Jump to content

Talk:Bath School disaster/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

The article gives infamy to the perpetrator

It is stupid to encourage psychos to try to set the new record. We should not give the name. It would be better for society to forget the names of murderers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:643:C002:2830:F4A1:C02D:C455:409C (talk) 10:08, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

This is similar to a previous request of yours regarding the 2020 Nova Scotia attacks. Please see the outcome of that discussion. Favonian (talk) 10:26, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Disaster?

An earthquake, engulfing sinkhole, or tsunami is a disaster. This was a premeditated murder and massacre (other murders of school children are called massacres on Wikipedia). Time to change the title?(!) Even as it's featured the title looks out of place when seeing it on the main page and then realizing what the page is about. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Referring to this calamity as the "Bath School Disaster" is a historic term. It is what the people who survived it called the event, it is how it is referred to in historic documents, on state markers and on memorials, in contemporary news accounts... In addition to that, dictionaries and other reliable sources include man-made disasters in their definitions. Merriam-Webster defines disaster as a sudden calamitous event bringing great damage, loss, or destruction" or "a sudden or great misfortune or failure", the IFRC (International Federation of Red Cross) says "A disaster is a sudden, calamitous event that seriously disrupts the functioning of a community or society and causes human, material, and economic or environmental losses that exceed the community's or society's ability to cope using its own resources.", The Journal of the Baylor University Health Center said "Disasters are divided into 2 basic groups: natural and man-made. Among the natural disasters are earthquakes, volcanoes, hurricanes, floods, and fires. Among the man-made disasters are war, pollution, nuclear explosions, fires, hazardous materials exposures, explosions, and transportation accidents." Google results give 18,700 hits for "Bath School disaster", Google Books gives pages of pertinent results (at least 10 if not more), one can find contemporaneous documents that refer to the such things as "the Bath School Disaster Relief Committee of American Red Cross", and if you Google the term "U.S. disasters" man-made disasters such as 9/11, the 1889 Johnstown Flood, the Great Chicago Fire, Mining Disasters (like 2010's Upper Big Branch Disaster & 1909 Cherry Mine Disaster) are included amongst the floods and hurricanes. This was a true disaster to the people of Bath, Michigan in 1927...I think Wikipedia should retain their preferred phrase. Shearonink (talk) 19:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
What to title this article about the man-made disaster in Bath has been discussed before on the talk page, starting in 2008 - here, here, here, here, here, plus a 2014 RfC re: "Bath School bombings" or "Bath School disaster" etc. So far the editorial consensus has been to keep the historic term. I agree. Shearonink (talk) 19:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your long and well-researched comments. Makes sense when explained, and since the people directly physically and emotionally involved call it a disaster it seems like the appropriate title, even though many other school shooting articles on Wikipedia include the 'massacre' title. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:09, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
I might write up some kind of a FAQ thingy to show that this naming/title issue has been discussed before. Just looking at the number of times the term and the title have been discussed in the talkpage archives it's obvious that throughout the article's life people sometimes have an issue with the word "disaster", thanks for bringing it up today. Shearonink (talk) 20:24, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

It might not hurt to add a footnote in the lead explaining that the title is based on the term that was used historically. 67.8.203.16 (talk) 18:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I placed a FAQ re: the title at the top of this talk page - perhaps that will be enough? I personally am loath to add footnotes or notes to the lead section... Shearonink (talk) 18:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
I came into the Talk specifically because there wasn't a footnote or any other explanation about this. I don't agree with keeping this title just because it is the historical name, but if it is wanted then a footnote is certainly needed. Salopian (talk) 17:16, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Kehoe as a "psychopath" re: motive in infobox

Recent edits have changed the motive of "psychopathy" in the infobox - either deleting it entirely or - most recently (after I added references) characterizing it as "speculative". Stating that any mass murderer who died by suicide during his or her crime as being a psychopath is seemingly being cast into doubt. (The criminal is dead after the crime and therefore cannot be examined by a health-care professional, plus it could said, in this case, that Kehoe's crime was committed before the modern understanding of schoolchildren's mass murderers as being psychopaths came into general practice.) If published opinions on Kehoe - of a true-crime author (Schechter's "Maniac" book) and of a psychologist-expert (Knoll's "Pseudocommando" article in the Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law) aren't enough, then what is? Let's discuss. Shearonink (talk) 21:51, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm generally against stating "psychopathy" as a motive mainly because as far as I'm aware psychopathy isn't an actual disorder that someone can be diagnosed with. And even if it was, it doesn't appear that Kehoe was diagnosed with it or any other mental disorder (please correct me if I'm wrong since I haven't read the entirety of the cited sources). So to me it seems that psychopathy as a motive is speculative. In fact, even the claim that his election defeat was a motive can also be considered speculative since it doesn't appear that he explicitly stated that (or anything else) as his motive. I guess the real issue is to figure out what constitutes an official "motive" in cases like this. I was under the impression that it had to be explicitly stated by the perpetrator but maybe I'm wrong. EucalyptusTreeHugger (talk) 09:45, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
EucalyptusTreeHugger I don't think the motive has to be explicitly stated by the murderer but yeah, he wasn't diagnosed, being in the middle of "nowheresville US" during the 1920s - I am certain there weren't any MD/PhD/any mental-health professionals practicing mental-health or psychiatry or psychology in Michigan farm-country then plus Kehoe mostly hid his sociopathology/psychopathology with great skill... wellll, other than killing a neighbor's dog, killing his half-sister's cat, beating a horse to death, willfully killing some cattle by refusing to feed them correctly, meeting a priest with a shotgun at the farmhouse's door, possibly perpetrating or helping along his young and despised stepmother's death...so many known antisocial events occurred throughout his adult life and these are just the ones from before the day of the Disaster, before even the days leading up to the Disaster. In the months leading up to the Disaster he had planned and laid the bombs throughout the school building, in the days leading up to it he girdled his farm's trees to kill them, bashed his wife's head in with a shovel, set bombs all over his farm to destroy it, hobbled his 2 horses' legs with barbed wire so they would be killed in their barn's fire and so on.
So. As a layperson looking at Kehoe's crimes, I kind of don't understand what the issue would be describing Kehoe as a psychopath after the fact, but yes, all of the stated reasons people have come up with are, indeed, technically speculative since the only writing Kehoe left was that "Criminals are made not born" sign, evading responsibility for his actions until the bitter end. However, in my research today I have come across the issues that medical professionals and ethicists have with pathography or remotely diagnosing psychiatric/mental conditions of people who are dead or people they have never met with so, yes, I see your point.
Looking at the Template for the Terrorist attacks infobox, the motive parameter states "the reason why the attack was carried out". Well, Kehoe was a mass murderer. He blew up a building and he blew up his truck intending to kill ALL of the area's children and ALL their teachers and as many other people as possible. He intended to wreak and did wreak havoc on a massive scale. The only writing he left was that sign so all we have left are his actions. Keeping in mind "remote diagnosing" he would seem to possibly be a sociopath with suicidal ideation or some other combination of antisocial personality traits or disorders like Narcissistic Personality Disorder and/or Borderline Personality Disorder and/or Bipolar Personality Disorder. Not that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS in other mass murderers'/terrorist attackers'/spree killers' articles is how to proceed but I took a look at many other mass murder/spree killer/etc articles and many of them don't even have a motive listed in the infobox. So. The Motive parameter could just be deleted but that wouldn't summarize the keypoints of the article's text about Kehoe so that doesn't seem ideal. Relying on what reliable sources have stated, like Schechter and Knoll, seeing that newspapers and authors have written about the Bath School Disaster and used the words & phrases to describe Kehoe are "maniac", "madman", "fulfills the Pseudocommando persona", "fulfills the psychopathy checklist" and so on. I think all that needs to be acknowledged in some fashion in the Infobox. I did find one article whose infobox seems to have a way forward - San Ysidro McDonald's massacre. In that infobox, it states the motive as "Inconclusive" with possible reasons (like suicidal ideation) & sources afterwards. I'll craft something along those lines with sources. I won't be able to get to it right away, so maybe give me some time to work the changes out and we can discuss this all a bit further then. Shearonink (talk) 17:52, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
EucalyptusTreeHugger I've gone ahead and edited the infobox, added text & refs in the main body, etc.. Let me know what you think. Shearonink (talk) 22:04, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
@Shearonink I think this new edit is better. It communicates that a definitive motive was technically not found, while stating potential motives. Only thing I would say is that it seems a little wordy. EucalyptusTreeHugger (talk) 17:36, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. Yeah, maybe->re: being wordy...for me, I'm going to let the changes sit and come back to them sometime later for any possible adjustments. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 17:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Recent massive ref style change

From <ref>, {{refn}} to {{rp}}, {{efn}} etc., have broken direct cites to the information in the refs, with the Ellsworth book especially. For instance, the present refs now go instead to the entire source rather than an individual chapter. Also, article titles in various refs were changed from Title case to lower case (against MOS:TITLECAPS). For these various reasons, I thought the refs should be changed back and I tried going through and changing, for instance, the Ellsworth refs back one-by-one but teasing out all the various changes without incurring subsequent errors is proving to be too monumental a task. Another issue is that this article gets often edited by editors who might not have a grasp of all the niceties of "efn" & "rp" - it was a conscious choice in the past to try to keep the refs as simple and as clear as possible and to keep quoted material from the sources with the refs themselves. Within the next few days I am going to do some kind of a mass revert of the August 25th changes back to the previous version unless there is a discussion against it. I do know that unfortunately there are going to be various reliable edits that will get caught up in my revert, I will fix those afterwards. Shearonink (talk) 17:53, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

So I reverted the changes for the reasons stated above and added back in various subsequent edits that were caught up in my mass revert. If anyone disagree with my actions, let's discuss it here before you possibly change stuff back. Shearonink (talk) 17:38, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Pointless footnotes in infobox

Apparently there's some desire to have a lengthy footnote in the infobox detailing the nature of all the victims...even though this information is within the lede of the article. Why? It adds nothing to the article beside duplicated content. Can we get an explanation, a rationale, an edit summary - anything to explain the need for this? cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 06:55, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Status as a "terrorist attack"

Hello! There is currently a debate over whether this event should be listed as one of the deadliest terrorist attacks in American history on the Terrorism in the United States talk page. That debate has relevance to this page, because there has also been some back and forth here on whether Template:Terrorist attacks in the United States by deaths (which is based on the aforementioned list) should be included on this page.--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:24, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Per the discussion (and provided references) at Talk:Terrorism in the United States#Deadliest attacks, I am reinstating the template of Template:Terrorist attacks in the United States by deaths to this article. In my opinion having the template on this article is 1)appropriate and 2)reliably sourced. Shearonink (talk) 12:17, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Andrew Kehoe

Wanted to let any interested editors know that a discussion has been opened at the Andrew Kehoe article's talk page on whether or not he should be described as "an American terrorist" in the first sentence of the lead, see Talk:Andrew Kehoe#Recent change in first sentence of lead section. Shearonink (talk) 04:26, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Those bare URL terrorist refs that were in lead

I removed these cites for several reasons - they seem misplaced, they are bare URLs without all the necessary cite information, they are repeats of citations that appears elsewhere in the article. But perhaps other editors think they should stay along with the "terrorist" designation in the lead, so let's discuss and come to a consensus. Shearonink (talk) 14:17, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

My edit

I recently made an edit to this article, some clean up of the lede where there was some repetition and it was a little verbose, but mostly converting duplicated references into sfn notation and updating of all citations into a bibliography, altogether reducing the size of the article by 14k bytes without the loss of any meaningful text, please see this revision. Editor Shearonink, who it appears is calling the shots on this article, has reverted my edit, claiming that I have "re-written entire swaths of this FA without any discussion" and made it clear that I must "take [my] concerns" here for a consensus ruling. Please feel free to express your concerns here. PorkyPowerPeanut (talk) 02:14, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I see nothing objectionable in the very small number of textual, article-space changes, and I thank you for the huge effort in cleaning up all those references. I see no reason not to restore the edit. Perhaps the editor in question can expand on his objections. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 04:26, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Article talk pages are here to discuss and come to a consensus on article content. My edit summary was intended to be factual. The article was edited, I reverted those edits so the changes can now be discussed here on the article talk page and an editorial consensus can be reached.
A couple of things...
  • Per WP:CITEVAR (aka "WP:WHENINROME"), when there is a standing style of referencing in an article, it is standard practice to defer to that established referencing style. And there is a reason for the present method of referencing in this article (previously discussed here: Archive 2 and here: Featured article discussion). In my opinion, the various efn/Harvard cite systems - while elegant - can be confusing for new editors and to editors unfamiliar with their intricacies. This article gets flurries of editing attention from time to time...unfortunately, when there is a school shooting/mass murder anywhere in the world and particularly in the United States, and often around the anniversary date of this event, people come to this article, adding information and/or references. And in my experience, if there are Harvard cites in an article, there are usually always continuing issues and errors and problems. I have "User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js" installed, almost every time I go to an article with Harvard cites, it will be littered with those red "Harv warnings" and red "Harv errors". It was a deliberate decision to keep these refs as simple as possible in construction so upkeep would be easier.
  • The article is not anywhere near WP:TOOLONG. Why does it need to be reduced in size?
Shearonink (talk) 06:27, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
That's a fair argument as well. I was going to suggest that maybe the talk header should have notice of the earlier decision to retain the specific referencing style - however - more often than not, and speaking only for myself, my eyes gloss over the talk header most of the time, and the talk header and entire talk page will largely be missed by an editor working the article for the first time. This is the problem with standards, there's so many to choose from! cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 07:38, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

A couple of things...??

"My edit summary was intended to be factual"??
Your edit summary, "Restored revision … by Shearonink …: You have re-written entire swaths of this FA without any discussion. Please take your concerns to the talk page",
yet as Anastrophe has pointed out, "…the very small number of textual, article-space changes, …".

A discussion it may have been, between you and one other editor about the introduction of a bibliography with sfns, and your objections to it and the use of sfns,
a consensus it certainly was not.

I had no "concerns" until you brought your woeful exaggerations and conservative opinions to the table…
"In my opinion, …", "And in my experience, …", "I have… ", " …almost every time I go… ".
…but that is all these are, opinions and yours.

"It was a deliberate decision to keep these refs as simple as possible in construction so upkeep would be easier".
I am one of those "new editors" you speak of, although it would appear, you have taken responsibility for the "upkeep" of this FA upon yourself,
so surely, dealing with entire swaths of seasonally re-written passages littering your precious article shouldn't prove a problem? PorkyPowerPeanut (talk) 14:04, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

PorkyPowerPeanut - please tone it down. I understand that feeling of 'betrayal' for lack of a better term when one has put a bunch of work into an article only to have it reverted. However - amping up the emotion isn't going to help the situation. Try to assume good faith. I don't know a thing about the different citing styles/systems, so can't really weigh in on the meat of the matter. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 18:19, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Hey, I'm all for sticking to just the facts. PorkyPowerPeanut (talk) 12:02, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Good to hear. I am sorry your feelings have been hurt, you did put in a lot of work but agree with Anastrophe to please tone it down.
Also, while all this content is under discussion it is against policy to revert to the changed version - an editorial consensus hasn't been established and such a revert can possibly be seen as edit warring. I wish you had kept in mind Be cautious about making a major change to an article & Bold, revert, discuss before you had instituted your changes.
I thought I laid out my reasons for the previous referencing nomenclature dispassionately, I am sorry you disagree. Shearonink (talk) 15:21, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you both for your concern, even if it is erroneously based on the assumption that feelings have been hurt. PorkyPowerPeanut (talk) 11:15, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Basically per WP:FAOWN changes need to gain consensus. It's best to make small edits, dicuss, agree, and repeat the cycle. Also per WP:CITEVAR citation styles can't be changed without consensus, particularly not on a WP:Featured article. Shearonink if it was discussed during the FAC, it might be helpful to link to those comments. PorkyPowerPeanut large edits on an article like this are discouraged. Shearonink may revert per WP:FAOWN, and then once you've all discussed and reached a consensus changes can be made. Victoria (tk) 16:15, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
I'd add to this that while "sfn" has some fans, it's not used on about 98 or 99% of articles, so I wouldn't recommend that anyone convert an article to that style without at least mentioning their intentions on the talk page first. You don't want to assume that a less-common style will be considered an improvement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:34, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
And to add more after looking at the article history, PorkyPowerPeaut should self revert this revision as this is skirting edit warring. Once that's done, discussions regarding the various changes can go forward. Victoria (tk) 18:24, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I would recommend, as I "often" do (if two suggestions of same within a month constitutes 'often'!) that an RFC might be worth doing. Get uninvolved, disinterested editors to eyeball the matter and weigh in. True - we already have a small bit of that. More can't really hurt though. (I invariably fubar any attempt at these more formal tasks, so someone else setting up an RFC would be appreciated, if that's the direction to go) cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:35, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Porky, you have made a series of bad edits, and they should all be reverted.

You may not have understood all of these policies, guidelines, and processes before you began editing. Hopefully now you do. You've made some basics mistakes that should leave you with a valuable lesson.

I suggest reverting back to the last version before your first edit, and restoring the few good edits you did make, without introducing prose that repetitively begins every paragraph with "In date". There is no reason to convert to sfns and I oppose any intent to do so. There are not enough good edits interspersed with the problematic to salvage, and starting over-- to salvage the couple of good changes in Edit no 1 would be a wise course. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:55, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Victoria I did explain the reason for my early reversion in the Edit Summary, not all of us have rollback rights.
Ah, it's good to see you Sandy. I was wondering when you were going to weigh in with an appearance, and I must say what a great friend you are proving to Shearonink in your efforts to prevent change to this phenomenal (featured article which has been vetted), and no stranger to Victoria too, very cosy, always right on cue, exactly when he needs you. It's as if you can read each other's thoughts, and once again you have made it crystal clear how you despise sfns, but you have gone above and beyond this time, not one stone unturned, almost identical to that discussion you both had with 7&6=thirteen three years ago.
These developers have introduced a system which has made it easy to add Notes direct to the Notelist and References to the Reflist helping editors create a simple Bibliography that contains all the books and journals referenced, as well as a really simple notation style, and no-one is allowed to implement it, because you don't like it? PorkyPowerPeanut (talk) 12:12, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Please remember to focus on content; a discussion of whether SFNs would be better in this particular article can happen after the prose and other damage is repaired. Again, interspersing a WP:CITEVAR change with other unnecessary or unhelpful changes is not good editing practice in any article, much less an FA. I will restore the non-WP:PROSELINE version, and if you want to discuss converting the citation style in a separate section, please feel free. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:36, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Notes and references

Shearonink something is wonky in Notes relative to References, which was not present in the version that passed FAC. Some of the notes are a, b, etc, while others are 1, 2 etc, which is confusing relative to citations. This had been corrected before I restored the version without prose problems, and now needs to be re-corrected. This separation of Notes with letters and Citations with numbers is better, as it doesn't re-use the same numbers to refer to different things (which does not work well on Wikipedia mirrors). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:47, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Fixed. Shearonink (talk) 14:07, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks! Now if we can get a breather, perhaps you will be the one to pick back through Porky's earlier edits to reconstruct those that were good, while not reintroducing repetitive starts of paragraphs using all dates ?? I ask only because I'm not seeing indications (yet) that anyone else will. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:15, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
I won't be able to get to do much editing for at least a couple of days. Shearonink (talk) 19:01, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

CITEVAR

  • I would have no objection to switching to SFNs for books (see dementia with Lewy bodies), if that is done with consensus, and without simultaneously introducing prose issues that look like WP:PROSELINE and other unnecessary changes in spacing that make it easier for editors with poor eyesight to edit, while making no difference to readers. Nonetheless, the original citation style did not use SFNs, it is a breach of WP:CITEVAR to change it, and the change should not be made unless there is consensus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:56, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what? WP:OWNBEHAVIOUR There's this huge elephant in the room PorkyPowerPeanut (talk) 13:01, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Please review WP:DISRUPT; [1] if you have a preference regarding the citation style of this article, this is where you can state it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:24, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I am so pleased that the three of you agree, you work well together, just how quick you were to respond when he summoned you to take over.
All I ask of other editors who happen to stumble across this train wreck, is that you compare the current page to how it was here, then decide which looked better.
This little clique are keen to draw attention to small details, like WP:PROSELINE, the removal of excessive spaces, and "wonky Notes relative to References", trying to infer that it needed much repair, desperate to detract from the revised Ref sections and new Bibliography, all links updated and working, until it was reverted. PorkyPowerPeanut (talk) 19:11, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Recent edit - full names of the dead

I am working through the full names of those killed, sourcing this article's stated information to a specific ref. Where there are differences with Ellsworth I have cited the specific differing reference. Ellsworth does spell Bromundt as "Bromund" but I am going with Bernstein in this case since he cites actual grave markers (Prologue to his 2022 edition). FYI - an issue with information/references I have run into is that many online sources seem to have lifted their info straight from this article without attribution (exact/matching wording...). Shearonink (talk) 16:46, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

PorkyPowerPeanut - I have started going through the names of those killed in the disaster and specifically referencing the spelling/names/nicknames that differ in various sources, (mostly from Ellsworth's listing since his book is the main reference for the list.) Many of these are the same as the name edits you instituted, I am adding references. I assume you noticed that Ellsworth's information can differ from other sources and wanted to thank you for that. Shearonink (talk) 19:46, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Recent edit (full names)

A recent edit added full names/middle names to the previously-listed names of the dead. In some cases these names now differ from the names as they are listed in the "Biography" section of Ellsworth's book (which is the main cited reference for the names). For instance, in Ellsworth's book, Kehoe's wife is listed as "Nellie Kehoe", not as "Ellen Agnes "Nellie" Price Kehoe". Some additional names that have been changed are Ralph A. Cushman -> Ralph Albert Cushman, Earl E. Ewing -> Earl Edwin Ewing, Katherine O. Foote -> Katherine Onalee Foote and so on. A separate source needs to be cited for any names that differ from what is in Ellsworth. Even if we have personal knowledge what these people's full names were, we can't claim that to be true without a cited source - (per WP:IRS & WP:V) it should be from a reliable sources and verifiable. PorkyPowerPeanut, if you could provide sources for these full names that would be helpful. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 13:51, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Shearonink see here. (Several of the sections above this one still need cleanup.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
oh dear...that's too bad, they seemed so interested in the subject. Well, I am going to go through the names and clean them up according to sources and only do that at this time. I don't understand how/why PPP was pulling out these complete names. If they had access to sources, and those sources differed from Ellsworth why not just go ahead and cite these sources? Shearonink (talk) 20:58, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Recent edits not improvements

PorkyPowerPeanut in this series of edits, you have made some good edits interspersed with some less-than-good. The options are to revert the lot, or you can clean up after yourself so others don't have to. As some examples of problems you have introduced (not exhaustive):

  • See MOS:ELLIPSES
  • You have removed attribution of opinions in several instances, which is unacceptable.

My recommendation is a full revert and that you should discuss your edits before adding them. The tradeoff of losing some nbs templates for restoring attribution is worth the revert. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:29, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Can you please show the instances to which you refer where attribution of opinions has been removed and any further examples of problems you feel have been introduced, thanks. PorkyPowerPeanut (talk) 17:25, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I have been swamped, sorry for not having time earlier (although it would have also been good for you to recognize some of these yourself). Most of the edits are unnecessary nbsps and spaces, other than that:
  • MOS:ELLIPSES -- every place in this diff where you changed them was wrong (although they weren't right initially either).
  • There is a considerable number of unnecessary non-breaking spaces (see WP:NBSP, there was also a considerable number of unnecessary nbsps before your edit, but instead of removing them, you templated them).
  • Why did you remove this date? For much of the next year until May 1927,
  • Why did you remove apparently; presumably there was some lack of clarify in the source? Kehoe had apparently intended to destroy the entire school and kill everyone
  • This is an opinion that should be attributed ... you removed the attribution: The school's creation was controversial, but Monty Ellsworth wrote in his book about the disaster that consolidated schools had great advantages over the smaller rural schools they replaced.
  • Why do you persist in removing spaces around ref names? People with faulty eyesight benefit from them and often add them intentionally for ease of editing.
  • Removing these semi-colons does not seem to aid clarity: Charles Hawson testified at the inquest that he saw the two men grapple over some type of long gun before Kehoe detonated the explosives stored in his truck, immediately killing himself; Huyck; Nelson McFarren, a retired farmer; and Cleo Clayton, an 8-year-old second-grader. Clayton had survived the first blast and then wandered out of the school building; he was killed by shrapnel from the exploding vehicle.
    Noting, with apology, that this was a second instance where I thought you had removed attribution, but I see in fact you only moved it, so I'm sorry for that mistake.
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:28, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia I am working my way through and adjusting most of the above issues that have been pointed out (except for the ref spaces). And I think I fixed all the ellipses issues... Shearonink (talk) 05:43, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Great ... I am unwatching now, as I intentionally keep my watchlist as trim as I can these days due to boatloads of IRL issues. If you have any questions, pls ping me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:31, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia Just an FYI - I agree that spaces should have been left around the ref names, it makes it so much easier even without terrible eyesight to be able to easily adjust any issues with references. I'm going to work my way through allll those changes & restore the previous spacing. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 15:00, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Though, I must confess, there are so many changes I am trying to specifically pick the spacing changes out and having a hard time. Did you have a certain edit in mind that changed them? (I know you're busy IRL but thanks in advance...) Shearonink (talk) 15:08, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bath_School_disaster/Archive_3&oldid=1185806149"