Jump to content

Talk:Omagh bombing: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Conypiece (talk | contribs)
642 edits
Line 255: Line 255:
:::::: Thats a good reply Domer, hmmm. [[User:Conypiece|Conypiece]] 00:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
:::::: Thats a good reply Domer, hmmm. [[User:Conypiece|Conypiece]] 00:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
:::::: Btw if anyone didn't pick it up, the above was sarcasm [[User:Conypiece|Conypiece]] 00:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
:::::: Btw if anyone didn't pick it up, the above was sarcasm [[User:Conypiece|Conypiece]] 00:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps Bastun would like to explain why he twice removed the list of dead from Bloody Sunday claiming WP:NOT applied ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bloody_Sunday_%281972%29&diff=145553204&oldid=144491299] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bloody_Sunday_%281972%29&diff=145645274&oldid=145643652]) and then started a discussion saying the list failed the memorial part of WP:NOT ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABloody_Sunday_%281972%29&diff=145648709&oldid=140471365])? And I suggest this article is covered in the mediation request, as the same principles are involved. Link [[Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-08-24 Birmingham pub bombings]]. [[User:Brixton Busters|Brixton Busters]] 06:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:08, 25 August 2007

"WP:IR" redirects here. For WikiProject International relations, see Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations. For image requests, see Wikipedia:Requested pictures. For Wikipedia ignore all rules (IAR) policy, see Wikipedia:Ignore all rules.
Irish Republicanism articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total
FA 1 1 2
GA 1 2 6 3 12
B 12 15 39 28 5 99
C 5 12 54 62 26 159
Start 4 37 172 196 126 535
Stub 1 26 77 29 133
List 1 2 2 10 3 18
NA 1 4 3 174 182
Assessed 24 70 304 379 174 189 1,140
Unassessed 1 1
Total 24 70 304 379 174 190 1,141
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 4,430 Ω = 4.71


Welcome to the Irish Republicanism WikiProject, a collaboration of editors dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of Irish republicanism, Irish nationalism, and related organizations, peoples, and other topics.

(For more information on WikiProjects, please see Wikipedia:WikiProject and the Guide to WikiProjects).

Goals

  • Improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to Irish Republicanism and Irish Nationalism.
  • Gather interested editors, and provide a central location to discuss matters pertaining to the above.

Scope

  • Topics related to Irish Republicanism and Irish Nationalism.

Guidelines

Open tasks

This 'To do' list- has it been updated since 2007? Basket Feudalist (talk) 16:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Armed Campaigns

Republican Wars

Others

Events

Armed Republican Groups

For an organized hierarchial chart, see Genealogy of the IRA

Irish Republicans

Note: There are many, many IRA Volunteers of varying memberships, and we cannot list them all here. We have many categories for that. Only particularly notable members should be listed here.

Early Volunteers; the Wars

Later IRA

Other

Participants

This user is a member of WikiProject Irish Republicanism.

Please feel free to add yourself here, and to indicate any areas of particular interest

  1. Paddytheceltic (talk · contribs) Protestant Nationalists, Militant oganisations, Political Organizations and others..
  2. Erin Go Bragh (talk · contribs) Militant Armed Irish Republican organizations. Gaelic.
  3. Kathryn NicDhàna (talk · contribs) I've been working on some of the articles about women in the Easter Rising.
  4. Pauric (talk · contribs) Too much to mention
  5. Derry Boi (talk · contribs) Interested in all areas of republicanism really.
  6. One Night In Hackney (talk · contribs) Bit of everything
  7. Irish Republican (talk · contribs) Irish Republicanism 1798-Present
  8. Vintagekits (talk · contribs) Irish Republicanism past and present with more focus on the history of the Provisionals
  9. Phoblacht (talk · contribs) Republican Newspapers from 1790’s to Present.
  10. GiollaUidir (talk · contribs) Republican activities from the 1969-mid 80's. Also, biogs of (primarily) dead activists both political and military. Post-1986 is mainly CIRA activity and shoot-to-kill operations by the SAS etc.
  11. Leopold III (talk · contribs) The leaders in the period from the Easter Rising to the end of the Civil War.
  12. Kevin Murray (talk · contribs) Learning more and helping where I can.
  13. Scolaire (talk · contribs) 20th century history, especially the 1913-1922 period
  14. Sheehan07 (talk · contribs) Love Irish History
  15. Sbfenian1916 (talk · contribs) Love Irish Republicansim, hate Unionism.
  16. United and Free (talk · contribs)- PIRA history and operations
  17. Fluffy999 (talk · contribs) Inter(world)war republican activities. Internment and extra judicial activities surrounding Irish Republicanism.
  18. Free Scotland, Unite Ireland (talk · contribs) Interested in post- St Andrews agreement Republicanism.
  19. Diarmaid (talk · contribs) Six county sovereignty
  20. Domer48 (talk · contribs) Period covered by the Irish Confederation (Young Ireland)
  21. Conghaileach (talk · contribs) Special interest in left-republican history
  22. Max rspct (talk · contribs) PIRA;INLA; civil war era; 70s 80s 90s; links/solidarity abroad;
  23. Carrignafoy (talk · contribs) War of Independence and Civil War (especially in Cork) also development of Official Sinn Féin and its successors.
  24. Brixton Busters (talk · contribs)
  25. BigDunc (talk · contribs)
  26. Ró2000 (talk • contribs) Tá suim mhór agam i stair náisiúnta na hÉireann, neamhspleach go háirithe!!
  27. quirk666 (talk · contribs) Republicanism 1798-present. 32 County Sovereignty Movement
  28. gavcos (talk · contribs) Old IRA, War of Independence, Civil War
  29. ElementalEternity (talk · contribs) 20:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)Irish history and republicanism in general.[reply]
  30. Biofoundationsoflanguage 15:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Moz1916 (talk · contribs) All Irish history, especially 1903-1932
  32. Princess Pea Face (talk · contribs) Ireland pure and simple
  33. Barryob (talk · contribs)
  34. NIscroll (talk · contribs) --NIscroll (talk) 19:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. RSFRuairi (talk · contribs) Anything really.
  36. Gr8opinionater (talk · contribs) 1:10 July 27 2008 (GMT), Interested in Irish nationalism in general particularly from a Political and historical point of view.
  37. Lihaas (talk · contribs) open to much
  38. EoinBach (talk · contribs) Irish republicanism in general from an academic point of view
  39. Gerard Madden (talk · contribs)
  40. SPARTAN-J024 (talk · contribs) I have ties to the Easter Rising and the Irish War of Independence
  41. NewIreland2009 (talk) The 1912-1924 period, with a particular passion for challenging popular myths of the period.
  42. Dribblingscribe (talk) 20:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Tippsno1fan (talk · contribs) Tá an-spéis agam ann
  44. Gallagher-Glass (talk · contribs) General interest.
  45. Fallduff (talk · contribs) National Archives, Dublin and Na Fianna Éireann, pre Northern Troubles
  46. Mabuska (talk · contribs) maintaining neutrality and verifiability
  47. Nicholas Urquhart (talk · contribs) military operations of the "New IRAs": the Provos, the Reals and even OnH, the Official and Continuity IRA.
  48. You Can Act Like A Man (talk · contribs) 32 CSM
  49. Finnegas (talk · contribs)
  50. Sittingonthefence (talk · contribs) Irish republicanism as a philosophy. 1916 and War of Independence combatants.
  51. High_Noonan (talk · contribs) Tom Hunter, 1916, War of Independence
  52. Antiqueight (talk · contribs) Women involved in 1916 or similar.
  53. AusLondonder (talk · contribs) General matters.
  54. Tdv123 (talk · contribs) PIRA, OIRA, INLA, IPLO, ICA, IVF, SE, CRF, SARAF, PLA
  55. Irishpolitical (talk · contribs) Traditionalist Republicanism and Nationalism. Dissenting republicans post GFA. Anti-communist Republicanism.
  56. CnocBride (talk · contribs) All Irish history, though my favourite time period would be the vast 1800–2011 period.
  57. KINGHB190 (talk · contribs) A Corkonian with ancestry in the original Irish Republican Army.

Userbox

Feel free to place {{User WP:IR}} on your User page to advertise our WikiProject!

Articles

Featured content

Candidates

Good articles

Candidates

Articles in need of urgent attention

Please provide a short explanation, or leave a note on our talk page if needed.

  • John Sweetman. Article on 2nd President of SF needs more footnotes, and appears to have been compiled largely from reports in The Times of London, which is hardly a neutral source on an Irish Republican.

Suggestions for new articles

Articles in Preparation

New articles

Belfast Pogrom

1923 Irish Hunger Strikes

Richard Goss (Irish Republican)

Joseph Whitty

Thomas Harte (Irish republican)

Patrick McGrath (Irish republican)

Jack McNeela

Seamus Woods

Andy O'Sullivan (Irish Republican)

Please feel free to list your new Irish Republican Army-related articles here (newer articles at the top, please). Any new articles that have an interesting or unusual fact in them should be suggested for the Did you know? box on the Main Page.

Collaboration

The article listed here is our current official article to collaborate on. Propose new articles in the Nominations section below.

Nominations

James Larkin - Grosseteste (talk) 17:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Peer review
Assessment / Project's Assessment page

Assessment requests:

Language

Gaelic words and phrases should be marked up using {{lang}}, thus: {{lang|ga|Páirc na hÉireann}}.

Templates

To use the following template, simply put {{IRAs}} at the bottom of an article.

To use the following template, simply put {{NIPP}} at the bottom of an article.

Articles which fall within our scope should be labeled as such on their talk pages. To do so, simply place {{WP IR}} at the top of article's talk page.

WikiProject iconIrish Republicanism Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Irish Republicanism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Irish republicanism and Irish nationalism related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Irish RepublicanismWikipedia:WikiProject Irish RepublicanismTemplate:WikiProject Irish RepublicanismIrish Republicanism articles
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Categories

Regular cats

Project organisation cats

Resources

Using references

  • For a simple guide to using references, place {{subst:refstart}} (including brackets) on your user or talk page.

Related projects

(Early comments)

The article that you have on the omagh bombing is bollocks. it was as much aimed against catholics as protestants.

aidan kelly (omagh resident)

I have removed User:Stevertigo's edit "against protestant civilians." The guy's missing the point - the attack was against the peace process as a whole. The victims included Protestants, Catholics, a Mormon and two Spanish visitors - in a town which is 60/40 Protestan/Catholic. Mark 20:27, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Look on wiki, Omagh town is 68.2% Catholic, 29.5% Protestant. Not as above - Culnacréann 21:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I think someone's math is off: "29 people were killed in the attack —13 women (one pregnant with twins), 9 children, and 6 men". 13+9+6=28. If you include the twins, 13+9+6+2=30. I'm just going to remove the sub-division of people, since I can't locate accurate information. Mprudhom 06:04, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There were 29 people killed by the bomb. The twins added to the total would make 31 souls taken. --Mal 12:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited the entry relating to the Police Ombudsman's report from 'the' bomb to 'a' bomb. The Police had no knowledge that a car bomb would be placed in Omagh town centre that day. They did believe that Police officers in Omagh might be subject to an RPG attack sometime around the date the bomb actually went off. There was also intelligence to show that dissidents were planning a town centre 'spectacular' but the target and date were not known. The Ombudsman's primary criticism about this area was that these pieces f intelligence and others weren't amalgamated and analyzed as a whole. I also removed the bit about the officers being defensive & so on as I don't think her perception of their attitudes to her is that relevant to an article on the Omagh bomb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Royal1608 (talk • contribs)


Until there's an article about the investigation, I think it's relevant. I wrote unexplained in my edit summary, sorry about that.

Lapsed Pacifist 23:29, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't think it's relevant but don't want to get into tit-for-tat editing. However I have changed 'the' back to 'a' for the same reasons as before. If you actually read the PONI report, it's online at www.policeombudsman.org, it's very clear that NONE of the intelligence stated that a car bomb would be exploded in Omagh on the 15th August. This being the case, police can't have ignored intelligence about 'the' bomb as none existed. The intelligence specific to Omagh related to a different type of terrorist incident and a different target, Police officers rather than civilians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Royal1608 (talk • contribs)

I would say that you are all talking bollox. The Omagh bomb was a "false flag" operation. Carried out by elements within the Brutish securocracy. I would say the same SAS unit who killed the 4 men on 7/7 and planted bombs in the underground in London did it. They also went on to murder a Brazilian man in broad daylight a week or two later, when all the CCTV cameras miraculously failed. See the Belfast Bank Robbery also!!

Kenya, Malaya, Ireland. Same game.

It began with the depopulation of Ireland in the 1850's along Malthusian lines. The population was pruned to a point where the birth and death rates were equal. The British Roman Catholic "church" was installed in Maynooth, and 5.5million people were either slaughtered or forced to flee to the Americas - where 5% were still alive a year later.

The British monarchy is responsible for 90% of the terrorism on this planet, its about time Wiki readers and mods woke up to that fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.45.71 (talk • contribs)

Take your pathetic conspiracy theories elsewhere - they'd be comical were they not so sick. Níl fáilte romhat anseo ar bith - you're not welcome here at all. (I translated that in English for your benefit as much as everyone else's - you're probably too busy spouting drivel to learn Irish.) Amach leat! - Out with you! Quiensabe 02:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Worst atrocity tag

This was just reintroduced: "The bomb is notable for having claimed the most lives in a single incident since the beginning of the Troubles"

I had put in that the Dublin & Monaghan bombings (2 carbombs) claimed the most- higher death toll. Not worth an edit war over, just putting it on record that "single incident" is less exact compared to "single bombing". Fluffy999 11:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence you are talking about was not re-introduced. I added a different sentence that has significantly different meaning than the previous one which you had changed. This is not an article about the Dublin and Monaghan bombings, so I removed that and put in its stead the fact that the Omagh bomb was the worst single atrocity to have occured during the Troubles. --Mal 12:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, its not about the Dublin & Monaghan bombings and nicely done- you refered to "incident" instead which is entirely accurate as it indicates a single event.
However where I have a problem is that the majority of media (British & American anyway) commonly refers to Omagh as the "worst atrocity" of the troubles etc. Since that term "atrocity" isnt used in the article readers might get the impression thats whats meant by "incident".
For example, from the BBC hisory of the RIRA

"The Real IRA is responsible for the single worst atrocity of the Troubles; the Omagh bomb planted during the town's civic week in August 1998 killed 29 men, women and children"[1]

Also commonly appears in BBC online, TV, radio, British Parliament, more examples.
The point im making is that although it's a media POV/agenda to say it's the worst, if that POV isn't addressed in the article then, by omission, the article is helping perpetuate the dominant, misleading, POV that exists in the media. Will add it as a footnote. Fluffy999 14:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure where the problem is to be honest. As you say, this article doesn't refer to an atrocity. However, the Omagh bombing was an atrocity - particularly going by the wikipedia definition you linked to above. Likewise, the Dublin and Monaghan bombings were attrocities. Perhaps you're talking about the previous edit, and you're presumably happy enough with the current edit. I don't think the article needs to point out what you consider POV in the media. That might be better served in an article about the media rather than an article about the Omagh bomb, for a start. --Mal 00:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I think your edit is fine. Yes it is an atrocity and is often referred to as such- see media links. Yes the Dublin & Monaghan bombings was an atrocity according to atrocity article. Yes Dublin & Monaghan bombings is the worst atrocity in the troubles- not the Omagh bombing.
A myth spread via the media- see links, is that Omagh is the "worst atrocity" of "the troubles". Since that myth isnt addressed in the article right now (one way or the other) I will include a footnote to straighten it out. Thats all my original edit did- addressed and squashed a widely disseminated myth about the Omagh bombing. Thats the point I made above, by failing to address the myth wikipedia perpetuates and reinforces it as a "fact". Fluffy999 01:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Someone has reverted it to my version. I will revert to your version and add it as a footnote. Thanks. Fluffy999 13:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of names

The article on the list of names of the Omagh bombing casualties has been moved to a subpage of this article - Omagh Bombing/names - following an AFD. Proto///type 12:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since moved to Talk:Omagh Bombing/names.--Chaser - T 11:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the link to the list of names from this article on the basis of the consensus at the AFD, which was to exclude the content from mainspace. If someone wants to link to it, a consensus needs to be established to override the consensus at the AFD, which was to remove the material from mainspace.--Chaser - T 16:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at that AFD, I'm wondering how the decision to delete was arrived at. Two deletes, one saying "not sure if this shouldn't be in the main article", the other delete agreeing; three keeps; and two merges. The result should surely have been 'no consensus' or 'merge'?
The list of victims is now a subpage of a Talk page, which is permitted. There is no policy against linking to a talk (sub)page that I'm aware of, though I'm open to correction on that. Regards, Bastun 16:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been able to find a policy explicitly stating linking to non-article namespaces, but I'd say that if information is relevant enough to be linked to, it should be in its own article - which in its current state the list of names was deemed not to be article material. In my opinion the link should be removed. QmunkE 19:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The most specific policy covering this is a section of WP:NOT, at WP:NOT#MEMORIAL, which says that people have to be notable to be mentioned.--Chaser - T 20:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, and this is probably why the original article was deleted, however we were trying to ascertain whether there is a policy for cross-namespace linking. QmunkE 20:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those links are not clearly prohibited by any policy, but since links are to other articles (except rare self-references) doesn't it stand to reason that there shouldn't be a link to the talk namespace for content that is prohibited by policy from being in the article namespace?--Chaser - T 20:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That section of notable states: # Memorials. Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered. I would contend that while many of the victims may not have been notable in life, the manner of their death made them notable - they were the subject of much media attention both in the immediate aftermath and following on from that in newspapers and other media, and would therefore easily satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria. Bastun 21:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Except for two things: there is no longer a section of WP:BIO that says people are notable based on the circumstances of their deaths; and the depth of the media coverage is really about the bombing, not the people who were killed.-- Chaser - T 11:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BIO is a guideline, not a policy, though. And a Google search [2] for victims of the Omagh bombing returns almost 96000 results. Bastun 16:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That something is a guideline means it recommends an action. It doesn't mean you can ignore it if you disagree with it. See this. Besides that, you haven't indicated what in those 96000 google results makes any of these people notable.--Chaser - T 20:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After a lot of argument about this, I'm removing the link. The prior consensus (consensus is more than a vote) was to delete the material, and in this talk section it's been 2-1 to remove the link, with no real change in the arguments that generated the first consensus.--Chaser - T 09:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Surely discussion, not argument? If you read that AFD, you will see that the consensus (not vote) was clearly not to delete - it was to merge into the main article, with improvements. While I am tempted to bring it to WP:DRV, the simpler solution for the moment seems to be to externally link to CAIN's list. It's kinda hard to prove notability for 20-month-old babies, children and young adults. Bastun 10:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, discussion if you prefer. A DRV might bring more comment on the closure. An external link strikes me as an end-run.--Chaser - T 10:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC) My mistake. I was confused about what external link you meant.-- Chaser - T 11:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Omagh Bombing/names has now been deleted. I have therefore added the names to ensure truly encyclopedic coverage of the article Aatomic1 15:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can't insert content that has been deleted by process. You need to go to DRV. Brixton Busters 06:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also it says above it has been moved not deleted. Talk:Omagh Bombing/names is the new location, and it cannot go back in the article. Brixton Busters 06:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not correct. Deleted articles can't be recreated as articles - this is not the case here. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 09:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is correct. "If someone wants to link to it, a consensus needs to be established to override the consensus at the AFD, which was to remove the material from mainspace" (emphasis added). The result was not merge to this article, it was delete. You yourself said above "While I am tempted to bring it to WP:DRV", so you clearly know what the correct procedure is. If any further attempts to breach policy are made by re-adding material deleted via process, I will bring this matter up elsewhere. Brixton Busters 09:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look what else you said. Brixton Busters 09:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BB is right on this if the decision was to delete the list rather then merge its contents here, then the list cannot be recreated here, also this list serves no purpose, as the dead and the numbers are mentioned in the article.--padraig 11:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not allowing someone to change their views is pretty self defeating would you not say? Aatomic1 21:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I'm not infallible, nor intransigent, and reserve the right to make mistakes, change my mind and be persuaded by other people's arguments. ;-) Regards, BastunBaStun not BaTsun 11:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What was his argument? That the subpage had been deleted, when it hadn't. You're clearly easily persuaded..... Brixton Busters 16:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Names of Omagh Bomb Victims. It seems to me that the above was deleted on the ground that the names should be included in the main article. Aatomic1 06:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, if that was the case it would have been closed as "merge", it was closed as "delete". Brixton Busters 08:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was deleted, on WP:NOT grounds - however, it seems that may have been misinterpreted - see ongoing discussion here. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 11:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A list of those that died adds nothing to the article imo, its purely a memorial list.--Vintagekits 12:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is an ongoing discussion here, [3] and a previous discussion here,[4]. Please feel free to participate and please do not engage in edit warring, it is only disruptive and discouraging. --Domer48 15:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And coincidentally, your comment appears a minute after BB removed the names again... *sigh* Note that the closing admin in the AfD stated "The result of the debate was Delete - no prejudice against recreation at a later date in a more encyclopaedic form." Note also that the actual !vote was 2 deletes, 2 merges and 3 keeps. Given that, the argument above that "deleted material cannot be incorporated here" (paraphrasing) is obviously incorrect. So - are people going to be reasonable, especially given the ongoing discussion on such short lists inclusion in relevant articles? BastunBaStun not BaTsun 15:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. I refer you to the comments from the admin above "..the consensus at the AFD, which was to remove the material from mainspace". A link to the deleted article is above, and it is more in depth than the list of names that were just added, so it is clearly less encyclopedic than the original content that was removed from mainspace. So your argument that it has been recreated in "a more encyclopaedic form" holds no water. Counting heads is of no relevance (especially as you can't even count properly), Wikipedia is not a democracy and the consensus was to delete the content, not merge. Brixton Busters 15:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bastun, lets not get ahead of ourselves. The afD said it was against WP:NOT, that policy is still in place but under dicussion, not not waste time and engry discussing it here until it is sorted out over there. regards--Vintagekits 15:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the administrator who closed the deletion debate the names do not go in the article. Aatomic1 is aware of this, as he replied to that message see here. Please stop. Brixton Busters 16:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note that the closing admin said; "I have no prejudice against recreation at a later date in a more encyclopaedic form" - Alison ☺ 18:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of that, but having seen the original article I do not believe the list of names being added is any more encyclopedic. The original article is currently at DRV, so it would be best to wait for the outcome of that possibly? Brixton Busters 18:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then cite your reverts as being just your personal feeling rather than making gestures to some old AfD, where your rationale no longer applies - Alison ☺ 18:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but Neil (the administrator who closed the Afd) has commented in the last two days that the names do not go in the article. Would it be best to wait for the ouctome of the DRV discussion? Brixton Busters 18:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If there's a DRV open, then yes, I'd wait. Got a link? - Alison ☺ 19:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First, a closing admin can not dictate whether something must or must not go into an article. Admins don't resolve content disputes. Next, a simple compromise would be to provide an external link to a verifiable, reliable list of those killed. Rklawton 19:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To what Neil said? It is in my post above at 16:48. There already is an external link to a list of those killed, complete with brief biographies and photos. Brixton Busters 19:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 August 15. I have asked for the Omagh List AfD to be looked at again Aatomic1 13:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorism

Where shall we go with this? It seems to fit all the criteria, but some users consider it POV. Why? Probably because, to quote the terrorism article: "Many people find the terms "terrorism" and "terrorist" (someone who engages in terrorism) to have a negative connotation." It might not have such a POV in the September 11 terrorist attack article because the majority of its readers are of one POV - that the attacks were not legitimate. On the other hand, these types of articles seem to have a larger proportion of readers who do not hold a view that they were illegitimate. Thus, Vintagekits would rather refer to it as a "bomb attack" rather than a "terrorist bomb attack" because it is "POV" (to use his words), not "incorrect". Just like our 'Volunteer' discussion, it has the right to be used in some contexts (for Volunteer: if proved to be a rank), but must be sensistive to the contrasting of POVs it brings up. I'm not sure what the balance of POVs is in this discussion, nor any possible ways of mediating a common POV. This will have to be discussed. Logoistic 23:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorist is not WP:NPOV - bomb attack is accurate and neutral--Vintagekits 23:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very easy - new section 'Reactions to the bombing' - get lots of quotes with the 't' word in it from ref'd sources, I suggest ROI/UK/USA govt representatives as a start. Can't be removed as POV if referenced and meets wiki guidelines Weggie 23:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well done, Weggie. Logoistic 23:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A view that a car bomb detonated in a town centre (civilians), near a courthouse (civilian staff) is somehow not a terrorist attack is, in itself, POV, and if I may so, somewhat bizarre. Bastun 21:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So if the civilians were the target why did they give warning messegeS - kinda defeats the purposes if they were the target.--Vintagekits 23:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What? Because they sent a warning that they would bomb a civilian area that means that its no longer an attack on civilians? Even allowing for the grossly inadequate nature of the warning, that is a specious argument. You still haven't identified ANY military significance for this attack at all.--Jackyd101 01:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Omagh disgusted me - like every right mind person, that does not change the fact that civilians were not the target.
Do we all get to come up with a definition of terrorism?? Here's the EU definition: EU definition of terrorism —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Weggie (talk • contribs) 02:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
That just goes to show how POV it is!--Vintagekits 23:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The UN consistently refers to this organisation as a terrorist one. They also refer to 9/11 as a terrorist attack, but I'm sure there are people out there who see it as a legitimate attack on the zionist oppressors. As such, I'm editing this back to a terrorist attack, much like the Dublin & Monaghan bombings page uses the phrase "terrorist". The use of the phrase "car bomb attack" is not neutral, it IMPLIES a legitimate attack. If various other bomb attacks are labelled terrorist then this one comes under the same umbrella. If you disagree, take it up with the many many other articles regarding global terrorism. 82.4.220.108 00:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has been discussed in several locations. Wikipedia must present facts - and the blatent fact was that it was a car bomb attack. We can then add who describes it as a terrorist attack, or who describes the IRA as terrorists, but we must detatch this from the article persona. I understand your point that it may be seen as "legitimate" if "terrorist" is avoided, but it wouldn't be because if a lot of people call it "terrorist" then this can be legitimately referenced to them and put into the article to reflect this opinion. Logoistic 14:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's described as a terrorist attack later in the lead, I don't see any benefit in changing "car bomb" to "terrorist" under the circumstances. One Night In Hackney303 14:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you'd be happier with terrorist car bomb attack then? 82.4.220.108 18:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you're aware of any legitimate armies that use car bombs, I'd say it's redundant considering terrorist is already in the lead. One Night In Hackney303 18:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You and I are discussing this elsewhere, and for our mutual sanity I feel its more sensible to continue the discussion in one place, so I choose the one where we originally bumped into one another. I note, however, that you still haven't applied your policy to Dublin/Monaghan or the WTC?

82.4.220.108 19:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I've already stated, I'm not running round Wikipedia making whatever edits you deem necessary. You want pages editing, off you go. One Night In Hackney303 19:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Rating"

What's the basis used by the Irish Republicanism project in deciding the relative importance of articles? It seems strange to me that the single atrocity claiming the most victims in Northern Ireland and which contributed a sea-change in attitudes north and south might just rate more than "Mid importance" - certainly so if minor IRA members get the same rating. Bastun 11:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's the rating of importance to the WikiProject, in terms of work that needs doing. Many articles have templates for several different WikiProjects, and will rate them differently in terms of priority. It's not to signify that a minor IRA member's article is as important as this article in terms of significance, more a case of those articles need more work doing on them more urgently. Hope that clarifies things? One Night In Hackney303 11:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It does, thanks :-) Bastun 11:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also there are some articles which are rated slightly differently in terms of importance, for example any that have any prospect of becoming GA or FA in the not too distant future, they are given a higher priority. I'm probably wasting my time doing it, as project members will just edit what they feel like anyway.... One Night In Hackney303 12:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

A disputed category has been added by a disruptive editor who has accused editors of associating with IRA members, therefor I have added the appropriate tag. One Night In Hackney303 22:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't descend to name calling. I may be disrupting your agenda but I would ask you to strikeout the disruptive description.
<And I have never accused you of associating with IRA members as you know full well. Just answer the 3 questions I posed you on my talk page and return to your usual smooth and unruffled imageW. Frank 23:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC) removed defamatory and untrue personal attack by biassed administrator that claims infallibility[reply]
And I have never accused you of associating with IRA members as you know full well. Just answer the 3 questions I posed you on my talk page and return to your usual smooth and unruffled imageW. Frank 23:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC) sockpuppet -- Tyrenius 03:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]
The category is not "in dispute", it is up for a CFD here. Since this article describes an event resulting in the killing of people by the IRA, a NPOV tag is not justified. See WP:IDONTLIKEIT? BastunBaStun not BaTsun 22:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Afraid it is. I've added the tag, and it is staying until the NPOV issues have been addressed. One Night In Hackney303 23:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1. The category is being used on articles describing IRA actions that resulted in killings. 2. The Omagh bombing was an IRA action that resulted in killings. 3. It is therefore factual, not NPOV. 4. On my talk page you tell me to WP:AGF - yet you seem to not extend the same courtesy to me or the creator of the category - "a disruptive editor", or, from my talk page ""The category was specifically created for POV reasons." 5. The category is the subject of a CFD here, as you are aware (being the nominator). Allow that CFD to run its course and either it will be deleted, or accepted by the community as valid - in which case you hardly propose constant reverts to add a NPOV tag? BastunBaStun not BaTsun 23:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bastun, please try and keep this conversation civil and balanced, I am not saying you are not I am just saying remember WP:CIVIL and please "keep cool when things get hot". I think that when you put an article into a category it should be based on 100% fact, i.e. People from XXXX place, People elected to the 7th Dail, People who appeared in a World Cup final etc - to put something into a category presents it as being 100% fact. It is relatively controversial to state that the IRA killed the people in Omagh since although it was an "IRA" bomb that killed these poor people some may argue it was a the actions of the RUC/British Army that killed them as the "IRA" targeted the centre and gave warnings - therefore "IRA killings" sounds pretty POV and unencyclopedic from that perspective, I hope you can understand the point I am trying to make here.--Vintagekits 10:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me - you say I'm not being uncivil, but you'll just quote policy at me anyway?! Bizarre. I'm restoring the category per comments above and per an admin's comments on its use, here. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 10:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly bizarre, can you please WP:AGF I was trying to take the heat out of the situation before a problem occurs so that we can discuss in a rationed manner. Tyrenius states - "In the meantime it's there to be used." - that is fine, however, that does not mean its should be used in a POV manner, which I consider it to be.--Vintagekits 11:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AGF surely implies that you do not assume another user is going to be uncivil in advance. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 11:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bastun, if you are not going to accept that I was trying to calm things down and discuss the issue without it getting heated then I am going to end this discussion here! P.S. I never accused you of being uncivil!--Vintagekits 11:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You did not accuse me of being uncivil and I did not accuse you of saying that you did. Drawing an experienced editor's attention to such a policy when you believe he hasn't been uncivil, though, in the apparent fear that I will not keep my cool is a breach of WP:AGF. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 11:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Give it a rest Bastun - you are being a bit out of order here to be honest. Prevention is better than cure and all that. If you can not accept a friendly comment then my estimation of you has taken a serious nose dive.--Vintagekits 11:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the benefit in grouping the actions of seperate organisations under one category, other than to promote a POV. Ty said it shouldn't be used unless there is consensus to do so, and other than an editor who's since been blocked for sockpuppetry the consensus looks a bit thin on the ground to me. One Night In Hackney303 12:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My initial comments to ONIH re. the cat were based solely on the talk then on his talk page, from which it seemed an existing cat in in use (i.e. with implicit previous consensus) was being arbitrarily removed or not being allowed to be used. I didn't realise the cat had only just been created, which to my mind completely reverses the situation. It is a controversial cat which has not achieved consensus for use and this should be reached before it can sensibly be employed, particularly as it's going through CfD. It seems to me in the light of previous discussions re. extreme terms that it is highly questionable whether this cat should exist at all, particularly as something comparable is apparently not in use for e.g. Al Quaida. My position based on all that is that it should not be used for the time being and should be removed from articles. Let the CfD run its course and make a decision on whether it's going to be kept or not. If it is, then discuss where and how it's going to be used before edit warring over multiple articles. All of this is an opinion and does not carry any admin implications, though of course edit warring or other actions may do (I recommend WP:BRD - it's much safer and saner than WP:3RR). It is an editorial decision, but if parties are willing to accept the above as an outside view and work to it, then it will be more harmonious all round. Tyrenius 21:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to point out that should the category survive CfD, this does not mean there is a consensus for it to be used on any articles. The mere claim that it is factual does not mean it should be used. Otherwise what's to stop more categories being added on the grounds they are factual? Let's create Category:IRA bombings, Category:Republican bombings, Category:IRA bombings that killed more than 10 peope, Category:Bombings in Ireland etc etc. This category adds nothing that the existing categories do not already adequately serve, and attacks from different versions of the IRA should not be categorised together, as they are not the same organisation. One Night In Hackney303 16:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite what was the purpose of placing a bomb in the centre of a prominently RC town? Something to do with the "peace process" perhaps? Millbanks 21:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very little!--Vintagekits 21:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Families of victims legal case

Anyone know what the latest is on this? The article could do with updating possibly. One Night In Hackney303 14:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warnings

This section contradicts itself, tagged as such. Brixton Busters 11:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are contractory views on what happened with the warnings. I don't think the current article reflects this fully. --Dumbo1 12:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should details of victims be in our article?

Editors may wish to comment here  W. Frank talk ✉  19:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Following the DRV conclusion, I've added the names, along with two sources. Others may want to contribute other sources. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 15:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The decision was to discuss the issue here first and try and achieve consensus first.--padraig 15:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. The DRV close says that, consensus is neeeded here first. The list fails WP:NOT#MEMORIAL, WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. Brixton Busters 15:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the ruling given

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Names of Omagh Bomb Victims – Deletion endorsed. The fact is that this list had no sources whatsoever. In principle, the addition of sourced material to the article can occur at anytime, subject to consensus on the article talk page. However, the restoration of this particular source-less draft would be useless, and a disservice to encyclopedic accuracy.

--padraig 15:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC) (Padraig's emphasis added)[reply]

Le sigh. That was what, 3 minutes? A question, guys - would ye object to the inclusion of a list of those killed in the Dublin and Monaghan bombings? Or to the inclusion of a list here written in more narrative style a la Bloody Sunday (1972)'s list? BastunBaStun not BaTsun 16:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I object to any lists in any articles that are not essential to an understanding of the event, and for that reason the comparison to Bloody Sunday (1972) is a red herring. Brixton Busters 16:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what purpose a list of dead in the Dublin and Monaghan bombings article would serve, they were all killed in explosions like in this case.--padraig 16:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I’m glad this discussion is being held here, before it begins could we all agree to abide by the page guidelines. Otherwise it will just be a mess, and nothing gets resolved. --Domer48 18:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, the story so far... the information cannot be included because of WP:NOT#memorial. That gets overturned. Then it cannot be included because it (in a separate article) was subject to an AfD. That got clarified. Now it cannot be included here (even though referenced) because of no consensus, NOT#memorial (again), NOT#indiscriminate (the only one there that could possibly apply is #5, news reports, but thats a very tenuous case), and NOT#directory (none of them apply). BastunBaStun not BaTsun 18:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#memorial did not get overturned, please do not distort events. Brixton Busters 18:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus last time I looked was that WP:NOT#memorial did not apply to the inclusion of lists of victims, where appropriate, where their deaths made an event notable and where the list didn't dominate an article. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 19:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
People at the DRV seemed to think it did, as did the editors (including administrators) at the help desk. NOT#directory applies to lists of dead, as it's a directory entry of dead people. NOT#indiscriminate obviously applies, please read what is says under the heading. Brixton Busters 19:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is what the closing admin said today here, on his talk page: "...your ability to add new sourced information is a fundamental principle of the wiki... as is other editors' ability to remove that information, if they provide a reason for doing do. What you're describing is an editing dispute over whether the list of victims should be included in the article or not. Neither DRV, nor any of our deletion processes, are particularly relevant to your problem..."  W. Frank talk ✉  19:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MEMORIAL, Part 1 : Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. - What relevance does this have to this article? (None to my Knowledge) Aatomic1 22:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What does a list of names add to this article, nothing.--padraig 22:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a different point? Yes. Have you answered my question? No Aatomic1 22:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:NOT#MEMORIAL, WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, and tell me how this list fits in with you opinion. --Domer48 23:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are these further points Yes. Have you answered my question? No Aatomic1 05:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the dead can be included on Bloody Sunday (1972) then they can be included in this article. However I can now already see the WR:IR brigades response... Oh they were killed in disputed circumstances, they were killed by an army, they were innocent etc etc. A list should be included in this article and any of the many sources such as this could be used. Conypiece 00:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A redherring, using Bloody Sunday (1972). --Domer48 08:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thats a good reply Domer, hmmm. Conypiece 00:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Btw if anyone didn't pick it up, the above was sarcasm Conypiece 00:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Bastun would like to explain why he twice removed the list of dead from Bloody Sunday claiming WP:NOT applied ([5] [6]) and then started a discussion saying the list failed the memorial part of WP:NOT ([7])? And I suggest this article is covered in the mediation request, as the same principles are involved. Link Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-08-24 Birmingham pub bombings. Brixton Busters 06:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Omagh_bombing&oldid=153504012"