Wikipedia

Talk:Childers Palace Backpackers Hostel fire

Latest comment: 5 years ago by 2601:600:8880:19B6:A9B9:8769:8D14:B81A in topic List Of Victims
Learn more about this page
edit

link to "Inquest findings of the June 2000 fire published by the Queensland Coroner in July 2006" no longer works

possibly now located here

http://www.courts.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/86647/cif-childers-palace-hostel-fire-20060707.pdf

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago13 comments4 people in discussion

An image gallery (eventually) containing headshots of all the people who died in the fire brings this article very close to a memorial page as per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. The subject of this article is, quote, the Childers Palace Backpackers Hostel fire; not the individuals who died. Adding an image gallery does not contribute in any encyclopaedic way, and instead would make the page two to three times as long because of all the images.

Now, if a person who died in the fire was notable in their own right, their own article could be linked from the list of victims, and a photo of that person could be placed on their own page. However, no notable people died in this incident.

User:Duncanogi seems to be emotionally involved in this topic -- perhaps one of his relatives was victim Michael Lewis? -- and seems to be unaware of the guidelines WP:COI and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. I would suggest that he read up on these policies and come to terms with the fact that while Wikipedia is 'the encyclopaedia anyone can edit', it is not 'the encyclopaedia anyone can add any content they like to'. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 00:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

User:Duncanogi across the world in England from Australia is concerned to follow the Wikipedia guidance that overrides the repeated concerns of Simon-in-sagamihara. This article is rated as a "stub" by the Wikipedia Australia project -- "stub" is defined as "Any editing or additional material can be helpful. The provision of meaningful content should be a priority." I am providing highly relevant material (a photo of one person killed) that has been removed by you within 24 hours. Would you please be so good as to return it there? Please try to expand the article with more material rather than repeatedly denude it: when I became involved, I found it shocking that Australians had not expanded the article in the ten years since the arson event. This is not a memorial but a record of the wilful failure by the Australian authorities to keep itinerant poorly-paid workers (mostly students) safe: hopefully there have been improvements in the past 10 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duncanogi (talk • contribs) 18:40, 4 May 2010
The article is no longer marked as a stub. But even if it were, that does not mean you can just add anything you like to it - it must be notable as per WP:N, and tragic though the event was, the victims were not otherwise sufficiently notable to justify more personal information than is already present. People have discussed this with you a lot, and though we have great sympathy, you simply can not turn Wikipedia articles into memorials for Michael Lewis - there are plenty more suitable places on the web -- Boing! said Zebedee 19:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
I should also add that Wikipedia is also not the place to try to conduct campaigns against any neglect on the part of the Australian authorities. Wikipedia is for recording the facts of a case from a neutral point of view, and that's exactly what the article currently does. -- Boing! said Zebedee 19:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Boing! said pretty much what I was going to post but I have a couple of other points. Duncan, since you think Wikipedia guidelines override my concerns (which, as I have repeatedly noted, are due to Wikipedia guidelines), let me also direct your attention to WP:SOAPBOX. Wikipedia is NOT the place for you to be making, quote, "a record of the wilful failure by the Australian authorities to keep itinerant poorly-paid workers (mostly students) safe". If you want to do that, find your own free web hosting, write your own page, and write letters to politicians and media outlets. Wikipedia is not a soapbox!
It's admirable that you have uploaded pictures of your family and friends to Wikipedia but again, you cannot just expect to attach them to articles (in huge screen-breaking sizes sometimes) and expect them to stay. Imagine if you tried this with Encyclopaedia Britannica. Do you think they would include a picture of your relative in the article? Or imagine if the family of one of the other victims started uploading their pictures to this article. You know, like four or five pictures, in full colour, no less -- would you be OK with having the prominence of Lewis' picture reduced? With all due respect to the victim, he is not notable according to WP:N and his picture adds nothing of encyclopaedic value to the article.
There are established guidelines which you must follow if you expect your work to remain included in Wikipedia. Creative interpretation isn't needed with most of them. Take your objection to the non-stub-status of this article, for example. The very first line of WP:STUB reads

A stub is an article containing only a few sentences of text which is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject, but not so short as to provide no useful information, and it should be capable of expansion.

Now, from reading the Childers fire article, I get all the necessary information -- what happened, who did it, who was involved, where and when, and the aftereffects. Obviously this does not match the bolded section above. This is a stub; this and this are also clearly stubs. The Childers fire article is not a stub.
Another two policies which I highly recommend you read are No original research and Neutral point of view. The first indicates that you cannot simply sit down at your PC, fire up a Wikipedia article and start typing your essay. Please read the second paragraph in particular which addresses some of the problems with your contributions. The second requires that you maintain a disinterested tone and refrain from emotive language. All of your contributions to this article to date can be argued to fail this policy as you yourself have indicated you have a particular beef with the Australian government over the matter.
Please, please, read and reflect on these policies before you continue to edit this article. I (and I assume Boing!) are perfectly willing to help to improve the article -- look, even if you just find a reliable published source that supports your ideas, I'll be happy to write it up myself. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 00:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Yes indeed, I'd be happy to help too - we just need notable info and reliable sources to work from -- Boing! said Zebedee 08:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Duncanogi (talk) 15:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC) To clarify -- despite your insinuations about relatives or friends:Reply

  • I have never been to Australia
  • I am not a relative of Michael Lewis
  • I met a relative of Michael Lewis who alerted me to the fire
  • I became involved entirely altruistically because I felt that this tragic event was inadequately covered ten years after the murders
  • I thought that the Wikipedia article inadequately covered the event
  • I researched 200+ pages about the event, memorial event, law suits etc
  • I thought that Wikipedia would welcome my research
  • I feel constantly thwarted by others who are not themselves researching but are deleting material
  • The artist Jo Palaiatis has agreed that her picture can be displayed (see her email that I loaded on the image page but I believe Simon-in-sagamihara removed)
  • Jo emailed me 6 May: Hi Duncan, I think they want me to use their official text for the permission. I've been away for the last week and a half so have a bit of catching up to do. Leave it with me and will get on to it as soon as I can. I have emailed her again today: she is probably a busy lady.
  • I find that the picture has again been removed by Simon-in-sagamihara to the dismay of the mother of the murdered Michael Lewis
  • Please be sensitive to the situation and restore the picture until the copyright situation is resolved.Duncanogi (talk) 15:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
No, absolutely not - Copyright law demands that copyrighted images are not used until permission to use them is properly established. As soon as permission is properly given, the image can be used, but until then it legally can not. -- Boing! said Zebedee 16:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
I find that the picture has again been removed by Simon-in-sagamihara to the dismay of the mother of the murdered Michael Lewis. I didn't delete the file, Duncan. As per established, easily-found Wikipedia policy, I noticed that the copyright status was mistakenly given as "public domain" when the email allegedly from the artist said, in effect, "you can use this on one Wikipedia article". Therefore, I listed it at another easily-found Wikipedia page called "Possibly Unfree Files". You know this, because I posted a link to the discussion on your talk page, and you responded to it. During this discussion, other editors examined the issue and determined that the image did not have an appropriate copyright status. A Wikipedia administrator deleted the image after you failed to provide proof of public-domain status or update the copyright tag to a more appropriate one. Once the image itself was deleted, all I did was remove the red link from this article.
Second, I point out to you again that Wikipedia is NOT a memorial nor a soapbox. I implore you to read these policies which are clearly established. I didn't write them, Duncan. I didn't participate in the writing process at all. But I know they're there and that there is clear, established consensus for their use and application. To put it bluntly: Wikipedia does not care about the feelings of Mrs Lewis. You might think this is harsh, but that's the way it is. Now, if you can get a newspaper article written, including a quote by Mrs Lewis along the lines of "Those callous, know-nothing Wikipedia bastards keep removing my son's photo and I've had it up to here!", and can provide a link to that article, then as I've said before, I'll put it in the article myself!
You seem to have this idea that everyone (me) is against you and removing or undoing your precious edits when really, you are having trouble accepting Wikipedia's policies. Every single one of my edits can be backed up by an established Wikipedia policy. Heck, I've asked administrators to check them over to make sure everything was above board, and got the thumbs-up. Therefore, you can threaten to take your bat and ball and go home as much as you like, but at this point I'm going to stop assuming good faith and presume that you are purposely ignoring Wikipedia policy and attempting to add what you want to say, dammit! to articles, whether or not such additions are worthwhile or not. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 23:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Let me sum it up another way: Your research is valuable and appreciated. Think of yourself as a writer, and me (and others) as your editors. If you have trouble formatting your text appropriately, or going off on tangents, we are here to help you come up with a polished finished product. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 23:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Duncanogi (talk) 18:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

You Simon-in-sagamihara know that:

  • The artist has given permission for her very relevant picture to be diplayed as in various printed publications
  • The artist's wording apparently does not agree with Wikipedia's copyright wording
  • The situation after deaths is sensitive

Why not contact the artist yourself rather than writing reams of words here? Just write a polite note to the artist on her web site, adding your support for publication and detailing the correct wording needed. I am exasperated.Duncanogi (talk) 18:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)Reply


I have removed the list of names along with the corresponding image in line with WP:NOTMEMORIAL. I know this is an emotive subject but this isn't the place for it. I did some searching and found the same list on Facebook which is a far more appropriate place for such things and allows those with a connection or those who want to say something to do so. Fraggle81 (talk) 00:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Ratings

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This article only has a few sentences, being mostly composed of a list. It is barely start class.--Grahame (talk) 02:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Duncanogi (talk) 15:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC) I agree. It is sad that with the tenth anniversary approaching of this tragic event that more contributions have not been made -- especially from Childers inhabitants. I (in UK, not ever having visited Australia) have tried with difficulty to add picures and other information -- the pictures and much text has been deleted by others without them researching the event(see above) -- I am now so put off contributing altruistically to Wikipedia.Duncanogi (talk) 15:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

News sources for further expansion of content

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Don't know if it's worth 200 pages of legal research, but anyway, here are five six pages that could be used to flesh out the article. All are from the first page of Google hits.
smh.com.au - The Sydney Morning Herald
BBC News | ASIA-PACIFIC | At the Childers hostel fire trial
BBC News | ASIA-PACIFIC | Drifter guilty of hostel fire murders
7.30 Report - 26/6/2000: Police continue hunt for Childers hostel fire suspect
Australian backpacker hostel victims had no chance of escaping fire
Backpacker hostel fire suspect shot and captured in woods - Australasia, World - The Independent
Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 09:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Duncanogi (talk) 17:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC) How about you add them in then to improve the article -- Wikipedia needs additional material and not so much time spent on comments.Reply

Nice comment from the jackass who filled up an entire page with tenditious arguments and useless rambling. How about adhering to the rules of Wikipedia, and setting up a memorial site on your own? it's obviously sometihng important to you, but not soemthing that falls under Wikipedia's purview. I know that would take some real effort, instead of just lazily using Wikipedia's ready-made tmeplate. Right now, your childish and whiny atttiude just serves as a display of your own stupidity and is an insult to the memories of those who died. Seriously, you need some mental health treatment. You sound about as crazy as the damn arsonist! 173.61.238.235 (talk) 04:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Childers Palace Backpackers Hostel fire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:02, 22 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

List Of Victims

edit
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The names of the victims have been deleted from the original page a while ago, so i thought i put them here since there's not many places where you can find all 15 names (at least to my knowledge)

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Childers_Palace_Backpackers_Hostel_fire&oldid=1200846377"