Talk:Kingsmill massacre

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

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Ok then, work away. Jdorney (talk) 14:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Background 

message: 300px|right|thumb|A memorial, just like this one
Various points still not addressed, or expansion upon previous points in reply to issues raised.
*Nobody has, to my satisfaction, refuted the point made by the image on the right, namely the proposed section is a memorial. Instead, despite me pointing out the wording of the policy not once but twice, we got continued wikilawyering over the wording of the policy. All the parts of WP:NOT under discussion fall under the WP:NOT#Content heading, which reads "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". Pay particular attention to the last two sentences. The spirit of WP:MEMORIAL is that, obviously enough, Wikipedia is not a memorial. A blind insistence on adhering to the precise wording of that, while ignoring what it says right at the top of WP:NOT#Content is wikilawyering. 
*The list of AFDs I provided was "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". Yet for some reason someone says "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". This, and other constant red herrings brought up, is a purely disruptive argument. I can think of four possible reasons for doing this, and they all apply equally well in my opinion. Let's examine each AFD shall we?
:*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of General Slocum victims and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of General Slocum victims (2nd nomination) had a merge target at PS General Slocum (and General Slocum is a redirect to that)
:*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre (4th nomination) had a merge target at Virginia Tech massacre
:*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of victims of the Columbine High School massacre had a merge target at Columbine High School massacre
:*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Continental Airlines Flight 3407 Victims had a merge target at Colgan Air Flight 3407 (and Continental Airlines Flight 3407 is a redirect to that)
:*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/September 11th, 2001 victims list had a merge target at September 11 attacks (and September 11th, 2001 is a redirect to that)
*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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: I would be happy with whatever result arises from mediation.--Oneill1921 (talk) 08:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Arbitary break

message: :Have you decided what your position is now on the names listed in Loughinisland Massacre?--Flexdream (talk) 13:08, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Arbitary break 2

message: I just noticed RepublicanJacobite reverted Brocach's edit to the WikiProject Christianity template above where Brocach removed the Catholicism parameters. Two points:
# 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.
# 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: WikiProject Christianity

message: ::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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Are you saying I don't edit articles?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Reaveys=yes, Kingsmill=no?!

message: An image of Kingsmill or the surrounding area would enhance the quality of the article.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Good idea.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. How does it look?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: The beeb uses the same image except in colour. RashersTierney (talk) 18:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

text: 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)

text:  @ ~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)
thread_title: Image is needed

message: 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)
replies: text: The time has since been added (c. 17:30).--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Time of attack

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Giving the motive in the infobox

message: :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)
replies: text: I've added more references and the court's ruling. John Weir wasn't speculating. Gob Lofa (talk) 23:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: It does. Gob Lofa (talk) 22:54, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  OR and source misuse 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Detailed claims 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Kingsmill massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100703080541/http://www.u.tv/News/Paisley-under-pressure-over-Reavey-apology/feb14b4f-035a-4adc-8d12-9818651ee8f3 to http://www.u.tv/News/Paisley-under-pressure-over-Reavey-apology/feb14b4f-035a-4adc-8d12-9818651ee8f3
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100803022059/http://www.patfinucanecentre.org/collusion/opb_fami.html to http://www.patfinucanecentre.org/collusion/opb_fami.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:41, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Kingsmill massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://archive.is/20120917123334/http://www.u.tv/News/Kingsmills-memorial-march-postponed/ad21ab68-02f3-44cb-945e-e153d76f94d7 to http://www.u.tv/News/Kingsmills-memorial-march-postponed/ad21ab68-02f3-44cb-945e-e153d76f94d7
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I reverted the mention of this incident because I believe it is WP:UNDUE to have a section on this 2018 political incident on the article of a massacre from 4 decades ago. The appropriate article for this content is Barry McElduff, where it is a significant part of the subject's biography. I see someone else has restored it, so I'm trying to get some comments here. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barry McElduff incident 

message: Hello, I believe the locality in question is called "Kingsmills" – not "Kingsmill". The place is a minor name – a sort of crossroads – and not even a townland. The monument mentions "Kingsmill", but that's because its located on the 'Kingsmill Road'. However, the BBC has always referred to the killings as the "Kingsmills Massacre". Further, and I think more key, the local school and Presbyterian church are named "Kingsmills". Just a few thoughts. Regards, Billsmith60 (talk) 15:50, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: An inquest into these killings has been published. This refutes a lot of the content posted in this article, thus the whole article would need reviewing.
The inquest calls out "conspiratorial theorising" as to the role of the informers and the British.
https://www.judiciaryni.uk/files/judiciaryni/2024-04/Summary%20of%20findings%20-%20Kingsmill%20Inquest%20-%2012.04.24.pdf
I have added some bits, but to be honest the whole wiki article would need reviewing. There is a lot of fluff here that doesn't belong.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdaly81 (talk • contribs) 21:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inquest