Talk:2014 Glasgow bin lorry crash

Reaction section

The reaction section contains several sentences which may have been interesting immediately after the crash, but taking a longer view seem to me to be irrelevant:

Many compared it to the helicopter crash in the city the previous November. Saying they understood the sorrow and questions the families of dead in the George Square incident must have, the mothers of two girls killed on a 2010 Christmas shopping trip by a Range Rover that hit them on the pavement in North Hanover Street, said they were still waiting for the Crown Office to do their job. Charges against the driver of the Range Rover, a 53 year old man, were dropped. He gave testimony at a fatal accident inquiry of having hit the girls through suffering a loss of consciousness due to an undiagnosed medical condition; the case received a great deal of newspaper and television publicity when the inquiry ended in November 2014 and the bereaved families called for him to face charges.

I propose removing those sentences. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with you; that which is being quoted above contains nothing irrelevant or unreferenced. It contains no superseded information, and was thought relevant by the source, which is the Daily Record of 11 January 2015 . Unless you argue there is something wrong with the Record, it seems you are talking about a vague concept of 'longer view', and giving an opinion of what a 'longer view' is not in this case, without support from Wikipedia policy explaining why a 'longer view' or your opinion of what it is should take precedence over what in fact did appear in the reputable source of the Daily Record. And the incident did not happen a long time ago so if a temporal standpoint after Jan 11 2015 is required for a 'longer view' everything in the article would have to go. Please adduce some Wikipedia guidance or policy in support of your proposal.Overagainst (talk) 12:54, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

See WP:10YT. "In ten years will this addition still appear relevant?" More particularly, the sentences I propose deleting are nothing to do with the bin lorry crash. It is material that was published in a newspaper at the time as incidental background commentary. It is not relevant to this article and should not be included. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

That was an essay, not guidance or policy. If recentism defined as or anything we can't expect will be still be of relevance in 10 years was banned, it is difficult to see how anything in the news could have an article created in the same year in happened, yet that is the opposite of how it is done on Wikipedia, there are such articles created without objection all the time, and they are not stubs that are held to a single background-less event as you seem to be suggesting is mandated. Publicity is the main source for such articles. The NPOV policy as I read it is content is not restricted to the subject in the way you are saying. It does have to be notable and NPOV and have good sources. If it was nothing to do with the subject, it would lack a single source and be the result of synthesizing two of more articles. In truth and in fact I have a source explicitly discussing the two things (that you say are nothing to do with one another) within a single piece focused on the subject of the crash, which is the subject of this Wikipedia article. It is standard journalism and not comment or an opinion piece in any way I can see.Overagainst (talk) 16:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Just to make clear, again - I have no objection to the existence of the article. What I find unnecessary is the inclusion in the article of information on unrelated events simply because a newspaper mentioned them in the same article. We do not report "standard journalism". We use reliable journalistic sources to provide encyclopedia-worthy information on specific topics. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The reference is not a comment or opinion piece, and is a single source piece on the same topic that is the subject of this Wikipedia article. the reference is a reliable and reputable journalistic source, which is the biggest daily paper in Scotland. The standard of an encyclopedia-worthy article on Wikipedia as it actually exists is being met. You have made no objection to another separate event being mentioned, and without a ref either: "Many compared it to the helicopter crash in the city the previous November." One cannot say something is clear unless it is. I have had it made clear that your opinion is that the content you are objecting to is not properly encyclopedic-worthy. Well I think by the relevant standard, which is the standard of Wikipedia edits that pass muster, it is, being notable and properly sourced. If you want to suggest improvements to the tone and better phrasing I am listening. If you want agreement to it being removed entirely, please give me an example of an analogous case where collective consensus or oversight of similar content deemed it unacceptable or undesirable by Wikipedia standards._Overagainst (talk) 19:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean? - "You have made no objection to another separate event being mentioned, and without a ref either: "Many compared it to the helicopter crash in the city the previous November." That is precisely some of the text that I would like to remove - together with the reference to the 2010 incident. The fact that it is properly sourced is irrelevant. What ,matters is that it has nothing to do with the subject of this article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The prior helicopter crash, which was not my edit, has abundant sources for inclusion as relevant, and seems to have been uncontroversial. Or did you take it out already? You want to apply a principle of exclusion that would take well sourced as relevant content relating to a prior car crash out. I think I asked for quotes of policy not interpretation as to where the content you are complaining about is overstepping the mark ("What ,matters is that it has nothing to do with the subject of this article.). If removal is mandated in explicit policy or guidance I will of course comply, but as your principle is not evident in any policy, or in actual practice in articles that I can see, please supply example of similar cases where the exclusionary rigour you are championing here has actually been used. Given status and experience. As already said, I am open to having the tone and phrasing changed. For complete removal on the grounds the content is against an explicit policy, the specific explicit guidelines need to be adduced. WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT carries some weight coming from an experienced master editor, and if you want to expand on why it is just wrong to have this content, on sensibility grounds for instance, then I'll take it very seriously _Overagainst (talk) 12:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:OFFTOPIC - not policy or guidance, just good advice on how to improve an article. I must admit that I had thought my proposal would be fairly uncontentious, but you seem determined to keep the existing wording. The next stage - if no other editors wish to contribute here - would be to go to WP:3O. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The source is a single one and not off topic as an off topic source would require synthesis with another one. I rethought that last comment and altered its meaning just before your reply. Perhaps you are right, but only on sensibility grounds.Overagainst (talk) 12:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The single source itself goes off-topic, which is nothing unusual. We do not have to summarise the whole of the source material. This article is about the lorry crash, not similar incidents. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "sensibility" - presumably not this. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Call it tone if you like. Sources can be off topic but the concept of them going off topic would allow the exclusion of anything no matter how well sourced. Two similar helicopter crashes less than a mile apart in Glasgow city centre during Christmas shopping could not be mentioned even though sources were connecting them, if someone took it upon themselves to decide topics have barriers for example ._Overagainst (talk) 13:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not interested in discussing hypotheticals. The fact remains that, just because a newspaper discussed other events in the same article, it does not mean that we should do the same. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Waived

"The driver, 58-year-old Harry Clarke, who waived the anonymity he was given immediately after the incident". 'Waived' means you give up a right. He was given anonymity, for a time. But, as far as I am aware he had no right as the driver of the vehicle, similar to the right that a victim of sexual assault or a minor has not to have their name published. So waived is the wrong word. I don't necessarily think his name should be in the article, at this time._Overagainst (talk) 13:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

"Waiving anonymity" is a perfectly normal and routine wording, used regularly in similar circumstances. There is no good reason not to include his name, given that it is widely published and he will apparently not face any charges. However, if the article is reworded to remove any mention of his anonymity - and to exclude the much less relevant background material mentioned in the thread above - I certainly won't insist on his name being included. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

He could not have insisted on anonymity under the law, therefore he had no right to waive. If the wording is used in similar circumstances I would be interested to read what cases you know of which you think are similar; men saying that they had blacked out due to an undiagnosed medical condition and that is why the heavy vehicle they were driving left the road and ran over and killed several people on the pavement is and extremely rare as far as I know. That is what makes it notable enough for an article. Perhaps you know of other examples? Still, I think a Wikipedia article on this subject probably should not be identifying him as he is a living person. If you read the source, which I have linked to, it says the relatives of the only similar incident have been waiting years for a decision on whether charges will be brought._Overagainst (talk) 16:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Google results for the term "waive anonymity" are here. Of course, I used "similar circumstances" more loosely than you suggest - there are many circumstances in which blameless individuals have been involved centrally in notable incidents. We agree that the incident is notable. The name of the person whose illness caused the incident has been published, and there is no reason (per WP:BLPNAME) that I can see not to name him in the article. I still don't see how mentioning the 2010 incident is relevant - it assumes a similarity that may not exist in reality. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

PS: If you want further discussion on the naming issue, I suggest you raise it at WP:BLPN. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:39, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated

1)The Daily Record specifically says that while they knew but chose not to print his name, a Saturday broadsheet went ahead and named him. As I said above he wasn't given anonymity, of the type that could be 'waived'. Moreover he had already been named when he spoke to the Record newspaper. "HARRY Clarke, 58, who was first named in a Saturday broadsheet" here

2)Article text "It is not expected that he will face any charges" is currently referenced to a source which actually says "There has been no suggestion at this stage of criminal charges against anyone involved in the accident." The two are quite different and as I have pointed out, the Crown office still have not made a decision about whether the Range Rover driver with a similar excuse who killed those young women two years ago (while driving without insurance by the way) is going to be charged with anything. here. Overagainst (talk) 20:38, 16 February 2015 (UTC)