Talk:Dominici affair

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

The page "Dominici Affair" is only a short summary. The French version (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affaire_Dominici) has a great deal more information. Is someone able and willing to translate the French into English and transfer it onto the English page, perhaps editing as necessary? Akld guy (talk) 04:41, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are right that this article deserves expansion. It has very little, in its present version, that is not already covered in Jack Drummond. When I cleaned up and greatly expanded that article (after hearing the BBC R4 Start the Week piece on Drummond), I wrote the "Murder" section summary-style with a link to a "Main article", since a full treatment of the murder, the trial, the scandals, the controversies, speculations re the perpetrator(s) and the motive(s) would overwhelm the biographical article on Drummond. In my view such an article should cover a much wider field than does fr:Affaire Dominici, which is why I suggested the title Drummond murders. See my request at Wikipedia:WikiProject France/Article requests#History. If anyone wants to do a serious, thorough job of expanding this article, he or she can count on my support, although for now I would prefer to concentrate on investigating and cleaning up the many loose ends in the Drummond article.
Relevant articles to read, just as a starting-point (esp. the sources listed there):
--NSH001 (talk) 15:53, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NSH001, Thank you. I also would support an expansion of the page, or creation of a "Drummond murders" page. Akld guy (talk) 21:43, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I created this page by starting to translate it from the French article "Affaire Dominici". I am a professional translator, English (UK) native speaker, and French is one of my working languages. The French article is absolutely colossal. I would like to translate the whole thing eventually but it is just a question of time. I am separately translating bits of it but have not added them here because they end in incomplete sections that would look odd and inconclusive in an article describing the event. Cheers, MorbidStories 18 November 2016

@MorbidStories: @NSH001: MorbidStories, thank you for your reply. I appreciate any further translation and expansion of the article that you can find time for. For me, the fascinating thing is the possible link to Annecy shootings which occurred almost exactly 50 years earlier. Akld guy (talk) 13:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Akld, I think you mean "later", not "earlier"! If you're interested in the Annecy shootings, you might find the following humungous discussions useful:
(I gave up long before the end of those threads!)
FWIW, I don't think there is any connection between the two, beyond the obvious, superficial similarities, but would be v interested if you did find one.
I'd love to get deeply involved in Drummond again, but am v busy on other matters. --NSH001 (talk) 17:01, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I meant almost exactly 60 years later. I wrote it after 2 am after a long and tiring day, when a little stressed over the 2016 Kaikoura earthquake. Even hundreds of miles away, we're still on edge wondering if we're next. Akld guy (talk) 17:35, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I see this article has been decimated by people on a power trip following rules that contravene all common sense. It is impossible to have a reasonable conversation with such people, who apparently have a black-and-white view of life. All they say is that something is either a rule or not a rule, rather than using common sense, discretion and thought to treat each situation on a case-by-case basis on its merits and weaknesses. Anyway, thanks for your efforts on this, cheers, have a good day.--Getbacktothecarpet (talk) 07:18, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Condemning the reduction of the article to a bald nonentity[edit]

Having read the article some years ago and found it to include some useful and valuable insights into the Dominici affair, I was horrified to return to it today and see how it has been turned into little more than a tiny snapshot devoid of any information about the case and its involvment with Dominici.

It seems that two editors (User:Drmies and User:Dweller) see it as their mission to cut out all but the bare minimum of information with the least effort to consider that there was anything more worthwhile to say about the subject, and to continually revert any dissenting edits.

A conversation on | WP 'discussion' apparently justifies the reduction. However the discussion was between User:Drmies and User:Dweller who summarily dismissed User:Auric's concerns. There's no hint that there was any of the usual process to resolve this issue with a consensus. PårWöet (talk) 10:30, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Wikipedia has core principles. Among them are WP:BLP, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:V. Pretty certain Drmies would agree with my position, which is that I'd be very happy for there to be a huge article once more, if it conforms to those policies. The consensus you're looking for is already well established - that we need to uphold those policies. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:36, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm yes Dweller is right in that I would agree. No, not would--will agree. PårWöet, sometimes these old people with thousands of edits actually know what they're doing. Drmies (talk) 12:47, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fair comment. But if age was ever a measure of worth.... PårWöet (talk) 08:04, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dominici_affair&oldid=1207005160"