Talk:Aberfan disaster

Excavated/recovered

Hi HJ Mitchell and the other IP. ‘Recovered’ makes it sound like people were saved - recover also means to get better from injury or illness. ‘Excavated’ is a perfectly good term for things being dug out of the ground: archaeologists use the term all the time. I don’t agree that there is a sense in which the bodies were being dug into - that’s really stretching common English understanding to breaking point. I’ll not revert, but I really don’t think ‘recovered’ is at all the right word to use. 213.205.194.63 (talk) 21:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Tend to agree. Bodies and/or human remains are often described as being "recovered" from the scenes of aviation accidents, which are often in the sea, where there can be no excavation. But here the bodies were engulfed in "mud sludge and rubble" and literally had to be dug out with shovels. So "excavated" seems perfectly appropriate to me. I imagine this is the word used in contemporary media reports, but I am not sufficiently familiar with them to know this. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:15, 28 January 2021 (UTC) p.s. IP 213, you seem to have been able to make a lot of useful and informed edits to multiple articles recently. I wonder had you considered formally registering as a Wikipedia editor. "lol"

PMSL. Thanks for the suggestion, but maybe not! Cheers 213.205.194.63 (talk) 21:24, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Good to see you're still about in some capacity. I try to keep an eye on some of your FAs. I'm not going to go to battle over it or anything, but "recovered" is not an unusual term to be applied to a body. I don't think the article leaves anyone under the impression that the bodies being recovered/excavated were still alive. It feels a more "artful" term (to me, at least) than "excavated". Or how about another term? "Dug up" or "dug out" would work just as well. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Harry, yes, I’d seen you’ve been doing some tidying up from time to time - thanks very much for that. I’m just passing through, so I’ll leave the choice of what goes in there entirely up to you. Cheers - 213.205.194.63 (talk) 22:19, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Dear PMSL,

I had recently thought of rage-quitting my Wiki account and am looking for suitable precious articles to keep an eye on. I thought this might be a good one. But I can't stand the thought of facing begging letters from WMF every time I log on.

Yours, Befuddled of Tunbridge Wells (talk) 21:35, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

OMG I cannot believe the cast of characters that my little change has invoked. Just needs Malleus to show up and it's like housey housey. Oh, maybe Lir? Anyway, as I am not here, I think I should probably just shut up. It's not a big thing and does not require fisticuffs. I won't revert further. I am out of here. Best to all of you, 82.34.153.236 (talk) 21:41, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

My word, Father Jackum? That would be a turn up for the books. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:48, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

They do use the word "recovered" in contemporary reporting. The Liverpool Echo on October 21, 1966 says on the front page that "22 Bodies Recovered, 150 Missing" Richjenkins (talk) 18:36, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Cadw/Icomos listing

I'm always a bit cautious about changing the ending of an FA. I know the effort that goes into getting the structure right. But I think the 2022 listing on the Cadw/ICOMOS Register of Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest in Wales is significant. And, personally, I think the reason for its listing, as a monument "of great national importance and meaning" makes for a rather poignant conclusion. Others may disagree, and I'm absolutely fine with its being moved elsewhere, but I do think it warrants a mention. KJP1 (talk) 07:39, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi KJP1, it certainly needs to be referred to, and I think I agree it works well as the final point. I've tweaked the ref to be consistent with the others, but it looks a good addition. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:00, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Teachers

I see that Howell Williams died at the end of last month, [1]. I know that two of the four surviving teachers, Hettie Williams (nee Taylor),[2] and Rennie Williams,[3] have died previously. Does anyone know if the last of the four, Mair Morgan, is still alive? KJP1 (talk) 08:40, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Someone of that name and roughly the correct age died in 2009, though of course can't be certain that's her. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:45, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Nikkimaria - Thanks very much. I’ll do a bit more digging. They’re not uncommon Welsh names, as is Williams, held by three of the teachers, none of whom I believe were related. If Howell Williams was the last of the surviving teachers to die, it may warrant a note. Can discuss with User:SchroCat. KJP1 (talk) 13:02, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, definitely not a unique name - another Mair Morgan died in 2019, although that one was slightly older than this Mair Morgan should have been. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:05, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I think it would certainly be worth a mention. A search of a news database doesn't show any articles mentioning her death, which I would have thought there would have been. The pictures of them at the inquiry shows all four were fairly young at the time (she was the same age as Howell Williams, so would be around 82 now), so it is entirely possible she's still alive. As a slight side note, Tim riley told me he used to work with someone who was shoved out the window by Williams on that day, thus saving his life. There are a few people walking around today who have a lot to thank him for. - SchroCat (talk) 13:25, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Indeed so. Before joining the Crown Estate, of which I was in those far-off days the librarian, my colleague had served in the Royal Navy and seen the world. He left one in no doubt about the debt he and fellow survivors owed to his teacher. Tim riley talk 13:58, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I’d agree SchroCat - the fact that the deaths of the other two women, and of Howell Williams, have been covered, might suggest that she is indeed still alive. KJP1 (talk) 15:46, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

• According to this, Ms Morgan was still alive on 28 April 2023. There have not been any other news reports that I have seen since that date, which is excellent news. - SchroCat (talk) 10:01, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Error in this paragraph

The Queen did not visit on the 29th of October: ”

Because of the vast quantity and consistency of the spoil, it was a week before all the bodies were recovered; the last victim was found on 28 October. The Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh visited Aberfan on 29 October to pay their respects to those who had died. 208.38.231.66 (talk) 13:50, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

There are lots of sources which say 29 October. Do you have a reliable source that says otherwise? - SchroCat (talk) 16:34, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Superfluous source

There have been recent attempts to add an unnecessary source to the article. Wherever possible we need to ensure that the strongest ones possible. This means that an academic source takes precedence over a newspaper. We already have a very strong academic source in place, and the addition of this new one is completely unnecessary. I’m not sure why the need to edit war over the inclusion, but it would be best if the matter was discussed, rather than the issue trying to be forced. - SchroCat (talk) 04:56, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

So, why are you edit warring over an addition? The Banner talk 08:48, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Why are you edit warring at all? This is an FA and it requires the highest level sourcing possible. A newspaper article is not the highest level souring possible. - SchroCat (talk) 08:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

You know that you are now in breach of 3RR? And you are removing extra sourcing, not a replacement. The Banner talk 09:10, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Why are you lying in your edit summary? There is no POV-pushing: I am following the policies relating to sourcing. I am aware of what I am doing, and it's ensuring the article retains the highest level souring (as well as keeping in line with WP:STATUS QUO). You are just being disruptive edit warrior for zero reason. - SchroCat (talk) 09:14, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

You are edit warring, pushing your own preferred version (= POV-pushing) and now you start with personal attacks. You have nothing useful to offer? The newspaper article is a relevant addition, not a replacement. See also: Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling. The Banner talk 09:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

That's not what POV-pushing means, genius. The newspaper isn't relevant, given we have a superior source in place that fully supports the information. What you're doing is a form of citebombing: adding superfluous citations for zero reason. The fact you're happy to ignore BRD, status quo and a heap of other guidelines and policies just shows a disruptive approach. - SchroCat (talk) 09:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Please look at your own behaviour first. The Banner talk 09:44, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

FFS. Is that the best you can do? No thoughts as to citebombing with a weaker source? Ignoring BRD, status quo and the rest - and for what? Absolutely zero benefit to anyone - certainly not the article or readers. - SchroCat (talk) 09:51, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

At least I did not need personal attacks, as you did on multiple occasions. The Banner talk 10:08, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

And yet you're still avoiding talking about the article and the absence of any need to include a weaker source. Perhaps focusing on that would be a better use of time? - SchroCat (talk) 10:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

You think it is a weaker source solely because it is a newspaper article? The Banner talk 10:19, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Mostly, yes, although there are obvious exceptions and caveats to that. On nearly every occasion academic sources are preferred to newspapers, particularly in an FA. See WP:SOURCE - one of our policies, which states "If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources on topics such as history, medicine, and science." - SchroCat (talk) 10:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

But this was an additional source, not a replacement of an academic source. The Banner talk 11:29, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

So what? The sentence is already supported by a very strong (near unimpeachable) source. What benefit is there in adding an inferior one? - SchroCat (talk) 11:36, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

After crying about civility, you think this is acceptable? That's a sub-standard and untruthful way to go about editing. This sort of gutter approach to editing leaves a very bad taste in the mouth. - SchroCat (talk) 12:04, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

SchroCat is correct: the Guardian press article is surplus to requirements. Better to stick to the best sources. Tim riley talk 09:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

But the claim he used to remove the source is that it is an inferior source and that is why he removed it. That quality part is never been a serious part of the discussion here. The Banner talk 10:15, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

"That quality part is never been a serious part of the discussion here": re-read my opening comment to the thread and you'll see I discussed this exact point. I've repeated is several times in my first and subsequent edit summaries, and several times in the thread. I'm not sure how you can actually claim such a thing! - SchroCat (talk) 10:18, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

"Citebombing" is a stretch. But I wholly disagree that a more-approachable, easily-accessible source from a respected newspaper is "inferior" to a hard-to-parse academic source. I don't understand why the addition of an extra source that is easier for readers to consume and which backs up the material is somehow problematic.

As well as @SchroCat's flagrant breach of 3RR, this feels like an OWNership issue too. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 10:19, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Nope. See WP:FAOWN. The rest of your comment contains straw man arguments that only serves to prove FUTON bias and runs counter to WP:offline sources too. If you want to include just because you think it a 'nice' article, then Aberfan_disaster#External_links would be the place to leave it. Wherever possible we use the higher sources first, which are academic ones. This is an FA, so the highest sources are always used wherever possible. As I've said above, see WP:SOURCE, which says academic sources tend to be the better ones to use. - SchroCat (talk) 10:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Given we're literally a part of the Open Knowledge movement, suggesting it's FUTON bias that we should include references that readers can easily is a pretty odd argument. SOURCE doesn't say that we should exclude online sources, merely that we should not exclude offline ones. Likewise FAOWN doesn't say there's a magic exception to 3RR nor does it say that repeatedly reverting the addition of a quality source is an exception to OWNership.

We are using the SOURCE approved sources; nobody is suggesting they be removed. Some editors here (including me) are merely suggesting that the inclusion of another good-quality source improves the article. Nothing about being an FA says that we should not include additional sources nor that newspapers are somehow lowly sources that should be excluded.

That you seem to be so insistant that an additional quality source not be included appears to be leading you to try to twist several policy guidelines to justify an opinion that the hard-to-parse academic source is good but The Guardian is somehow beneath us. Frankly, it feels like pompous OWNership, even though I assume that is not the intention. I genuinely don't understand what harm you think the additional reference is bringing. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 12:14, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding what the Open Knowledge movement is. We've already provided the knowledge and it's open and free to use. It has zero bearing on the choice of source. I'm sorry that you seem to have trouble understanding the academic source, but it backs up the statement we have in the article. Thanks for the additional insults. They're making my lunchtime even more enjoyable than it was before. Either way, the academic source is there: it doesn't need backing up by anything else, particularly a weaker one. - SchroCat (talk) 12:19, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

No insults were intended by my reply; I'm criticising your actions not your personality (which clearly I know very little about, given we've not interacted much before). Though suggesting that I "seem to have trouble understanding the academic source" might also be considered by some to be a personal attack. Either way, I don't doubt that we would both rather be doing other things over lunch.

I think you are forgetting that we are one of the most-visited sites on the Internet and that we are trying to build an encyclopædia of everything, available to everyone. Providing easy-to-read, easy-to-parse articles is a part of that and I would suggest that easy-to-read, easy-to-parse, easy-to-verify citations is a logical extension of that.

You seem very insistant that including that Guardian piece is somehow beneath the article's dignity. Whereas several editors now are suggesting that the additional reference is beneficial to readers. Yes, the academic source is already there; we are saying that including the non-academic source as well improves the referencing. Frankly, we are saying that, while it might not need backing up by another source, it benefits from it. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 14:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

There was no personal attack in anything I wrote: you've referred to the "hard-to-parse academic source" on a couple of occasions, and it's a justifiable conclusion to come to, although my apologies if that's not what you meant. Thinking "easy-to-read, easy-to-parse, easy-to-verify citations is a logical extension" of providing similarly viewed articles, just isn't right though, as the various links I've provided show. It's in our policies and guidelines that that's not right: they are clear that we use the strongest references, not the available ones. As to the article being improved by the addition of a weaker source, I'm afraid that I don't agree with the logic behind that at all. If we had an weak source backed up by this, then that would be fine, but we have an academic source that's trumps it by a country mile. And the bit in the Guardian article that deals with the point in question hardly does so with any strong foundation. In other words, adding a weaker source that doesn't deal well with the bit that it's supposed to be supporting is hardly improving the referencing. I've added the article as an External link, and think that's as far as it needs to go - the Guardian piece is on the page and this veritable storm in a teacup is even more pointless than it was when it started. - SchroCat (talk) 14:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC)