Talk:1985 Newry mortar attack

Irish Republicanism Start‑class Mid‑importance

	This 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
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Northern Ireland Start‑class

	Northern Ireland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Northern Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Northern Ireland 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.Northern IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject Northern IrelandTemplate:WikiProject Northern IrelandNorthern Ireland-related articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Ireland Start‑class Low‑importance

	Ireland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland 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.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

There is a clear guideline on Wikipedia about the use of the word Terrorism. Please read it before editing.

This article is currently subject to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles#Final_remedies_for_AE_case, as laid out during a previous WP:AE case that closed October 05, 2008. If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the guidelines laid out in the above link. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it on this talk page first.

Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Extremist, terrorist and freedom fighter

BigDunc: A list of the names of the nine killed in this attack does not constitute an honoring of departed friends etc as Wikipedia defines memorialising: 'Memorials. Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements.'

The mortar attack entry is anyway short and the names are provided in a few lines. I would be interested to know just who died and that several were women officers. It will go back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.65.72 (talk) 22:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BigDunc: I checked your input and discover you have created a number of Wikipedia entries for minor deceased IRA members including a London bomber so why are you so censorious here? Leave it be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.63.131 (talk) 22:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A list of names is exactly what you would expect to find on a memorial, and the list had no encyclopedic or educational value and the only possible purpose is a memorial. O Fenian (talk) 00:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a question of 'honouring' these nine dead people, as BigDunc (an arch memorialiser of the less than notable) alleges is contrary to Wikipedia's opposition to memorialising, but of providing a factual detail as to who died. The whole entry exists because so many RUC officers were murdered on the one day so why is it so dreadful to name them? The Bloody Friday, Loughinisland, and Bloody Sunday entries name the dead. Strip them out too if you are so oppposed to such lists and want to be consistent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.161.69 (talk) 10:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have not provided any reason as to why they should be included, such as the enyclopedic value of doing so. O Fenian (talk) 11:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

O Fenian - contrary to your statement above a number of reasons have been provided to date. The names of the nine dead are relevant facts which is what Wikipedia is about. It is consistent with other Troubles entries where numbers of people were killed, so why do you insist on not allowing them in? I am not too sure what you mean by 'encyclopaedic value' but again if OK elswhere why do you object here? If encyclopaedic means extensive and educational, the names are certainly permissible. This entry exists because it was the highest numbr of RUC casualties in one incident so it would be absurd to prohibit giving it the added veracity of the nine names. You also aver on your last revert that with two editors objecting your case trumps mine. However BigDunc has dropped out as he was proven to be a memorialiser (his objection). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.55.20 (talk) 14:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have still not advanced a coherent argument for inclusion. O Fenian (talk) 23:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is not seeking consensus, O Fenian, simply dismissive. You answer none of the above points.

You dismissed BigDunc's points. I still you have still not provided any cogent arguments. O Fenian (talk) 15:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You still don't make the slightest attempt to answer my points of 5 and 8 February. BigDunc openly memorialises with whole articles on minor dead republicans. All I am trying to do is add the names of the 9 dead to remind people who they were and that they were a varied bunch of human beings. Leave it alone unless you have a good reason to delete it, such as inaccuracy. It is only a a few lines.81.156.244.32 (talk) 22:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]