Talk:Dunblane massacre

List of victims

Does the presence of this list breach WP:NOTMEMORIAL? Britmax (talk) 12:00, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We should have the names of the victims, they deserve to be remembered. "Lest we forget" springs to mind — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:c7f:8e7a:800:702e:1f26:ccd4:df62 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not asking whether or not they deserve to be remembered. I am asking whether they should be listed here. Britmax (talk) 12:12, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
NOTMEMORIAL concerns writing articles as memorials to non-notable people. That is not the case here. This is a sourced list of victims included in an article about a notable event. I personally don't like to see such lists and I wouldn't add one myself, but this issue has been discussed previously on this talk page (see the archive) and the list has been in the article for years so there seems to be consensus to include. If you think it should be removed then make your case, but I don't think NOTMEMORIAL is applicable. Meters (talk) 06:21, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My question is should the name of the perpetrator be included in the list of the children and teacher he murdered? Personally I think it is totally inappropriate and an insult to the victims and their families. unsigned IP post - 21 Aug 2020
As one who recalls reading of the events in the UK national news, I would say it depends on the list's goalpost. If intended to be a list of victims it would of course be inappropriate but in a list of deaths caused in the incident I consider it would not be.Cloptonson (talk) 19:40, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with 'Snowdrop campaign'?

I suggest Snowdrop Campaign mege with this article. Pincrete (talk) 20:08, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There should 100% be a link to the snowdrop campaign. Both are related and it's relevant information to what happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:c7f:8e7a:800:702e:1f26:ccd4:df62 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dunblane massacre. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 18:33, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dunblane massacre. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 00:28, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Murray

I've removed an unsourced mention of Andy Murray form the lead. It seems WP:UNDUE to mention him just because he happened to be there and is now notable. The incident is mentioned in his article, so we could easily find a source to verify that he was there, but I don't think it belongs in this article at all, let alone the lead.

I'm bringing this to the talk page because this material keeps getting restored to the article, and previous discussions on this are now archived. Talk:Dunblane massacre/Archive 1#Andrew Murray, See Talk:Dunblane massacre/Archive 1#Andy Murray - Redux, Talk:Dunblane massacre/Archive 1#Andy Murray Ver 3.0. Those discussions were largely looking at whether he was actually present and whether the description of his actions during the event were accurate, but user:Nick Cooper and user:thefunkygibson argued against including any mention of Murray, and multiple editors have removed mention of Murray from the article in the last 10 years. Meters (talk) 21:19, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree wholeheartedly that it does not belong in the lead, a brief mention in the body would be the very most that is apt. Murray's own page includes comments from him which basically boil down to "I was too young to understand what was happening". Perhaps we could insert a note in the lead to NOT add? Pincrete (talk) 23:13, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would maintain there is little utility to mentioning Murray at all, let alone in the lead. This is an event where the over-arching notability is the event itself, and the wide-ranging consequences of it. That someone who has subsequently become world famous happened to be in the same building at the time has no bearing on any of that. We can contrast this with other events where notable people happened to be incidentally involved, and we don't elaborate much beyond that (e.g. those killed in the 2002 Potters Bar rail crash). Nick Cooper (talk) 09:40, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Of course that Andy Murray was there and has been speaking on more than one occasion about the incident, more recently in the context of other school shootings [1] is very relevant. Should then the references to Seth MacFarlane, Mark Wahlberg, and Leighanne Littrell be removed from American Airlines Flight 11: they were not there, but they could had been there? 212.202.135.206 (talk) 12:29, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Murray SHOULD be mentioned somewhere in this article. --Doric Loon (talk) 15:29, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why? He himself (I believe) has said that he was too young for it to have had any impact on him. What understanding does it add to this terrible event that a - much later - to be famous person happened to be there as a child? Pincrete (talk) 18:06, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a paragraph adapted information copied from Andy's wiki biography at the tail end of the Media Coverage section. All the sentences are sourced and the sources are readable online to those who want to know further detail. Because his 'being there' has had so much media attention I believe it should stay to provide perspective as to how well known the attack and its perpetrator were to the family. If my additions discourage at least one reader from making intrusive approaches to Murray and his family by obviating some need to ask questions, then that does a service - that is my justification.Cloptonson (talk) 19:57, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've pruned your entry slightly, anyone wanting to read more of Murray's account can go to his article. Pincrete (talk) 04:18, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

Hamilton biography

Why is there so little in this article about the early life of Thomas Hamilton? Other mass killers have much longer biographies on Wikipedia, see Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold for example. --Viennese Waltz 09:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why deletion?

What file (?) is proposed for deletion (according to the note below the portrait), and why? Hugo999 (talk) 01:26, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's at WP:FFD now. It's File:Thamilton.jpeg, and the question is, "Does it meet WP:NFCC?" John from Idegon (talk) 19:04, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rose

Would it be possible to get a photograph of the Gwen Mayor rose? I think that would be fitting and would enrich the article - and it is a fine rose in its own right. There is a photo here: https://twitter.com/eisunion/status/1238406071884054528 but of course I don't know if that is copyright. --Doric Loon (talk) 10:10, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Age parameter

User:Arctarion, Regarding this edit]. WP:BRD mandates that if an edit is challenged, the editor making the change MUST take the matter to talk. The default is the re-instatement of the pre-existing text until agreement on any addition or change is reached. There is no 'exemption clause' for "the challenge made no sense to me", even less for "well they do this on a similar article". Therefore the norm would be for me to revert your changes until such time as agreement is reached here, per the rules. I'm not going to do that however.

What happens on another article is an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Unless the other article(s) are established as being the accepted norm, it proves nothing. Maybe the other article is wrong or maybe the two articles choose to do things differently. FWIW, my objection was that the "x years ago" added nothing. I can see the sense of including the "age" of an ongoing situation (an active war, the current COVID pandemic etc), but thought/think that adding it universally to event articles is an obtrusively pointless gimmick. How is that different from saying that the battle of Hastings/Waterloo/Midway or the decapitation of Anne Boleyn happened X00 years, y months, d days ago? I have edited many UK and Europe 'tragedy' events - terrorist attacks etc and almost none use the 'x years ago'. I also checked a random selection of modern, mainly UK, "major incidents" - about half include the "age", with a slight tendency for it to be included when the event occurred more than 20+ years previously. but post 1960-ish. So there appears to be a slight tendency with older events, but there isn't really a 'norm'.

What has caused me to re-think challenging your change is that another editor reformatted to 'bracket/parenthesise' the (y years ago) text. IMO it makes it much less obtrusive and not worth the effort of my objecting. I'm only leaving this post to inform you of some of our norms. Pincrete (talk) 11:54, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ages of victims

There is not a single mention of the respective ages of any of the victims. Makes no sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CorbyBoog (talk • contribs) 01:41, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a table on the right hand side of the article, most of the victims were five years old.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:00, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did you instead mean there is a single mention of the victims’ ages? Seasider53 (talk) 10:16, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This town deserves better :(

So I was looking up different places in this part of Scotland because I'm researching my ancestry, and I looked up "Dunblane Scotland" and this was the second or third result and it's not very wholesome and I know people are probably looking for info about this shooting but in my search was easy to see that it was regarding the town itself so there's no reason to include these not wholesome results.

I really don't like it when tragedies become synonymous with the place where they happened, this must really be not nice for the inhabitants of Dunblane, like imagine your own town's reputation being tainted by such a tragedy, and sure this town isn't the only tragedy-struck place in the UK, but Dunblane hardly has anything to overcome that.

It's like how sometimes when someone dies people focus too much on how they died and not enough on the life they lived, which isn't nice for those affected by their death. I know this is more the fault of sensationalist journalism and Google's faulty indexing and search AI, but it's just something to think about. 51.191.5.190 (talk) 10:31, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is an element of WP:RGW here, because Wikipedia has no control over how external websites such as Google search present their results. Perhaps unsurprisingly, typing "Sandy Hook" into Google produces a string of results about the shooting.[1]--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:08, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just felt the need to vent about this. I just hate the fact the name of this hapless town has become inseparable from the shooting, which is completely undeserved. Why couldn't the media have just let Dunblane carry on as just another small town. I don't think it's nice for Dunblane's inhabitants to be constantly reminded of the massacre. I was just very uncomfortable with how every piece of media portrays Dunblane as a place that will never recover from the incident. I'd just like to thank Wikipedia for not putting things about the massacre front and centre on the town itself's page and not dedicating an entire section like it's an integral part of the town. 82.132.238.237 (talk) 14:15, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is true of countless places, Dunblane was unknown to most of the world's non-Scottish population before this happened. Auschwitz was once a fairly anonymous Polish town, Srebrenica ditto Bosnian town. In Chernobyl and Aberfan people quietly got on with their lives, but the rest of the world cannot any longer think of these places without thinking of each's one notorious event. Does anyone think of Pompeii as a thriving Roman city, rather than a petrified place. It doesn't affect what WP writes, but it doesn't hurt to remind ourselves that those who live or lived there have completely different associations. Pincrete (talk) 05:30, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dunblane_massacre