 | This article was nominated for deletion on 18 December 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was merge to 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash. |
|
| This article was nominated for deletion on 10 April 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was merge to 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash. |
 | Text and/or other creative content from this version of 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash was copied or moved into International response to the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I suppose there exist information between 22:35, 10 April 2010 and 23:14, 10 April 2010 of article 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash that isn't merged into this article. Can someone merge this lost information? -- Kslotte ( talk) 23:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- I went through it myself. I merged the most, left out some vandalism. Maybe someone else also can verify it. -- Kslotte ( talk) 00:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, edits made on both pages between 22:21, 10 April 2010 UTC and 00:47, 11 April 2010 UTC have made it " WP:CPM#A troublesome case", and therefore I have tagged this talk page with {{ copied}} instead. Zzyzx11 ( talk) 04:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
I do not think it is appropriate for the statement from David Cameron to be twice as long as the queen and Gordon Brown's statements put together. Whatever your political feelings on DC and GB, and whether or not you think Dave is coming to office in May, GB is still the current prime minister and also has much more say in the matter than DC due to being more experience in foreign affairs in general. 86.137.166.151 ( talk) 08:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- I believe this is an inappropriate angle to take on this. If both the queen's and the PM's statements can be summarized briefly without losing essential information and David Cameron's cannot, then I do not think it is wrong that his looks longer on the page. It will in any case be third, and if we start comparing them like you do and affording them number of words according to rank, we debase the issue by acknowledging (insinuating) that political figures would phrase their condolences so as to outshine their political competitors. __
meco (
talk) 10:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- I concur with Meco. In the world of knowledge, the measurement criteria pertain to information, not social rank. Also, if the above editor or any other editor can constructively expand the text of Gordon Brown and/or the queen, he or she is at liberty to do so, with citations as appropriate. If said editor or other editors are unsure about how to do this - e.g. how to word it, or how to cite a given source - all s/he has to do is write the suggested text on this talk page and point to a source or sources, and someone else may be able to pick it up from there. Regards Wotnow ( talk) 21:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
It is nice to have a statement from the Republika Srpska but could we get one from the Federation as well? AFter all, they are the bigger part of Bosnia and conduct most of its foreign affairs. 86.137.166.151 ( talk) 08:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Russia is not mentioned on this article; haven't they said anything about it? Jim Michael ( talk) 11:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Several countries declared, they will announce days of national mourning. Also at various sport events there was a minute of silence, e.g. Real - Barcelona football derby. Should it be included in the article? - Darwinek ( talk) 15:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- well if you have time to search for info than go ahead for days of national mourning - but i'm not so sure whether it has any sense in case of sport
KalrinUE (
talk) 18:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- Hi KarlrinUE. I have formated the space surrounding your comment so it fits into the page for ease of reading. I hope this was helpful. Regards
Wotnow (
talk) 22:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- Definately include this info. it is a reaction. either under Spain (and the various countries) or seperate section for "apoltiical" reaction
- Hi KarlrinUE. I have formated the space surrounding your comment so it fits into the page for ease of reading. I hope this was helpful. Regards
Wotnow (
talk) 22:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that days of mourning should be specifically presented, perhaps even highlighted by a separate section. __ meco ( talk) 17:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Have Liechtenstein and Monaco not forwarded any condolences, or is it just that we haven't picked it up? Are there other countries that one would expect in this list which haven't offered their condolences? __ meco ( talk) 18:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Has Libya not forwarded any condolences? Or have they not been picked up by wikipedia? 84.226.70.82 ( talk) 20:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
If you find yourself removing, or 'retiring' a reference that looks potentially useful but no longer relevant, or currently relevant, or not relevant in the context used, you may wish to copy and paste it here, so that the information itself is not 'lost', and others may utilise it here or elsewhere. Wotnow ( talk) 23:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
After creating this section, I will retire the following reference [1] from the Algeria section, because the citation provided does not mention condolences from Louisa Hanoune. A fuller format for the reference I removed is this. [2] Wotnow ( talk) 23:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Retired references
I don't have time to follow-through with information and formatting citations from the following links, but they look useful, so I provide them here for perusal and possible use here and/or elsewhere. Regards Wotnow ( talk) 02:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Why this link brings up the page it does, I don't know, and I don't have time to find out and provide a more correct link. But if you type "Poland" into the search field, it will bring up a list of articles related to Kaczynski's death.
The DRV closed with an overturn of the original decision of "merge" to "no consensus" (default keep). As has been mentioned in various places (talk page of accident article, AfD and DRV), the current article needs work. For a start the FLAGCRUFT will need to go. I think that the tables need to be rewritten as prose, with the reactions split by continents. Mjroots ( talk) 08:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- The reactions are all the same: The express condolences. What could be noted is if one country has NOT expressed condolences.-- OpenFuture ( talk) 08:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I see that the article has been reduced almost to a stub. I'm not getting into an edit war over this. Consensus was that this info shoud be removed from the article on the accident itself. The Afd merge result has been overturned to no consensus. All editors should now accept that, whether they were in favour of keeping, deleting or merging the article themselves. We should now be working on improving the article, not fighting over it.
Forget about the merge/reduce arguments. In order to avoid an edit war, I've created a sub-page of this talk page which I've edited to produce an article that is free of FLAGCRUFT, but keeping the info from the article before the recent reduction in size. I've also given the article some structure, and inserted a TOCLIMIT to keep the contents box to a reasonable size. There is still some work to be done, such as wikifying countries rewriting into past tense. Those countries in both Europe and Asia have been listed under Europe for convenience. There are some deadlinks that need to be rectified/re-sourced.
I'd ask editors not to make wholesale changes to the workpage article. If a country is in the wrong continent please do move it. Let's have some constructive comments on this, and hopefully reach consensus so that the article can be improved.
Workpage article is at Talk:International response to the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash/workpage. Mjroots ( talk) 11:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- We should now be working on improving the article, not fighting over it. - I agree. And I did so. Why that flagcruft should not be on Wikipedia has been thoroughly discussed over and over. The only arguments for keeping it has been WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, unsupported and obviously false claims of WP:N, and requests of making it into a WP:MEMORIAL. Removing was an improvement. That doesn't mean we can't improve *more*. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 12:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- The list of condolences is not notable, and should not be there. Why has been explained over and over and over and over. The only arguments for keeping it has been WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, unsupported and obviously false claims of WP:N based solely on that there are sources, and emotional arguments about how important this is, basically trying to turn the page into some sort of WP:MEMORIAL. If you don't agree, try doing what nobody else have done: Submitting actual arguments for keeping it that doesn't violate WP:POLICY. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 12:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- The AfD (eventually) produced a "no consensus" result, which defaults to keep. It appears to me that you don't accept the decision.
WP:N is shown by
WP:V through
WP:RS, which is largely met (dead links excepted). Memorials are to the dead, whereas expressions of condolences are to surviving relatives etc., thus MEMORIAL is not violated.
86.139.188.45 ( talk)Mjroots ( talk) 13:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- The AfD (eventually) produced a "no consensus" result, which defaults to keep. It appears to me that you don't accept the decision.
WP:N is shown by
WP:V through
WP:RS, which is largely met (dead links excepted). Memorials are to the dead, whereas expressions of condolences are to surviving relatives etc., thus MEMORIAL is not violated.
- A keep of the article yes. So the article is here and it's kept. And now we should improve it. I did so, and this has been reverted without explanation. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 16:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Could turn it into a list. Rd232 talk 13:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- The reactions seem better organised by country than by continent. The continents are somewhat vague and do not correlate in any useful way with the condolences. For countries like Azerbaijan and Armenia, it is clear where they may be found if their sections are arranged alphabetically. If they are arranged by continent, then it's unclear whether they'd be in Europe, Asia or Middle East and there are probably some disputed cases for this. Moreover, arrangement by continent gives undue weight to Australia. The current arrangement by country seems fine and should just be revisited after the entries for each country have been further developed. For example, the section for the UK could be expanded considerably as there are numerous sources about condolence books in places like Aberdeen, Belfast, Harrow, &c. Colonel Warden ( talk) 21:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- They may be better arranged by country, which I will consider doing. How does arrangement by continent give undue weight to the continent of Australia? All continents are equal entities, they are arranged alphabetically as that is the standard way of organising lists. Mjroots ( talk) 06:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- In your draft, you have Australia as a section heading but not Russia, say. The latter's reaction seems of more importance, and so merits equal or greater prominence. Colonel Warden ( talk) 07:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Ahh, you're mixing up
Australia (continent) and
Australia (country). Russia is a country that spans two continents,
Europe and
Asia. The entry for Russia is under Europe. It is second behind Poland (country directly affected) because that is where the accident happened. The rest of Europe is alphabetical after that. Poland and Russia could possibly be a separate section - "affected countries". Hope that clarifies things.
Mjroots (
talk) 09:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Not making comment on the merits of a continential seperation but it'll surely be better to have Oceania which while not a continent would allow us to cover New Zealand, Fiji, Samoa etc in such a section, or if people are opposed to that perhaps Australasia; rather then Australia (continent). This is also typical for such sections in other articles and by other sources. There's little point having a section on Australia IMHO which even if we mean the continent only covers two or three countries which is probably why few sources bother to disambiguate in such a way (actually I don't know the last time I've seen a source other then one where the continential shelf matters disambiguate Australia ignoring ones where the confused people writing it think Australia is a substitute for Australasia or Oceania and/or New Zealand and most of the pacific islands are part of it). Nil Einne ( talk) 09:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
For comparison, I've created a version arranged by country, rather than by continent.
Further thoughts welcome. Mjroots ( talk) 09:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- A better reactions article to compare against may be Reactions to the 2010 Moscow Metro bombings. Mjroots ( talk) 10:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Despite repeated questions no other reasons to have a list of condolenses than WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS has emerged. Despite this, the removal of this list, although it's a blatant violation of policies has been restored twice, and no explanation given. This in turn is a violation of WP:BRD. I've asked those who restored the list for explanation, but none has been forthcoming, they seem to refuse to even discuss the issue.
This is a plead to editors here to follow Wikipedias policies. This article is *not* an exclusion zone where WP:POLICY does not apply. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 22:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- You've been given explanations, which you either don't understand, or are simply ignoring. I'd question your entire knowledge of policy to be honest if you are invoking BRD here, over an issue which has gone through Afd, Drv, and multiple talk page sections. There is no B to be had here, attempting for the hundredth time to make the same deletion using the same ASSERTION-by-ACRONYM arguments while ignoring the already well demonstrated lack of consensus, is just plain tendentious editing, pure and simple. You are not being bold, you are being disruptive. There is no consensus on your ideas of what it blatantly is, or what policies it is blatantly violating, for you to be able to get away with removing the list right now, accept it. If you want to stick around and work to a solution as to how the content might be refined, fine, but if you want to try and say/do the same thing again and again, and in addition, now try and patronise everyone else as well while still pretending that you are just right, then I suggest you just unwatch the page and go do something else. I don't know about anyone else, but I think your penchent for repetition is becoming seriously tedious. MickMacNee ( talk) 23:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- There has been no explanations at all. The issue has not even been discussed after the delete/merge discussions ended. During the discussion of the merge there was clear that many was against this sort of listing -- OpenFuture ( talk) 08:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- It will be handy to have links to some of those other articles here for ideas and comparison:
Colonel Warden ( talk) 23:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yup. Notice how none of these articles contain a list of condolences. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 08:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- I don't always agree with MickMacNee, but he is correct here. OpenFuture, you are hereby warned that further removal of content against consensus will be considered WP:DE and will therefore result in administrative action. I won't be taking that action myself as I'm "involved" here, but I won't hesitate to report to WP:AIV and/or WP:ANI.
- There has been no discussion on this topic, only on the issue of a merge/delete of the article as a whole. Your claiming of a consensus that does not exists is attempts to stop discussion, and thereby an attempt to stop the reaching of consensus. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 08:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- There has been much discussion of this topic. At the talk page of article on the crash, where consensus was that the reactions should be split off to a separate artice; at the AfD and DRV, and on this talk page. You are the only editor who has removed the reactions. This removal has been reverted by two separate editors, the reversion is supported by other editors including myself. If you really want to pursue this, open a WP:RFC and allow the discussion to run for 30 days. Mjroots ( talk) 08:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- You are pretending there are consensus where there is not, and threatening with blocks because I ask you to discuss the issue. That is completely unacceptable behavior. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 12:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- No, I'm saying that there could be administrative action taken if you continue to remove material from the article when consensus seems to be that it should remain. So far, you are the only editor to have removed the material. Two separate editors have reverted that removal. I also am in favour of the material being kept, but not in its current format. That makes 3 to 1 by my reckoning. Administrative action may mean a block, or it may mean something else, such as a page ban or article ban. Mjroots ( talk) 13:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Consensus
OK, let's establish once and for all what the consensus is over this issue.
Q: Should individual countries responses be included as part of the article. Mjroots ( talk) 13:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, the article's title is "International response to the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-134 crash". Such international responses are therefore a fundamental part of the article, amounting to about 90% of it, and therefore should be included.
Mjroots (
talk) 13:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- That was a unique argument. Show me the policy where something becomes notable and should be kept because the article otherwise is too short. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 19:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- As you well know, there isn't a policy that prohibits short articles. however, the article was split from the article about the crash under WP:SIZE. WP:V + WP:RS x 182 = WP:N. Mjroots ( talk) 05:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- As you well know, you do not have 182 sources for each of those entries, so you can't claim WP:N from that. And you have no source for the list as a whole. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 17:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- No, they are not "responses", it's just a list of condolences. They are not WP:NOTABLE, not WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC, etc. That list obviously is an example of WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of information. It would in fact be more notable if a country did *not* express their condolences. The only arguments for keeping them so far has been WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and arguments for making Wikipedia into a condolence book, which it isn't. And even the argument that other lists like this exists is highly doubtful. Most other articles about international responses to events do *not* include long lists of condolences. See Mjroots list of examples: International response to Hurricane Katrina, Reactions to the September 11 attacks, Reaction to the assassination of John F. Kennedy, Humanitarian response to the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake, Michael Jackson memorial service. It's probably WP:RECENTISM as well, as exactly who formulated their condolences in exactly what way definitely isn't anything anybody will be interested in in the future. And what about countries that are missing from that list? Did Andorra not send condolences? Bahrain? Uganda? Do we anywhere have a source for what countries sent condolences? If not, then this is suspiciously close to WP:OR. In short, there is no reason to keep it at all, and it breaks many of Wikipedias policies. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 19:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- No as per OF. Ericoides ( talk) 21:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- No as per Open Future. However, it is possible that a map of the countries expressing condolences might be notable. That would display the information in a much more succinct, easy to understand manner. --
N419BH (
talk) 21:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- Although in improvement, it would be WP:OR to present this, unless we can find an authoritative source of which countries sent their condolences. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 18:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- No. These statements of condolence do not have significant educational or informational value, so they are not in keeping with the purpose of an encyclopedia, in my view. Fletcher ( talk) 14:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- No, basically per OpenFuture and the other discussion. This needs a heavy cut that summarises. Jack Merridew 22:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, that was an impressive consensus for keep. Not. ;) Can we remove the list of condolences now? -- OpenFuture ( talk) 18:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry guys, but a small vote held here does not over-ride the large consensus already established not long ago in the Afd and DRv. If you guys really really want this gone, I suggest you try writing, and getting consensus on, a global guideline, via an Rfc, because expecting everyone who doesn't want it gone to keep turning up to the repeated attempts to make the same argument to delete it, is not how consensus works. That is called tendentious editing infact. So enough already.
MickMacNee (
talk) 22:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- See the DRV; No consensus. That's not the same as keep. You a tendentious editor?
Jack Merridew 22:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Not when it comes to this sort of blatant attempt at AGAIN, no. No Consensus + make the same arguments a week later and pretending that people having got bored to tears and left, is somehow a new consensus, is nothing but tendentious editting. MickMacNee ( talk) 23:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- The vote was about the *article*, not about the list of condolences, as you well know. The claims of consensus have been proven wrong. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 11:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- See the DRV; No consensus. That's not the same as keep. You a tendentious editor?
Jack Merridew 22:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I strongly disagree and oppose this act! Wikipedia must list the full international response on this tragic event. You don't have the consensus - where is my vote?!-- Rastko Pocesta ( talk) 17:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- WP:NOTAVOTE This has been discussed for months, and the arguments and consensus is clearly against the list. I'm tired of repeating this to people who are not willing to read the discussion. Stop vandalising the page. If you don't agree with current consensus, raise this to some level of conflict resolution. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 07:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Should Wikipedia articles be condolence books?
The page International response to the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash contains a huge list of every notable or non-notable state or head of state that uttered any form of condolence in regards to the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash. This breaks several policies, and no arguments based on policy to keep it has appeared. The argument against removing it now is that not enough people uttered their opinion in the attempt to establish consensus. Hence, this RFC.
- Remove - Wikipedia should not be made into condolence books. That condolences are expressed at a major accident isn't in itself WP:NOTABLE, not WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC, etc. That list obviously is an example of WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of information. It would in fact be more notable if a country did *not* express their condolences. The only arguments for keeping them so far has been WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and arguments for making Wikipedia into a condolence book, which it isn't. And even the argument that other lists like this exists is highly doubtful. Most other articles about international responses to events do *not* include long lists of condolences. See Mjroots list of examples: International response to Hurricane Katrina, Reactions to the September 11 attacks, Reaction to the assassination of John F. Kennedy, Humanitarian response to the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake, Michael Jackson memorial service. It's probably WP:RECENTISM as well, as exactly who formulated their condolences in exactly what way definitely isn't anything anybody will be interested in in the future. And what about countries that are missing from that list? Did Andorra not send condolences? Bahrain? Uganda? Do we anywhere have a source for what countries sent condolences? If not, then this is suspiciously close to WP:OR. In short, there is no reason to keep it at all, and it breaks many of Wikipedias policies. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 12:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment This is the wrong place to be having an Rfc, if the intention is to cover all lists, past or future. It should either be posted to WP:NOT, or the Village Pump. You aren't going get anybody commenting here except the exact same people saying the exact same thing, for the fifth time, as you've done above, word for word. For the record, I still think your rationale is a bunch of ACRONYMS thrown together, that you really don't understand the basic purpose of. For example, NOTABILITY has got sod all, not one single tiny thing, to do with exclusion or inclusion of particular article content wthin articles (as opposed to deciding whether specific topics can have articles or not). MickMacNee ( talk) 16:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- The intention with the RFC is to bring others in to comment, since you refuse to accept consensus. You still have no argumentation for keeping what is clearly breaking multiple Wikipedia policies, because ad hominem arguments do not count. --
OpenFuture (
talk) 19:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Why would I actually waste time arguing the case when your understanding of policy doesn't go beyond ACRONYMS, when you don't know what an Rfc is, when you don't know what consensus is, and yet when you keep insisting everything is "clearly" how you say it is, and the obvious obstacles are all the other people, and not your understanding. In that environment, when people perceive advice as ad hominem, the exercise of debate with respect to actual policy, the actual nitty gritty, becomes pointless. You've picked a page here nobody really cares about, so I guess if you have a real bee in your bonnet about it, you will eventually fluke the result you want, claiming some kind of consensus, but in my experience, in this sort of situation, that only happens because most editors who do know what they are talking about have just moved on to something else and cannot be bothered arguing with a brick wall that simply thinks its right, without demonstrating it knows how or why. Probably the only thing you need to know is that SHORTCUTS are just that, shortcuts, and at some point you actually have to frame your argument in real words in a detailed way that actually shows to others that you know and understand the purpose and meaning of the writing in the pages behind them, the situations and circumnstances they do and don't apply to, and ultimately therefore how you have a case. Posting ACRONYMS to show how you are CLEARLY right, is just nonsense frankly, its parrot talk easily picked up, and easily ignored when its invocation shows up some glaring errors in understanding. The sad fact behind all this, is at some point you've probably come to the wrong conclusion that I want the content included. I actually don't, but what I do want is a proper consensus backed solution to the what's where's and whyfore's of how to handle it all, past and future. But I certainly think the argument that the only reason peole create these lists is to create an UNENCYCLOPOEDIC NON-NOTABLE MEMORIALs which is OR because its incomplete and RECENTISM because its recent, is all absolute bollocks, only surpased by ridiculous and insulting claims that people could recreate the material with their eyes closed. MickMacNee ( talk) 23:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- The intention with the RFC is to bring others in to comment, since you refuse to accept consensus. You still have no argumentation for keeping what is clearly breaking multiple Wikipedia policies, because ad hominem arguments do not count. --
OpenFuture (
talk) 19:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- MickMacnee: It may be noted that I was told to create an RFC by mjroots. So you are now claiming that mjroots either does not know what an RFC is, or told me to create an RFC with the intention of delaying the removal of the content in question with 30 days, even though he knows an RFC is the wrong thing, which would be curious behavior by an administrator. You also, it can be noted, claim that mjroots claim of notability for the list of condolences is wrong. Now, I agree it's wrong, but it's funny that you want to keep the list, when you simultaneously shoot down the only attempt of serious argumentation for keeping it based on policy. Your continued ad hominems will get you nowhere. I am not the topic here. --
OpenFuture (
talk) 08:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Like I said, you will likely fluke the outcome you want, not because anyone can be bothered to debate specific policy points, but because of how much you really don't know, and their unwillingness to listen to you continually claim you do. Yes Roots asked you to open an Rfc, and if it were for this article only, this page is the place for it. But that is not what you have opened. I pointed this out to you already, you've evidently ignored it / missed the distinction. Your inability to understand that notability doesn't govern content, but also that, as Roots points out, it is ludicrous to ignore the Afd which concluded in no small part that it is valid to split the article to accommodate a large amount of content that has previously been judged worthy of recording, is also a good example of the pointlessness of debating with you. This is how bad your understanding is. This is down to your total inabiltiy to understand consensus, and it is why you are still here arguing the exact same position you came to the Afd with, no matter how paradoxical the outcome (a stub article of the notable subject of international reactions), to the death it would appear, like a classic TE. I could care less how many times you accuse me of ad hominems really, all it shows is you cannot be bothered / won't read, other people's comments properly. Now you are into the tedious rubbish of 'it's funny that....', and all the other usual bollocks that inhabits these sort of ill informed debates where one party thinks he knows more than he does. If you want to verify my claims for yourself, go and find the diffs that support what I've said, they are all on record.
MickMacNee (
talk) 12:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not ignoring the AfD. You claim that the AfD shows there was a consensus to keep the list of condolences. The discussion was not about the list of condolences, but only about the article as a whole, and the conclusion was in any case "no consensus". The discussion about the condolences above shows clearly that there *is* consensus when it comes to the condolences, and they should be removed. --
OpenFuture (
talk) 14:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Sure, fine. Believe what you want. If you honestly think that the Afd outcome meant that the article was supposed to be kept, and then reduced in size to nothing, that's entirely your perogative. It ties in with everything I've said previously to be honest.
MickMacNee (
talk) 14:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Once again, the AfD was about the article as a whole. This is about the list of condolences. I'm sure you are able to understand that difference. --
OpenFuture (
talk) 15:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- I do. You clearly don't. MickMacNee ( talk) 15:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Once again, the AfD was about the article as a whole. This is about the list of condolences. I'm sure you are able to understand that difference. --
OpenFuture (
talk) 15:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Sure, fine. Believe what you want. If you honestly think that the Afd outcome meant that the article was supposed to be kept, and then reduced in size to nothing, that's entirely your perogative. It ties in with everything I've said previously to be honest.
MickMacNee (
talk) 14:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not ignoring the AfD. You claim that the AfD shows there was a consensus to keep the list of condolences. The discussion was not about the list of condolences, but only about the article as a whole, and the conclusion was in any case "no consensus". The discussion about the condolences above shows clearly that there *is* consensus when it comes to the condolences, and they should be removed. --
OpenFuture (
talk) 14:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Like I said, you will likely fluke the outcome you want, not because anyone can be bothered to debate specific policy points, but because of how much you really don't know, and their unwillingness to listen to you continually claim you do. Yes Roots asked you to open an Rfc, and if it were for this article only, this page is the place for it. But that is not what you have opened. I pointed this out to you already, you've evidently ignored it / missed the distinction. Your inability to understand that notability doesn't govern content, but also that, as Roots points out, it is ludicrous to ignore the Afd which concluded in no small part that it is valid to split the article to accommodate a large amount of content that has previously been judged worthy of recording, is also a good example of the pointlessness of debating with you. This is how bad your understanding is. This is down to your total inabiltiy to understand consensus, and it is why you are still here arguing the exact same position you came to the Afd with, no matter how paradoxical the outcome (a stub article of the notable subject of international reactions), to the death it would appear, like a classic TE. I could care less how many times you accuse me of ad hominems really, all it shows is you cannot be bothered / won't read, other people's comments properly. Now you are into the tedious rubbish of 'it's funny that....', and all the other usual bollocks that inhabits these sort of ill informed debates where one party thinks he knows more than he does. If you want to verify my claims for yourself, go and find the diffs that support what I've said, they are all on record.
MickMacNee (
talk) 12:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- MickMacnee: It may be noted that I was told to create an RFC by mjroots. So you are now claiming that mjroots either does not know what an RFC is, or told me to create an RFC with the intention of delaying the removal of the content in question with 30 days, even though he knows an RFC is the wrong thing, which would be curious behavior by an administrator. You also, it can be noted, claim that mjroots claim of notability for the list of condolences is wrong. Now, I agree it's wrong, but it's funny that you want to keep the list, when you simultaneously shoot down the only attempt of serious argumentation for keeping it based on policy. Your continued ad hominems will get you nowhere. I am not the topic here. --
OpenFuture (
talk) 08:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Condense As I've said above, I don't think lists of condolences have any significant educational or informational value. They are emotive in nature, intended to evoke feelings of sympathy and solidarity. There's a place for that in the media, but not in an encyclopedia. Our job is to explain things rather than to be supportive. However, there wasn't consensus to delete the article, and removing the content (which I would otherwise tend to support) would leave less than a stub. I would suggesting summarizing the list, perhaps giving a quote from one country of every continent, or maybe the quote from the leader of the UN, noting that these are just some examples among many. If consensus allows, that could be merged with the main article. Fletcher ( talk) 01:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Condense and then Merge As I said above (including comments), find an authoritative source on who sent condolences and create a map out of that. Include a quote from the UN and maybe the EU. Combine these two or three things with the map of countries with official mourning and merge this into the main article. That gets the point across without being redundant. -- N419BH ( talk) 09:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep The argument presented is false, there is no such thing as a non-notable head of state. The responses are a fundamental part of the article, and shoud be quoted where sourceable. Mjroots ( talk) 20:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
We can see that once again, consensus is clearly in favor of removing. So what now? Are the two people in the minority willing to accept consensus now? -- OpenFuture ( talk) 04:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Let it rest. Looks like the "comment" above already created another reason for overriding consensus. Furthermore I don't think consensus has been truly established here, as very few people commented. N419 BH 04:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- It's been resting for 30 days in practice thanks to the RFC. Thats' rest enough. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 05:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- I know, which is why I asked the above question. Letting it rest is not going to help, they'll revert and call it an edit war if we let it rest for years. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 05:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Be
WP:BOLD and make an edit in line with consensus. I would say try a middle ground approach. Perhaps create a graphical map or some other record as I suggested in the RfC above. Even if it is incomplete, it's better than going back and forth for an additional...3 months and proves you're attempting to appease both sides. You might also offer to copy the list itself over to a user sandbox. If they revert again, it might be time to pursue formal dispute resolution. I think the AfD made it pretty clear what the consensus was. We're now being asked to prove it over and over again.
N419
BH 14:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, seems like I don't have a choice. :-/ -- OpenFuture ( talk) 07:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- Be
WP:BOLD and make an edit in line with consensus. I would say try a middle ground approach. Perhaps create a graphical map or some other record as I suggested in the RfC above. Even if it is incomplete, it's better than going back and forth for an additional...3 months and proves you're attempting to appease both sides. You might also offer to copy the list itself over to a user sandbox. If they revert again, it might be time to pursue formal dispute resolution. I think the AfD made it pretty clear what the consensus was. We're now being asked to prove it over and over again.
N419
BH 14:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, Wikipedia must list the condolences, it is the very important and vital part of the international response. I'll undo it now.-- Rastko Pocesta ( talk) 07:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- As you see you have consensus against you. If you wish to change this, please escalate this higher in conflict resolution. --
OpenFuture (
talk) 07:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- If this heading is serving as a consensus builder, than honestly, I see it as 3 to 2, including the recent reverts. I am not sure what has been said in the past, but I still feel this is not "consensus" in my eyes. I respectfully ask for both sides to make a RFC about to keep the lists or not, make a maps of condolences or not, and other side issues. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- Consensus is not a vote.
WP:NOTAVOTE. On making an RFC, as you see above, there just was one. Another one is obviously pointless and can only serve as delay. If you do not agree with what is obviously the current consensus, raise it to another level of conflict resolution. Consensus has been established with both an AfD, a
WP:BOLD discussion and an RFC. It's enough. --
OpenFuture (
talk) 11:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- I do not care either way, just tired of seeing the back and forth reverting. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 14:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- Consensus is not a vote.
WP:NOTAVOTE. On making an RFC, as you see above, there just was one. Another one is obviously pointless and can only serve as delay. If you do not agree with what is obviously the current consensus, raise it to another level of conflict resolution. Consensus has been established with both an AfD, a
WP:BOLD discussion and an RFC. It's enough. --
OpenFuture (
talk) 11:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
the european union proclaimed an official mourning day, shouldn't the countries (wich belong to the EU) be coloured blue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.136.173.42 ( talk) 15:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Categories:
- Redirect-Class aviation articles
- Redirect-Class Aviation accident articles
- Aviation accident task force articles
- WikiProject Aviation articles
- Redirect-Class Poland articles
- Mid-importance Poland articles
- WikiProject Poland articles
- Redirect-Class Russia articles
- Low-importance Russia articles
- Low-importance Redirect-Class Russia articles
- Redirect-Class Russia (history) articles
- History of Russia task force articles
- Redirect-Class Russia (politics and law) articles
- Politics and law of Russia task force articles
- WikiProject Russia articles
- NA-Class Disaster management articles
- NA-importance Disaster management articles
- Redirect-Class International relations articles
- Low-importance International relations articles
- WikiProject International relations articles
|
| This article was nominated for deletion on 18 December 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was merge to 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash. |
|
| This article was nominated for deletion on 10 April 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was merge to 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash. |
| Text and/or other creative content from this version of 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash was copied or moved into International response to the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
|
| This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I suppose there exist information between 22:35, 10 April 2010 and 23:14, 10 April 2010 of article 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash that isn't merged into this article. Can someone merge this lost information? -- Kslotte ( talk) 23:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- I went through it myself. I merged the most, left out some vandalism. Maybe someone else also can verify it. -- Kslotte ( talk) 00:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, edits made on both pages between 22:21, 10 April 2010 UTC and 00:47, 11 April 2010 UTC have made it " WP:CPM#A troublesome case", and therefore I have tagged this talk page with {{ copied}} instead. Zzyzx11 ( talk) 04:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
I do not think it is appropriate for the statement from David Cameron to be twice as long as the queen and Gordon Brown's statements put together. Whatever your political feelings on DC and GB, and whether or not you think Dave is coming to office in May, GB is still the current prime minister and also has much more say in the matter than DC due to being more experience in foreign affairs in general. 86.137.166.151 ( talk) 08:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- I believe this is an inappropriate angle to take on this. If both the queen's and the PM's statements can be summarized briefly without losing essential information and David Cameron's cannot, then I do not think it is wrong that his looks longer on the page. It will in any case be third, and if we start comparing them like you do and affording them number of words according to rank, we debase the issue by acknowledging (insinuating) that political figures would phrase their condolences so as to outshine their political competitors. __
meco (
talk) 10:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- I concur with Meco. In the world of knowledge, the measurement criteria pertain to information, not social rank. Also, if the above editor or any other editor can constructively expand the text of Gordon Brown and/or the queen, he or she is at liberty to do so, with citations as appropriate. If said editor or other editors are unsure about how to do this - e.g. how to word it, or how to cite a given source - all s/he has to do is write the suggested text on this talk page and point to a source or sources, and someone else may be able to pick it up from there. Regards Wotnow ( talk) 21:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
It is nice to have a statement from the Republika Srpska but could we get one from the Federation as well? AFter all, they are the bigger part of Bosnia and conduct most of its foreign affairs. 86.137.166.151 ( talk) 08:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Russia is not mentioned on this article; haven't they said anything about it? Jim Michael ( talk) 11:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Several countries declared, they will announce days of national mourning. Also at various sport events there was a minute of silence, e.g. Real - Barcelona football derby. Should it be included in the article? - Darwinek ( talk) 15:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- well if you have time to search for info than go ahead for days of national mourning - but i'm not so sure whether it has any sense in case of sport
KalrinUE (
talk) 18:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- Hi KarlrinUE. I have formated the space surrounding your comment so it fits into the page for ease of reading. I hope this was helpful. Regards
Wotnow (
talk) 22:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- Definately include this info. it is a reaction. either under Spain (and the various countries) or seperate section for "apoltiical" reaction
- Hi KarlrinUE. I have formated the space surrounding your comment so it fits into the page for ease of reading. I hope this was helpful. Regards
Wotnow (
talk) 22:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that days of mourning should be specifically presented, perhaps even highlighted by a separate section. __ meco ( talk) 17:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Have Liechtenstein and Monaco not forwarded any condolences, or is it just that we haven't picked it up? Are there other countries that one would expect in this list which haven't offered their condolences? __ meco ( talk) 18:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Has Libya not forwarded any condolences? Or have they not been picked up by wikipedia? 84.226.70.82 ( talk) 20:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
If you find yourself removing, or 'retiring' a reference that looks potentially useful but no longer relevant, or currently relevant, or not relevant in the context used, you may wish to copy and paste it here, so that the information itself is not 'lost', and others may utilise it here or elsewhere. Wotnow ( talk) 23:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
After creating this section, I will retire the following reference [1] from the Algeria section, because the citation provided does not mention condolences from Louisa Hanoune. A fuller format for the reference I removed is this. [2] Wotnow ( talk) 23:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Retired references
I don't have time to follow-through with information and formatting citations from the following links, but they look useful, so I provide them here for perusal and possible use here and/or elsewhere. Regards Wotnow ( talk) 02:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Why this link brings up the page it does, I don't know, and I don't have time to find out and provide a more correct link. But if you type "Poland" into the search field, it will bring up a list of articles related to Kaczynski's death.
The DRV closed with an overturn of the original decision of "merge" to "no consensus" (default keep). As has been mentioned in various places (talk page of accident article, AfD and DRV), the current article needs work. For a start the FLAGCRUFT will need to go. I think that the tables need to be rewritten as prose, with the reactions split by continents. Mjroots ( talk) 08:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- The reactions are all the same: The express condolences. What could be noted is if one country has NOT expressed condolences.-- OpenFuture ( talk) 08:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I see that the article has been reduced almost to a stub. I'm not getting into an edit war over this. Consensus was that this info shoud be removed from the article on the accident itself. The Afd merge result has been overturned to no consensus. All editors should now accept that, whether they were in favour of keeping, deleting or merging the article themselves. We should now be working on improving the article, not fighting over it.
Forget about the merge/reduce arguments. In order to avoid an edit war, I've created a sub-page of this talk page which I've edited to produce an article that is free of FLAGCRUFT, but keeping the info from the article before the recent reduction in size. I've also given the article some structure, and inserted a TOCLIMIT to keep the contents box to a reasonable size. There is still some work to be done, such as wikifying countries rewriting into past tense. Those countries in both Europe and Asia have been listed under Europe for convenience. There are some deadlinks that need to be rectified/re-sourced.
I'd ask editors not to make wholesale changes to the workpage article. If a country is in the wrong continent please do move it. Let's have some constructive comments on this, and hopefully reach consensus so that the article can be improved.
Workpage article is at Talk:International response to the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash/workpage. Mjroots ( talk) 11:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- We should now be working on improving the article, not fighting over it. - I agree. And I did so. Why that flagcruft should not be on Wikipedia has been thoroughly discussed over and over. The only arguments for keeping it has been WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, unsupported and obviously false claims of WP:N, and requests of making it into a WP:MEMORIAL. Removing was an improvement. That doesn't mean we can't improve *more*. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 12:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- The list of condolences is not notable, and should not be there. Why has been explained over and over and over and over. The only arguments for keeping it has been WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, unsupported and obviously false claims of WP:N based solely on that there are sources, and emotional arguments about how important this is, basically trying to turn the page into some sort of WP:MEMORIAL. If you don't agree, try doing what nobody else have done: Submitting actual arguments for keeping it that doesn't violate WP:POLICY. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 12:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- The AfD (eventually) produced a "no consensus" result, which defaults to keep. It appears to me that you don't accept the decision.
WP:N is shown by
WP:V through
WP:RS, which is largely met (dead links excepted). Memorials are to the dead, whereas expressions of condolences are to surviving relatives etc., thus MEMORIAL is not violated.
86.139.188.45 ( talk)Mjroots ( talk) 13:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- The AfD (eventually) produced a "no consensus" result, which defaults to keep. It appears to me that you don't accept the decision.
WP:N is shown by
WP:V through
WP:RS, which is largely met (dead links excepted). Memorials are to the dead, whereas expressions of condolences are to surviving relatives etc., thus MEMORIAL is not violated.
- A keep of the article yes. So the article is here and it's kept. And now we should improve it. I did so, and this has been reverted without explanation. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 16:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Could turn it into a list. Rd232 talk 13:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- The reactions seem better organised by country than by continent. The continents are somewhat vague and do not correlate in any useful way with the condolences. For countries like Azerbaijan and Armenia, it is clear where they may be found if their sections are arranged alphabetically. If they are arranged by continent, then it's unclear whether they'd be in Europe, Asia or Middle East and there are probably some disputed cases for this. Moreover, arrangement by continent gives undue weight to Australia. The current arrangement by country seems fine and should just be revisited after the entries for each country have been further developed. For example, the section for the UK could be expanded considerably as there are numerous sources about condolence books in places like Aberdeen, Belfast, Harrow, &c. Colonel Warden ( talk) 21:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- They may be better arranged by country, which I will consider doing. How does arrangement by continent give undue weight to the continent of Australia? All continents are equal entities, they are arranged alphabetically as that is the standard way of organising lists. Mjroots ( talk) 06:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- In your draft, you have Australia as a section heading but not Russia, say. The latter's reaction seems of more importance, and so merits equal or greater prominence. Colonel Warden ( talk) 07:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Ahh, you're mixing up
Australia (continent) and
Australia (country). Russia is a country that spans two continents,
Europe and
Asia. The entry for Russia is under Europe. It is second behind Poland (country directly affected) because that is where the accident happened. The rest of Europe is alphabetical after that. Poland and Russia could possibly be a separate section - "affected countries". Hope that clarifies things.
Mjroots (
talk) 09:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Not making comment on the merits of a continential seperation but it'll surely be better to have Oceania which while not a continent would allow us to cover New Zealand, Fiji, Samoa etc in such a section, or if people are opposed to that perhaps Australasia; rather then Australia (continent). This is also typical for such sections in other articles and by other sources. There's little point having a section on Australia IMHO which even if we mean the continent only covers two or three countries which is probably why few sources bother to disambiguate in such a way (actually I don't know the last time I've seen a source other then one where the continential shelf matters disambiguate Australia ignoring ones where the confused people writing it think Australia is a substitute for Australasia or Oceania and/or New Zealand and most of the pacific islands are part of it). Nil Einne ( talk) 09:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
For comparison, I've created a version arranged by country, rather than by continent.
Further thoughts welcome. Mjroots ( talk) 09:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- A better reactions article to compare against may be Reactions to the 2010 Moscow Metro bombings. Mjroots ( talk) 10:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Despite repeated questions no other reasons to have a list of condolenses than WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS has emerged. Despite this, the removal of this list, although it's a blatant violation of policies has been restored twice, and no explanation given. This in turn is a violation of WP:BRD. I've asked those who restored the list for explanation, but none has been forthcoming, they seem to refuse to even discuss the issue.
This is a plead to editors here to follow Wikipedias policies. This article is *not* an exclusion zone where WP:POLICY does not apply. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 22:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- You've been given explanations, which you either don't understand, or are simply ignoring. I'd question your entire knowledge of policy to be honest if you are invoking BRD here, over an issue which has gone through Afd, Drv, and multiple talk page sections. There is no B to be had here, attempting for the hundredth time to make the same deletion using the same ASSERTION-by-ACRONYM arguments while ignoring the already well demonstrated lack of consensus, is just plain tendentious editing, pure and simple. You are not being bold, you are being disruptive. There is no consensus on your ideas of what it blatantly is, or what policies it is blatantly violating, for you to be able to get away with removing the list right now, accept it. If you want to stick around and work to a solution as to how the content might be refined, fine, but if you want to try and say/do the same thing again and again, and in addition, now try and patronise everyone else as well while still pretending that you are just right, then I suggest you just unwatch the page and go do something else. I don't know about anyone else, but I think your penchent for repetition is becoming seriously tedious. MickMacNee ( talk) 23:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- There has been no explanations at all. The issue has not even been discussed after the delete/merge discussions ended. During the discussion of the merge there was clear that many was against this sort of listing -- OpenFuture ( talk) 08:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- It will be handy to have links to some of those other articles here for ideas and comparison:
Colonel Warden ( talk) 23:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yup. Notice how none of these articles contain a list of condolences. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 08:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- I don't always agree with MickMacNee, but he is correct here. OpenFuture, you are hereby warned that further removal of content against consensus will be considered WP:DE and will therefore result in administrative action. I won't be taking that action myself as I'm "involved" here, but I won't hesitate to report to WP:AIV and/or WP:ANI.
- There has been no discussion on this topic, only on the issue of a merge/delete of the article as a whole. Your claiming of a consensus that does not exists is attempts to stop discussion, and thereby an attempt to stop the reaching of consensus. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 08:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- There has been much discussion of this topic. At the talk page of article on the crash, where consensus was that the reactions should be split off to a separate artice; at the AfD and DRV, and on this talk page. You are the only editor who has removed the reactions. This removal has been reverted by two separate editors, the reversion is supported by other editors including myself. If you really want to pursue this, open a WP:RFC and allow the discussion to run for 30 days. Mjroots ( talk) 08:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- You are pretending there are consensus where there is not, and threatening with blocks because I ask you to discuss the issue. That is completely unacceptable behavior. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 12:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- No, I'm saying that there could be administrative action taken if you continue to remove material from the article when consensus seems to be that it should remain. So far, you are the only editor to have removed the material. Two separate editors have reverted that removal. I also am in favour of the material being kept, but not in its current format. That makes 3 to 1 by my reckoning. Administrative action may mean a block, or it may mean something else, such as a page ban or article ban. Mjroots ( talk) 13:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Consensus
OK, let's establish once and for all what the consensus is over this issue.
Q: Should individual countries responses be included as part of the article. Mjroots ( talk) 13:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, the article's title is "International response to the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-134 crash". Such international responses are therefore a fundamental part of the article, amounting to about 90% of it, and therefore should be included.
Mjroots (
talk) 13:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- That was a unique argument. Show me the policy where something becomes notable and should be kept because the article otherwise is too short. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 19:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- As you well know, there isn't a policy that prohibits short articles. however, the article was split from the article about the crash under WP:SIZE. WP:V + WP:RS x 182 = WP:N. Mjroots ( talk) 05:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- As you well know, you do not have 182 sources for each of those entries, so you can't claim WP:N from that. And you have no source for the list as a whole. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 17:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- No, they are not "responses", it's just a list of condolences. They are not WP:NOTABLE, not WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC, etc. That list obviously is an example of WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of information. It would in fact be more notable if a country did *not* express their condolences. The only arguments for keeping them so far has been WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and arguments for making Wikipedia into a condolence book, which it isn't. And even the argument that other lists like this exists is highly doubtful. Most other articles about international responses to events do *not* include long lists of condolences. See Mjroots list of examples: International response to Hurricane Katrina, Reactions to the September 11 attacks, Reaction to the assassination of John F. Kennedy, Humanitarian response to the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake, Michael Jackson memorial service. It's probably WP:RECENTISM as well, as exactly who formulated their condolences in exactly what way definitely isn't anything anybody will be interested in in the future. And what about countries that are missing from that list? Did Andorra not send condolences? Bahrain? Uganda? Do we anywhere have a source for what countries sent condolences? If not, then this is suspiciously close to WP:OR. In short, there is no reason to keep it at all, and it breaks many of Wikipedias policies. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 19:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- No as per OF. Ericoides ( talk) 21:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- No as per Open Future. However, it is possible that a map of the countries expressing condolences might be notable. That would display the information in a much more succinct, easy to understand manner. --
N419BH (
talk) 21:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- Although in improvement, it would be WP:OR to present this, unless we can find an authoritative source of which countries sent their condolences. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 18:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- No. These statements of condolence do not have significant educational or informational value, so they are not in keeping with the purpose of an encyclopedia, in my view. Fletcher ( talk) 14:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- No, basically per OpenFuture and the other discussion. This needs a heavy cut that summarises. Jack Merridew 22:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, that was an impressive consensus for keep. Not. ;) Can we remove the list of condolences now? -- OpenFuture ( talk) 18:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry guys, but a small vote held here does not over-ride the large consensus already established not long ago in the Afd and DRv. If you guys really really want this gone, I suggest you try writing, and getting consensus on, a global guideline, via an Rfc, because expecting everyone who doesn't want it gone to keep turning up to the repeated attempts to make the same argument to delete it, is not how consensus works. That is called tendentious editing infact. So enough already.
MickMacNee (
talk) 22:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- See the DRV; No consensus. That's not the same as keep. You a tendentious editor?
Jack Merridew 22:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Not when it comes to this sort of blatant attempt at AGAIN, no. No Consensus + make the same arguments a week later and pretending that people having got bored to tears and left, is somehow a new consensus, is nothing but tendentious editting. MickMacNee ( talk) 23:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- The vote was about the *article*, not about the list of condolences, as you well know. The claims of consensus have been proven wrong. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 11:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- See the DRV; No consensus. That's not the same as keep. You a tendentious editor?
Jack Merridew 22:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I strongly disagree and oppose this act! Wikipedia must list the full international response on this tragic event. You don't have the consensus - where is my vote?!-- Rastko Pocesta ( talk) 17:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- WP:NOTAVOTE This has been discussed for months, and the arguments and consensus is clearly against the list. I'm tired of repeating this to people who are not willing to read the discussion. Stop vandalising the page. If you don't agree with current consensus, raise this to some level of conflict resolution. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 07:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Should Wikipedia articles be condolence books?
The page International response to the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash contains a huge list of every notable or non-notable state or head of state that uttered any form of condolence in regards to the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash. This breaks several policies, and no arguments based on policy to keep it has appeared. The argument against removing it now is that not enough people uttered their opinion in the attempt to establish consensus. Hence, this RFC.
- Remove - Wikipedia should not be made into condolence books. That condolences are expressed at a major accident isn't in itself WP:NOTABLE, not WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC, etc. That list obviously is an example of WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of information. It would in fact be more notable if a country did *not* express their condolences. The only arguments for keeping them so far has been WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and arguments for making Wikipedia into a condolence book, which it isn't. And even the argument that other lists like this exists is highly doubtful. Most other articles about international responses to events do *not* include long lists of condolences. See Mjroots list of examples: International response to Hurricane Katrina, Reactions to the September 11 attacks, Reaction to the assassination of John F. Kennedy, Humanitarian response to the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake, Michael Jackson memorial service. It's probably WP:RECENTISM as well, as exactly who formulated their condolences in exactly what way definitely isn't anything anybody will be interested in in the future. And what about countries that are missing from that list? Did Andorra not send condolences? Bahrain? Uganda? Do we anywhere have a source for what countries sent condolences? If not, then this is suspiciously close to WP:OR. In short, there is no reason to keep it at all, and it breaks many of Wikipedias policies. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 12:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment This is the wrong place to be having an Rfc, if the intention is to cover all lists, past or future. It should either be posted to WP:NOT, or the Village Pump. You aren't going get anybody commenting here except the exact same people saying the exact same thing, for the fifth time, as you've done above, word for word. For the record, I still think your rationale is a bunch of ACRONYMS thrown together, that you really don't understand the basic purpose of. For example, NOTABILITY has got sod all, not one single tiny thing, to do with exclusion or inclusion of particular article content wthin articles (as opposed to deciding whether specific topics can have articles or not). MickMacNee ( talk) 16:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- The intention with the RFC is to bring others in to comment, since you refuse to accept consensus. You still have no argumentation for keeping what is clearly breaking multiple Wikipedia policies, because ad hominem arguments do not count. --
OpenFuture (
talk) 19:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Why would I actually waste time arguing the case when your understanding of policy doesn't go beyond ACRONYMS, when you don't know what an Rfc is, when you don't know what consensus is, and yet when you keep insisting everything is "clearly" how you say it is, and the obvious obstacles are all the other people, and not your understanding. In that environment, when people perceive advice as ad hominem, the exercise of debate with respect to actual policy, the actual nitty gritty, becomes pointless. You've picked a page here nobody really cares about, so I guess if you have a real bee in your bonnet about it, you will eventually fluke the result you want, claiming some kind of consensus, but in my experience, in this sort of situation, that only happens because most editors who do know what they are talking about have just moved on to something else and cannot be bothered arguing with a brick wall that simply thinks its right, without demonstrating it knows how or why. Probably the only thing you need to know is that SHORTCUTS are just that, shortcuts, and at some point you actually have to frame your argument in real words in a detailed way that actually shows to others that you know and understand the purpose and meaning of the writing in the pages behind them, the situations and circumnstances they do and don't apply to, and ultimately therefore how you have a case. Posting ACRONYMS to show how you are CLEARLY right, is just nonsense frankly, its parrot talk easily picked up, and easily ignored when its invocation shows up some glaring errors in understanding. The sad fact behind all this, is at some point you've probably come to the wrong conclusion that I want the content included. I actually don't, but what I do want is a proper consensus backed solution to the what's where's and whyfore's of how to handle it all, past and future. But I certainly think the argument that the only reason peole create these lists is to create an UNENCYCLOPOEDIC NON-NOTABLE MEMORIALs which is OR because its incomplete and RECENTISM because its recent, is all absolute bollocks, only surpased by ridiculous and insulting claims that people could recreate the material with their eyes closed. MickMacNee ( talk) 23:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- The intention with the RFC is to bring others in to comment, since you refuse to accept consensus. You still have no argumentation for keeping what is clearly breaking multiple Wikipedia policies, because ad hominem arguments do not count. --
OpenFuture (
talk) 19:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- MickMacnee: It may be noted that I was told to create an RFC by mjroots. So you are now claiming that mjroots either does not know what an RFC is, or told me to create an RFC with the intention of delaying the removal of the content in question with 30 days, even though he knows an RFC is the wrong thing, which would be curious behavior by an administrator. You also, it can be noted, claim that mjroots claim of notability for the list of condolences is wrong. Now, I agree it's wrong, but it's funny that you want to keep the list, when you simultaneously shoot down the only attempt of serious argumentation for keeping it based on policy. Your continued ad hominems will get you nowhere. I am not the topic here. --
OpenFuture (
talk) 08:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Like I said, you will likely fluke the outcome you want, not because anyone can be bothered to debate specific policy points, but because of how much you really don't know, and their unwillingness to listen to you continually claim you do. Yes Roots asked you to open an Rfc, and if it were for this article only, this page is the place for it. But that is not what you have opened. I pointed this out to you already, you've evidently ignored it / missed the distinction. Your inability to understand that notability doesn't govern content, but also that, as Roots points out, it is ludicrous to ignore the Afd which concluded in no small part that it is valid to split the article to accommodate a large amount of content that has previously been judged worthy of recording, is also a good example of the pointlessness of debating with you. This is how bad your understanding is. This is down to your total inabiltiy to understand consensus, and it is why you are still here arguing the exact same position you came to the Afd with, no matter how paradoxical the outcome (a stub article of the notable subject of international reactions), to the death it would appear, like a classic TE. I could care less how many times you accuse me of ad hominems really, all it shows is you cannot be bothered / won't read, other people's comments properly. Now you are into the tedious rubbish of 'it's funny that....', and all the other usual bollocks that inhabits these sort of ill informed debates where one party thinks he knows more than he does. If you want to verify my claims for yourself, go and find the diffs that support what I've said, they are all on record.
MickMacNee (
talk) 12:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not ignoring the AfD. You claim that the AfD shows there was a consensus to keep the list of condolences. The discussion was not about the list of condolences, but only about the article as a whole, and the conclusion was in any case "no consensus". The discussion about the condolences above shows clearly that there *is* consensus when it comes to the condolences, and they should be removed. --
OpenFuture (
talk) 14:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Sure, fine. Believe what you want. If you honestly think that the Afd outcome meant that the article was supposed to be kept, and then reduced in size to nothing, that's entirely your perogative. It ties in with everything I've said previously to be honest.
MickMacNee (
talk) 14:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Once again, the AfD was about the article as a whole. This is about the list of condolences. I'm sure you are able to understand that difference. --
OpenFuture (
talk) 15:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- I do. You clearly don't. MickMacNee ( talk) 15:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Once again, the AfD was about the article as a whole. This is about the list of condolences. I'm sure you are able to understand that difference. --
OpenFuture (
talk) 15:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Sure, fine. Believe what you want. If you honestly think that the Afd outcome meant that the article was supposed to be kept, and then reduced in size to nothing, that's entirely your perogative. It ties in with everything I've said previously to be honest.
MickMacNee (
talk) 14:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not ignoring the AfD. You claim that the AfD shows there was a consensus to keep the list of condolences. The discussion was not about the list of condolences, but only about the article as a whole, and the conclusion was in any case "no consensus". The discussion about the condolences above shows clearly that there *is* consensus when it comes to the condolences, and they should be removed. --
OpenFuture (
talk) 14:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Like I said, you will likely fluke the outcome you want, not because anyone can be bothered to debate specific policy points, but because of how much you really don't know, and their unwillingness to listen to you continually claim you do. Yes Roots asked you to open an Rfc, and if it were for this article only, this page is the place for it. But that is not what you have opened. I pointed this out to you already, you've evidently ignored it / missed the distinction. Your inability to understand that notability doesn't govern content, but also that, as Roots points out, it is ludicrous to ignore the Afd which concluded in no small part that it is valid to split the article to accommodate a large amount of content that has previously been judged worthy of recording, is also a good example of the pointlessness of debating with you. This is how bad your understanding is. This is down to your total inabiltiy to understand consensus, and it is why you are still here arguing the exact same position you came to the Afd with, no matter how paradoxical the outcome (a stub article of the notable subject of international reactions), to the death it would appear, like a classic TE. I could care less how many times you accuse me of ad hominems really, all it shows is you cannot be bothered / won't read, other people's comments properly. Now you are into the tedious rubbish of 'it's funny that....', and all the other usual bollocks that inhabits these sort of ill informed debates where one party thinks he knows more than he does. If you want to verify my claims for yourself, go and find the diffs that support what I've said, they are all on record.
MickMacNee (
talk) 12:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- MickMacnee: It may be noted that I was told to create an RFC by mjroots. So you are now claiming that mjroots either does not know what an RFC is, or told me to create an RFC with the intention of delaying the removal of the content in question with 30 days, even though he knows an RFC is the wrong thing, which would be curious behavior by an administrator. You also, it can be noted, claim that mjroots claim of notability for the list of condolences is wrong. Now, I agree it's wrong, but it's funny that you want to keep the list, when you simultaneously shoot down the only attempt of serious argumentation for keeping it based on policy. Your continued ad hominems will get you nowhere. I am not the topic here. --
OpenFuture (
talk) 08:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Condense As I've said above, I don't think lists of condolences have any significant educational or informational value. They are emotive in nature, intended to evoke feelings of sympathy and solidarity. There's a place for that in the media, but not in an encyclopedia. Our job is to explain things rather than to be supportive. However, there wasn't consensus to delete the article, and removing the content (which I would otherwise tend to support) would leave less than a stub. I would suggesting summarizing the list, perhaps giving a quote from one country of every continent, or maybe the quote from the leader of the UN, noting that these are just some examples among many. If consensus allows, that could be merged with the main article. Fletcher ( talk) 01:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Condense and then Merge As I said above (including comments), find an authoritative source on who sent condolences and create a map out of that. Include a quote from the UN and maybe the EU. Combine these two or three things with the map of countries with official mourning and merge this into the main article. That gets the point across without being redundant. -- N419BH ( talk) 09:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep The argument presented is false, there is no such thing as a non-notable head of state. The responses are a fundamental part of the article, and shoud be quoted where sourceable. Mjroots ( talk) 20:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
We can see that once again, consensus is clearly in favor of removing. So what now? Are the two people in the minority willing to accept consensus now? -- OpenFuture ( talk) 04:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Let it rest. Looks like the "comment" above already created another reason for overriding consensus. Furthermore I don't think consensus has been truly established here, as very few people commented. N419 BH 04:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- It's been resting for 30 days in practice thanks to the RFC. Thats' rest enough. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 05:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- I know, which is why I asked the above question. Letting it rest is not going to help, they'll revert and call it an edit war if we let it rest for years. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 05:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Be
WP:BOLD and make an edit in line with consensus. I would say try a middle ground approach. Perhaps create a graphical map or some other record as I suggested in the RfC above. Even if it is incomplete, it's better than going back and forth for an additional...3 months and proves you're attempting to appease both sides. You might also offer to copy the list itself over to a user sandbox. If they revert again, it might be time to pursue formal dispute resolution. I think the AfD made it pretty clear what the consensus was. We're now being asked to prove it over and over again.
N419
BH 14:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, seems like I don't have a choice. :-/ -- OpenFuture ( talk) 07:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- Be
WP:BOLD and make an edit in line with consensus. I would say try a middle ground approach. Perhaps create a graphical map or some other record as I suggested in the RfC above. Even if it is incomplete, it's better than going back and forth for an additional...3 months and proves you're attempting to appease both sides. You might also offer to copy the list itself over to a user sandbox. If they revert again, it might be time to pursue formal dispute resolution. I think the AfD made it pretty clear what the consensus was. We're now being asked to prove it over and over again.
N419
BH 14:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, Wikipedia must list the condolences, it is the very important and vital part of the international response. I'll undo it now.-- Rastko Pocesta ( talk) 07:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- As you see you have consensus against you. If you wish to change this, please escalate this higher in conflict resolution. --
OpenFuture (
talk) 07:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- If this heading is serving as a consensus builder, than honestly, I see it as 3 to 2, including the recent reverts. I am not sure what has been said in the past, but I still feel this is not "consensus" in my eyes. I respectfully ask for both sides to make a RFC about to keep the lists or not, make a maps of condolences or not, and other side issues. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- Consensus is not a vote.
WP:NOTAVOTE. On making an RFC, as you see above, there just was one. Another one is obviously pointless and can only serve as delay. If you do not agree with what is obviously the current consensus, raise it to another level of conflict resolution. Consensus has been established with both an AfD, a
WP:BOLD discussion and an RFC. It's enough. --
OpenFuture (
talk) 11:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- I do not care either way, just tired of seeing the back and forth reverting. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 14:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- Consensus is not a vote.
WP:NOTAVOTE. On making an RFC, as you see above, there just was one. Another one is obviously pointless and can only serve as delay. If you do not agree with what is obviously the current consensus, raise it to another level of conflict resolution. Consensus has been established with both an AfD, a
WP:BOLD discussion and an RFC. It's enough. --
OpenFuture (
talk) 11:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
the european union proclaimed an official mourning day, shouldn't the countries (wich belong to the EU) be coloured blue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.136.173.42 ( talk) 15:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Categories:
- Redirect-Class aviation articles
- Redirect-Class Aviation accident articles
- Aviation accident task force articles
- WikiProject Aviation articles
- Redirect-Class Poland articles
- Mid-importance Poland articles
- WikiProject Poland articles
- Redirect-Class Russia articles
- Low-importance Russia articles
- Low-importance Redirect-Class Russia articles
- Redirect-Class Russia (history) articles
- History of Russia task force articles
- Redirect-Class Russia (politics and law) articles
- Politics and law of Russia task force articles
- WikiProject Russia articles
- NA-Class Disaster management articles
- NA-importance Disaster management articles
- Redirect-Class International relations articles
- Low-importance International relations articles
- WikiProject International relations articles