Talk:Murders of Andrew Robb and David McIlwaine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Name[edit]

Killings or murders?[edit]

Should the article be titled 2000 Tandragee killings or 2000 Tandragee murders? Whilst its current title is more NPOV, the killings are described in the media as the "Tandragee murders".--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A quick and slightly unscientific Google search gives 795 hits for killings and 605 murders. Mind you given that the article on here is called killings and it will appear on Wiki-mirrors you would expect killings to be higher. Nevertheless it does suggest that "Tandragee murders" is not established as the only name so in my opinion I would apply WP:POVTITLE and stick with killings, whilst creating a murders redirect. But like I say that's only my opinion and if there are convincing arguments for the move to murders I wouldn't have a problem with that either. Keresaspa (talk) 17:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The "killings" title is definitely more non-POV, but we should go with what the sources say. However, if Keresaspa's correct, it's at the best-sourced already. Where did you get that the killings are more usually described as the Tandragee murders, Jeanne? JonCTalk 06:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the media sources I've used for references say murder; however, "killings" should probably be retained seeing as they were carried out by the UVF as part of its feud with the LVF.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation[edit]

User:Gnevin has moved the page from "2000 Tandragee killings" to simply "Tandragee killings". I'm not sure this new name is specific enough, as ther' hav' been other killings (or murders) in Tandragee over the years. It may also be worth noting that the killings happen'd almost two miles outside Tandragee.

Unless "Tandragee killings" (or "Tandragee murders") is by far the common name for this incident, I suggest we make the name more specific. Names that come to mind: "Killing of Andrew Robb and David McIlwaine", "Murder of Andrew Robb and David McIlwaine", or simply "Andrew Robb and David McIlwaine". They would match the names of similar articles such as Anne Ogilby killing or Paddy Wilson and Irene Andrews killings (another two excellent articles by Jeanne).

Thoughts? ~Asarlaí 18:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Asarlai. I like your suggestions for the article's title as people searching for the murders would likely look under the names of the victims rather than the location. How about "Andrew Robb and David McIlwaine killings"? This would be keeping in line with the two articles you cited.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've no objections to a better title. When I see this article I thought it was about 2000 killings in Tandragee, maybe thats just how I read it? Gnevin (talk) 21:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm agreeable to a new title and Gnevin is right: 2000 Tandragee killings does appear a bit odd. Asarlai, I'll let you pick the new name as I'm undecided.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Any of the names would be fine by me. ~Asarlaí 18:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, how about "Andrew Robb and David McIlwaine killings"? The reason I put Robb's name before McIlwaine's is because he was the eldest of the two. Should I switch them to "David McIlwaine and Andrew Robb killings", seeing as McIlwaine comes before Robb alphabetically?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the article names Robb before McIlwaine so I'll go with Robb and McIlwaine. --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:23, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Willie Frazer[edit]

Regarding the recent insertion about Willie Frazer having been the owner of "The Spot" at the time, I'm not quite certain that it's really relevant to the article. Another thing, this allegation does require a source.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source added, with extra detail providing context. Brocach (talk) 16:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm...FAIR is not considered a reliable source and IMO mentioning Frazer as the club's manager is pointy and could be construed that the article is subtly implying that Frazer had something to do with the deaths. Remember that Frazer is a living person and this does violate BLP. I think it should be removed--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The addition cites a FAIR document appropriately, to make the point that it is Frazer himself who suggests there is a connection between the killings and his own situation, in terms of a threat from the same quarter; it in no way suggests that he was involved, and does not violate BLP. (There are of course multiple other sources for the uncontested fact that Frazer managed (not owned) the club at the time, including some referenced in the linked Frazer article.) Given that Frazer, unlike the two victims, was and is a public figure, the connection is worth mentioning. Brocach (talk) 16:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it is notable Frazer believed the killings were connected to him. Seeing as it is sourced back to his own article, it doesn't violate BLP. I imagine the UVF consdiered "The Spot" to have been a LVF haunt seeing as Billy Wright used to frequent it.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Graphic descriptions of murders[edit]

I have again been blocked from an effort to tone down what I regard as unnecessarily brutal accounts of the killings, which I believe are completely inappropriate in an encyclopaedia. There are few if any other WP entries that recount in comparably sordid detail the sequence of blows, stabbings, discussion of head-crushing etc. that appear in this piece. This is mostly a good article and its principal contributor has my thanks, but this is a real problem. Am I entirely alone in imagining that a murder can, and usually should, be described in terms that one could invite the victim's family to read without feeling violated? Brocach (talk) 20:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there is anything in the article that wasn't reported in reliable sources then I could see the point you are trying to make but details of these killings were reported and Wikipedia is not censored Mo ainm~Talk 20:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Not censored" does not mean that any content, however inappropriate in the context, must stand, Mo ainm. At WP:What Wikipedia is not, the policy is stated as "When you wonder what should or should not be in an article, ask yourself what a reader would expect to find under the same heading in an encyclopedia." No encyclopaedia would report killings in this revolting degree of detail. Brocach (talk) 20:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Words and images that can be considered offensive should not be included unless they are treated in an encyclopedic manner. Wikipedia editors do not remove material solely because it may be offensive, unpleasant, or unsuitable for some readers. Are you saying that the content wasn't covered in an encyclopedic manner? If so propose a re write on the talk page here and if a better wording can be achieved then I doubt any editors would have any problems with the changes. Mo ainm~Talk 20:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have repeatedly proposed rewording which retains all the necessary detail but eliminates extraneous gore. See my last edit. Brocach (talk) 21:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your rewording was not accepted by myself and another editor, seeing it as an attempt to censor and impose your own opinion on the article. I did not place the killings' details to indulge in a S. King - Q. Tarantino "gore-fest for ghouls", but to demonstrate the particularly gruesome and barbaric nature of the attack, all of which are backed by reliable sources. In fact, it was the horrific nature of the wounds inflicted which made the murders notable. Even the Troubles-hardened RUC were taken aback when they first saw the bodies. Brocach, you are an editor same as me and everybody here; not the representative of the Robb and McIlwaine families, so don't presume to speak on their behalves. Many of their memorial websites contain graphic details including the account by Alan Steele, uncle of David McIlwaine who was compelled by the RUC to identify his nephew's remains at the morgue. And there is this YouTube clip where David's father recounts his son's injuries: Paul McIlwaine, Relatives for Justice YouTube I suppose the Shankill Butchers and JFK assassination articles should be censored as being too graphic? Jacqueline Kennedy's comment after she had attempted to climb onto the back of the moving Lincoln Continental (retrieved from the respective article): "I have his brains in my hand" is far more graphic and "stomach-churning" than anything written here. Despite this, the comment is in the article because it's a documented fact.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My opinions appear nowhere in any of my edits - and the word is edit, not censor. As you say, I have as much right to edit as you have, so don't characterise my good-faith edits as censorship. There is far more disgusting detail here than is required to document the brutality of the attacks, which is clear enough from the edited-down version - and certainly much more than in the Shankhill Butchers piece, which does not find it necessary to recount each stab and slice. Readers should not be forced to visualise the murders in a, quite literally, blow-by-blow way. I have never contested the reliability of sources for eye-stabbing, proposed head-crushing, chucks of lip torn off etc., but not everything that can be reliably documented needs to be in a Wikipedia entry, only that which is appropriate for encyclopaedic purposes. No printed encyclopaedia would run to such sick sensationalism. It is completely inappropriate here and I don't understand why you want to include that level of detail. Brocach (talk) 13:06, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Brocach, you are trying to impose your own standards of what is appropriate upon the whole community; and these standards are not surported by Wikipedia policy. Why have you not addressed the examples I have provided above such as the graphic details contained in the JFK assassination article or the YouTube clip in which Paul McIlwaine recounts all the details of his son's murder? Why did he do this? I presume it's for the very same reason that I included the details here - to demonstrate the savage nature of the attacks which went far beyond the pale, even for Northern Ireland during the Troubles. Seeing as you are suggesteing that I'm employing "sick sensationalism" here, why not go over to the talk pages of Bugsy Siegel and the Jack the Ripper victims to protest the "sick sensationalism" on those pages? Or Bloody Friday (1972), Warrenpoint Ambush, etc, etc.? Peter Taylor - a respected journalist - described how the victims of the Oxford Street bus station bombing had to be scraped off the street with shovels into plastic bags. Graphic, wouldn't you say? And then the bit about the seagulls diving onto the nearby roof to pick at the remains. Why do you presume to decide what readers should or should not read and what's more nobody is being "forced" to read anything they find offensive.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do feel strongly about this issue but I didn't intend to accuse you personally of sick sensationalism - I was thinking of how a description of this kind would be perceived in the near-impossible event that it appeared in a print encyclopaedia. As I said earlier, I am grateful for your multiple contributions here (and elsewhere): I just think that you have misjudged this question. Unless and until a few others chip in, we can't say whether the standards that I think are appropriate for an encyclopaedia are community standards, as I think, or my own peculiar invention. There are nearly 4 million articles in (English-language) Wikipedia so if you look long enough, you may find another handful with extravagant descriptions of extreme violence. You will also find, I expect, tens of thousands that give a proper account of killings without recounting each grotesque stage in the process of taking someone's life. As the relevant policy says, "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia". Some facts do not need to be set out, the more so if leaving them in makes the article hard to read. Brocach (talk) 18:15, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The material is sourced and characterises what were particularly brutal attacks for what they were. And I know you don't like to view your edits as censorship and I fully appreciate that you are making them in good faith but removing things because they are against your personal standards of good taste does violate WP:Not censored. I'm too busy to debate this at any length but you asked for a few others to chip in so count me as another in favour of keeping the sourced details in place. Keresaspa (talk) 23:53, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And just to add descriptions of a murder, however graphic, in an article about that murder can hardly be said to be indiscriminate as they are completely on topic. Keresaspa (talk) 00:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am clearly outnumbered. Enjoy the gore. Brocach (talk) 22:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Andrew Robb and David McIlwaine killings. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:39, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinate error[edit]

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for

—81.136.112.169 (talk) 19:26, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the coordinates in the article were obviously incorrect. I have, however, been unable to determine with any accuracy the correct location of the murders, so I've merely deleted the incorrect ones. The accounts of the incident do place it somewhere along the Druminure Road (54°19′56″N 6°25′01″W / 54.3322°N 6.4170°W / 54.3322; -6.4170), as the article's infobox states, but that road's at least a couple of kilometres long. Do you have any sourced information regarding the exact location, or does anyone else? Deor (talk) 22:23, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Murders_of_Andrew_Robb_and_David_McIlwaine&oldid=1207861378"