massacres is an acceptable category for that article, why not for Bloody Sunday (1972) or Remembrance Day bombing? And if not acceptable for the Birmingham pub bombings (21 dead), why is the article Greysteel massacre not called Greysteel incident?
ONIH, can you explain in more detail why you think that a term used to describe a mass killings in other parts of the world is not applicable to The Troubles? Piles of dead civilians are piles of dead civilians, whether they are in Derry after bloody sunday, in Eniskillen on Remembrance day, in Greysteel after Johnny Adair's visit, ouside the al-Qa'id school in Fallujah after the crowd was shot up[1], or in My Lai after Uncle Sam left his calling card. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

...likewise the Bombing of Dresden in World War II? If all we are using to decide what is a massacre are piles of civilian dead then our list could get very big. --sony-youth^pléigh 17:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Well for starters the category is a blatant circumvention of the recent ArbCom case which was supposed to stop certain editors adding their own POV to articles, which clearly isn't working and needs to be enforced. You try amending the lead of any of those articles to include the word "massacre" and it's a blatant breach of NPOV, but it's fine and dandy to add a category saying it's a "massacre"? No, breach of NPOV. Since when was Remembrance Day bombing an intentional massacre of civilians? Despite what the article says, the intended target was UDR members (O' Brien, The Long War, p. 150) so there's your intentional out of the window. So if we try and stick to articles where there's verifiable intent, people are bound to say "why is that article in the category and not this one?" and it'll cause more problems than it will solve. They are categorised as "terrorist incidents", best to leave it as that. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know there was an ArbCom ruling involved. From what you described, I sounds like someone is gaming the system. Did you take it to the ArbCom committee. --sony-youth^pléigh 17:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I share BHG's confusion. Why is Northern Ireland and/or The Troubles exempt from being categorised as massacres? I agree there needs to be a WP:RS. That is all the ArbCom said. I also agree that the list may become big. In which case it may need to be sub-divided. This should be discussed under "Massacres", not under Irish noticeboard. - Kittybrewster ☎ 18:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

So you're admitting to breaching the ArbCom principles then? All that's not needed is WP:RS, as unless the incidents in question are generally regarded as massacres (like for example Dunblane massacre and Hungerford massacre) they don't get categorised as massacres. It's that simple, we don't categorise based on what the Daily Mail think - that was made expressly clear at the ArbCom. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

No. Greysteel massacre (for example) is generally regarded as such. Just like Amritsar massacre. - Kittybrewster ☎ 18:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly my point! That's why, against my better judgement, I left that article in the category. Where's the "generally regarded" for the other articles you added? Provide them now please, otherwise I'll be raising this blatant breach of the ArbCom principles elsewhere. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Taken from List_of_massacres. Why are you seeking to raise the temperature and introducing threats? - Kittybrewster ☎ 20:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Because you've added your own POV to articles (which you can't do!) which has now caused edit wars on two articles. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know categories are supposed to be supported by inline citations. I have not got Omagh bombing on my watch list (dunno what the other article is) and didn't know you were edit warring elsewhere. WP:CHILL a bit. Don't pre-suppose my POV. - Kittybrewster ☎ 21:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with ArbCom input. I consider it to be a breach of both the spirit and principle of the ArbCom. ---- Domer48 (talk) 20:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Many sources describe Omagh as a massacre - politicians in the Dáil, British newspapers (not just the Mail by any stretch!), Irish newspapers, and Irish Republican sympathisers... see here. I also dislike the very WP:OWN tone you introduced to the talk page and edit summary on the Omagh article. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 20:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Attribute POV, per policy. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

If "intentional killing of civilians" is part of the definition then certainly Enniskellin, La Mon, Bloody Friday and the Falls Road don't qualify. But nearly every bomb dropped by the US/UK on civilian areas in Iraq/Afghanistan/Serbia etc would qualify as well as Hanoi, Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki and on and on and on. So this could become a VERY large category! (Sarah777 talk) 20:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC))

And presumably the Blitz would qualify too, eh, Sarah? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 20:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Now you are discovering consistency - welcome to the club!(-- Sarah777 (talk) 21:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC))

Agree, Domer, Arbcom input is probably the way to go. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 20:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I started this discussion hoping to avoid the usual edit warring, incivility and bullshit. Well done guys. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 22:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the right thing to do here is to adjourn from Birmingham Pub bombing, Omagh bombing, BHG's talk page and take them all to Talk:List of massacres. That should get a less empassioned debate going and should apply across all countries similarly. It stops the warring on the pages and centralises the discussions. - Kittybrewster ☎ 01:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

As a point of order, this is the version of the page that Kittybrewster used to decide these incidents were massacres. Note that every single one of the disputed articles has a request for a citation. Also note the inclusion critera is "commonly labeled", not "once labeled" or "twice labeled", so providing one reference that used the word "massacre" does not satisfy sourcing needs. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 02:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Which suggests it was not my decision that this was a massacre, but I merely transcribed it. Somebody here is imposing their own POV. I Don't think it is me as I included Bloody Sunday (1972). - Kittybrewster ☎ 11:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Might add that we risk getting into Anglo-centric POV big-time here if we seek "reliable sources" (ie, MSM) for describing any killing as a "massacre". We are simply transposing the Murdoch/O'Reilly/CNN "manual of style" into Wiki by adopting this approach. (Sarah777 (talk) 02:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC))

Anglo-centric?! Not everything is to do with the English, Sarah :P Besides, a quick google for Omagh massacre gives lots of Irish results, including Irish Republican ones at that... Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 10:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

And so does a search just for Omagh. Whichever algorithm google uses finds the main word in this case Omagh and puts up the links to the bombing. But try massacre on its own how many do you find then?

Firstly, let me clearly state that in my opinion Omagh certainly was a massacre Mr Bastun. That was not my point; I was referring to the principle of putting NI troubles-related incidents into this category based on newspaper citations which a very strong political line right through the troubles. And by "Anglo" I should have said "British" but I'm trying to avoid that phrase as Arbcom don't like me using it. (Sarah777 (talk) 11:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC))

Surely everyone acknowledges it was a massacre. But ONIH doesn't want it "classed" as such. - Kittybrewster ☎ 11:52, 17

November 2007 (UTC)

I fully understand ONIH's position. It is to reduce conflict across national lines in the project, certainly an objective I'd support. (Sarah777 (talk) 12:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC))

Kittybrewster on the Talk:Omagh bombing you offered the following advice "Stop personalising things." Now do you just offer advice or do you take it also? --Domer48 (talk) 12:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm personalising this? No, the vast majority are not in favour of this category. I'll summarise the problems with the category, that myself and other people have pointed out.

"Massacre is one of those Humpty Dumpty words that means exactly what the writer wants it to". Nail on the head. Massacre is a word that's frequently bandied about by journalists but it doesn't have any fixed meaning, in terms of some newspapers it's interchangeable with "butchery", "slaughter" etc etc. They aren't using it in an academic or scholarly context, they are using it in a sensationalist context.

The criteria for inclusion on list of massacres is "commonly labeled", what does "commonly" mean? Inclusion is complety arbitrary, as it's almost a meaningless word. The only possible way that can be enforced to any reasonable degree is to keep it to incidents that are specficically known as massacres, ie they have the word "massacre" in the name of the event.

Intent. Apparently massacres refer to the intentional killing of civilians. If that's the case, Omagh is straight out of the window as there's plenty of reliable sources stating what the intended target was and how it was a tragic accident, not intentional. Therefore it'd be a breach of NPOV to label it as a massacre, as those sources would be discarded. However, as always with NPOV you're free to say "x says y".

Consistency. What makes one bombing where x number of people was killed worthy of inclusion where a bombing where x-1 number of people was killed not worthy of inclusion? Because some journalist has been sensationalist and used the word "massacre" in his report? It's only going to cause problems, as people will say "well if that incident was a massacre, then this one must have been to" and so no.

Is the common name for the Omagh bombing the Omagh massacre? No, the only possible sensible inclusion criteria is the name of the event, unless there's significant scholarly consensus. It's a POV term with no fixed meaning otherwise. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

So there'd be no problem from you in including the Kingsmill massacre, then? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 15:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

None at all. When I depopulated the category of the dispupted additions I left in Greysteel massacre due to the inclusion of the word "massacre", despite people likely to see it as me leaving that in being POV due to the other articles being removed. If Kingmsill had been in the category, I'd have left that in too. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Possible arbcom enforcement

See the note I have left at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Edit_warring_related_to_.22The_Troubles.22 --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Irish names translated to English names

Can you all have a look at Dara Ó Cinnéide. What are peoples feelings on having his "english" name . The logic i apply for GAA players is their Irish name is listed in every program but if they are irish already no english appears . Is this WP:OR ? Gnevin 14:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd say it depends on whether the "translated" name sees any use in useable sources. (Whether his ESB bill is addressed to "Mr. Kennedy" or not is basically besides the point.) To take a fairly clear-cut case, Sharon Ní Bheoláin's never known as anything but (and even claims to be offended if she's asked "what's that in English?", which seems remarkably precious to me, but...).

Very timely you should bring this up, since I was just about to pose the same question "the other way around": what about supplying Irish names for people normally known by their English names? Several months ago an anon IP added several "spoof" translations, and two of them went unchanged until I removed them last night, which is a little concerning, and I fear somewhat illustrates how credulous people are in this area, or just how readily they simply tune them out. I think the same standard should apply: only use it if it can be sourced as being used for that individual. Discussion of the translation of the component names themselves is a matter for articles on those, if they exist. And similarly, in the en: -> ga: direction, for interwiking if there's an extant target article. Adopting the "RTE policy" of mix-and-match bilingualism seems unsatisfactory in the context of an international English-language encyclopaedia. Alai 17:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Glad more people are on to this. There was a hefty discussion on this recently over at WikiProject Ireland/Gaeilge.--Damac 19:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

If this is a WP:POINT, it's one of the best I've ever seen. Maybe it will demonstrate to some the absurdity of "translating" names en->ga, as Damac has referred to above. --sony-youth^pléigh 16:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)