Talk:Birmingham pub bombings

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Is it possible to get images of the result of the bombings? Also, it might be good to get images of the sites at present times. - Erebus555 14:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you from Brum Erebus? If you've got a digital camera... It would really improve the article (I'm feeling cheeky today!)Weggie 14:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I should be able to get some present day pictures very soon. But I think pictures of the damage caused would really improve the article a lot. - Erebus555 16:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
The text for the picture of the Rotunda should be amended as it was the Mulberry Bush that was under the Rotunda, not the Tavern in The Town —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cornisle (talkcontribs) 11:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


While I don't doubt that a terrible wrong was done to the Birmingham Six, I have seen no reliable source for the claim that their "convictions [were] overturned due to police tampering with evidence", and that is certainly not what the cited reference says was the case. Nor is Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army (in an edit summary) a viable reference. To refer to them as "Six innocent people" is also PoV, and uncited (my request for a citation has just been removed); we don't know that they were not guilty of something else, and we don't normally refer to people as such. Andy Mabbett 11:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

References from both British and Irish politicans describing them as innocent added. Brixton Busters 11:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Those are references for a statement to the effect that "several politicians described them as innocent"; not the statement in the article. Andy Mabbett 14:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
They were cleared in a court of law. Politicans have said they are innocent. Unless you have any source to say otherwise Pigsonthewing (as opposed to your own opinion), they are innocent. I am removing the tag. Brixton Busters 14:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
The tag also referred to the improperly-cited point about evidence, Kindly restore it. Andy Mabbett 16:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
The evidence point is covered in the link to CAIN. No need to restore it.GiollaUidir 16:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
CAIN says "Six men ... were freed by the Court of Appeal in London. ... The six had been found guilty on the basis of forensic evidence and confessions that the men claimed were beaten out of them. The forensic evidence was shown to be unreliable and there was evidence that the police had forged notes of interviews and had given false evidence at the original trial." It does not say "they had their convictions overturned due to police tampering with evidence". I can see that you do not agree with me on this point, but I cannot see how you can contend that there is no dispute Andy Mabbett 17:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

In this case "innocent" is being used as a factual description of the legal status of the individuals known as the Brimingham Six. It would be POV and emotive to use "innocent" in the context of "21 innocent civilians were callously murdered by the cowards etc".

Also, "we don't know that they were not guilty of something else", that is totally irrelevant. They were innocent of involvement in the Birmingham Bombings, which is the subject of the article.GiollaUidir 16:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Even if so, if they were innocent in the sense that they had their convictions overturned, to say "six innocent people ... had their convictions overturned" is a tautology. Andy Mabbett 17:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Um, not really. It's called a miscarriage of justice. GiollaUidir 17:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Police did tamper with evidence. Notes from interviews are evidence, so forging them is tampering with evidence. Brixton Busters 13:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Where did I say that they didn't? Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 14:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Right at the top. You said: I have seen no reliable source for the claim that their "convictions [were] overturned due to police tampering with evidence. Are you saying you want more information adding about the criminal activities of West Midlands Police? Brixton Busters 14:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
So I did; but that doesn't say that the evidence was not tampered with. I want to see a citation which proves that the reason the conviction was overturned was that tampering, as currently claimed in the article, or for that currently unsourced claim to be removed. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 15:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Can't fault your logic there, Andy - but wouldn't it be fairer to the Six and their families to leave the statement in for a few days to give folks time to come up with a reference. (I know that isn't the way that WP usually works, but just to show a spirit of compromise and good will to 303, since Domer48 claims that Brixton Buster's a brand new editor? I'm sure that 303 will be able to come up with a citation pretty rqapidly.)...GaimhreadhanMap of Ireland's capitals.png(kiwiexile at DMOZ) • 16:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
How about this obituary [1]? Brixton Busters 16:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
You're getting there, but not quite there yet, since the relevant passage only reads: "The convictions were quashed four years later on the grounds that confessions to police officers had been improperly admitted in evidence." Here's a better one: [2]
Since you're quite close to the Strand, why don't you pop round to the Judges Library near the Bear Garden and ask for a day pass for research purposes? Tell them you're contributing to an encyclopedia article and want to get your facts straight....GaimhreadhanMap of Ireland's capitals.png(kiwiexile at DMOZ) • 16:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Not meaning to open a can of worms, but neutrality will always be an issue for this article. It will be very difficult to find any reliable citation stating that the Birminxham Six were innocent, because the conviction was quashed on the basis that evidence for conviction was, in light of the last review, unsound. This was not about proof of innocence, but rather about how robust the evidence submitted for trial was. This may have been because a retrial would have been likely to find them not guilty based on that evidence, but it may also have been because police procedures were not properly followed. For example, "Confessions to police officers improperly admitted as evidence" would have related to police failure to take contemporaneous notes at the time of the alleged confession. Metabaronic (talk) 07:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The dead[edit]

Jane Davis, 17 ; Desmond Reilly, 20; Eugene Reilly, 23 ; Maureen Roberts, 20; Marylin Nash, 22 ; Pamela Palmer, 19 ; Stephen Whalley, 21; Lynn Bennett, 18 ; Anne Hayes, 19 ; Michael Beasley, 30 ; Maxine Hambleton, 18 ; John Jones, 51 ; Charles Gray, 44 ; John Rowland, 46 ; Stanley Bodman, 51 ; Trevor Thrupp, 33 ; James Caddick, 40 ; Paul Davis, 20 ; Neil Marsh, 20 ; Thomas Chaytor, 28 (Died 28 November 1974) ; James Craig, 34 (Died 10 December

Following removed on grounds of (rv per WP:NOT) ...too cryptic for me. Aatomic1 22:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this will help you - as Per not a memorial see here for discussion.--Vintagekits 23:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Have you read the links I provided and are you going to reply to this?--Vintagekits 23:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm removing the names, the second discussion says they should not be included. Brixton Busters 08:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
my two cents, see discussion, [3]--Domer48 21:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Vintage, Domer and Brixton are right. Including the names is a breach of WP:NOT. If there is a weblisting of them somewhere else, it could be included as an external link. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 22:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Carrickmakeegan Tragedy? Aatomic1 11:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. Fixed now. Regards, BastunBaStun not BaTsun 16:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT) Refers to subjects of Wkipedia articles; these people are not subjects of wiki articles. Adding the names aids the reader gain encyclodedic knowledge of the incidents. Aatomic1 16:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

See the second discussion. Pointless trivia adds nothing. Brixton Busters 16:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes it does; no it doesn't; yes it does Aatomic1 16:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Please respect consensus, both here and in the linked discussion. Brixton Busters 16:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
[WP:OWN] Aatomic1 17:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Aatomic, please stop edit warring. The listing of the dead add nothing to the article and wiki is not a memorial per WP:NOT.--Vintagekits 18:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

<reduce indent> I just came across this article. While I can sort of see the point of not listing the dead on articles like this (or other tragedies/massacres), my first reaction on reading the article was "there's nothing about the victims". Also, there's nothing about wounded, survivors, etc. It's an omission. The reason the event is notable is because it killed/wounded those people. Even if they're not individually historically notable, together they are the victims of the Birmingham Pub bombings. That's notability, and the fact that "just" ordinary people killed in this event is also relevant in understanding the times and the events of the times, so a description of their "ordinariness" is relevant. In any case there were 21 of them, not thousands, so a list wouldn't be impossible. I don't know much about the events, so can't offer to help, but wanted to make that comment. Perhaps knowledgeable editors can take it into account somehow. Even if no list of names if possible, more information is badly needed. Hughsheehy 22:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I have added the names (again) Aatomic1 07:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I can understand both your reasoning, Aatomic1 (and Hughsheehy), and that of Bastun . In principle, would you be willing to enter into a more formal process to try and reach a consensus viewpoint about listing victims in articles with a Green tinge, Aatomic1 and Hughsheehy?
Aside from that question, my compromise suggestion would be to have a list of victims only where their victimhood is an important part of making the subject of the article notable and the list of victims constitutes less than 10% of the characters in our article...Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) talk • 08:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

In this particular article there were another set of victims namely the Birmingham Six who are still libelled and slandered often by the question If they didn’t do it then who did?. While this encyclopedia may or may not be able to answer this question, there is further information available that can enlighten the reader; such as naming members of the IRA active service unit that was operating in Birmingham at the time (I have added these to List of members of the Irish Republican Army. However for truly balanced coverage it is right that the names of direct ‘other ‘victims are available to the reader; the level of notability being set at death rather than injury. Aatomic1 10:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Consensus is not to include the names. Brixton Busters 11:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
As a relatively new account here, you are certainly not the arbiter of consensus, Brixton Busters.
Please do not edit war by reverting others without exhausting discussion on this, the article's discussion, page first.
Please also provide a reason why you wish to obfuscate the distinction between Irish_Republican_Army and Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army. Please remember that this is an encyclopaedia and is not intended to push a particular minority political viewpoint...Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) talk • 12:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army#Abreviate to .22PIRA.22 or .22IRA.22 .3F - be careful what you agree to. The linked discussion about the names is clear, consensus says the names stay out. Until that consensus changes, the names stay out. Brixton Busters 13:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Brixton, you are a new user, so therefore it is understandable if you don't know all the policies. What you have linked to does not meet any definition of WP:CONSENSUS. Until a short time ago, it was a discussion with one user saying 'Let's do this' and two others saying 'Well, maybe not.' (The views of a third user banned for sectarian attacks and threats of violence can be discounted). Consensus affecting many articles cannot be achieved between such a small number of users on the talk page of one article. Discussion should be centralised and involve more than a tiny handful of users. Until that happens, there isn't consensus. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 14:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I have nothing to add to the erudite argument above other than to confirm that my assent was indeed limited to our specific article on the Provisional Irish Republican Army. [For an encyclopaedia, the wish to have a readable and common style and avoid boring repetition must always be subservient to clarity. As an on-line encyclopaedia we have the space to be both precise and balanced]...Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) talk • 14:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there any chance we could provide the year these victims were born, instead of the age that they were when they died? I think it is more encyclopedic that way-- the year is provided as a means of identifying the victim, whereas the age could be seen as pushing the POV that people were cut down in the prime of their lives. The recently featured article, École Polytechnique massacre has year of birth, and I think it looks better.

I have no objection in principle to that.
I do object to the idea that we need to be mealy mouthed about the facts. And it's a sad but properly referenced stance that some victims were indeed cut down in their prime....Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) talk • 23:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Just a couple of points. WP:NOT doesn´t apply, since listing the names of the victims isn´t the same as having articles about them. The "consensus" discussion ref´d by Brixton seems to be irrelevant too. As for having some special policy about articles with a "Green tinge", I find it a bizarre suggestion (sorry to whoever made it, but that´s how i feel). Whatever the political background, this was a bomb in a pub and it killed a bunch of people out for a pint. The reason the event is notable is because these people were killed - blown to bits in mid chat (let´s not forget that this is what the event consisted of...bits of very fast metal chopping up bits of very soft people). If the warnings had been successful and no-one had been killed then the bombing itself wouldn´t really be notable. None of the political background alters that highly important fact.
As for the Birmingham Six, they were evidently the victims of a related but separate atrocity, which atrocity merits its own article. If anything, their evident and highly notorious victimisation is part of what makes the original victims of the pub bombings so notable in the first place.
IMHO, no article on the Birmingham pub bombing can be complete without a treatment of the victims. Perhaps a list of the wounded is too much, but the fatalities feel like a "must have". As for whether this conflicts with any accepted policy on other IRA or UVF or Tamil Tigers or PLO or any other such bombing, I guess I really couldn´t care less. Again, I freely admit that I have no idea (and I´m not sure I care) what is accepted policy for such cases and am reacting to this one article....although I suspect I´d feel exactly the same about similar cases anywhere else. Hughsheehy 00:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I concur...Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) talk • 00:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

For those who are actually interested in reading the discussion on policy regarding WP:NOT, please see: [[4]]. In that discussion, it was clearly stated by a number of editors and administrators that lists of the dead violate the policy on memorials and indiscriminate information. Please, before you begin making pronouncements about policy and consensus, do read said discussion. And, for those of you who would dismiss the previous activities of currently-blocked editors, may I remind you that VintageKits did not take part in the discussion to which I have linked. However, even had he taken part, that would not justify its dismissal, nor does the fact that VK is now blocked automatically discount the numerous contributions he made in the past. ---TheoldanarchistComhrá 03:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a helpful reference in rehearsing the same sort of arguments editors have made here. And this reference was cited in the fifth comment (by Domer48) in this section. And the results were similarly inconclusive.
The inclusionist tendency can read powerful support, and so can the deletionists. What clinches it for me is coupled with and - hence my compromise suggestion above to "have a list of victims only where their victimhood is an important part of making the subject of the article notable and the list of victims constitutes less than 10% of the characters in our article". I note that you have not directly engaged this and other points made by inclusionists here, Theoldanarchist. I agree with Bastun's proposal to sort matters out like this centrally. I believe it may have been SirFozzie's hope (before he became disillusioned?) that CEM could help centralise and resolve re-occurring arguments like this one...Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) talk • 07:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Please find an external link for a list of the dead instead of putting them in to article as per WP NOT.--BigDunc 08:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

BigDunc please note [[5]] Aatomic1 09:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

See the second discussion. The list fails two parts of WP:NOT, memorial and indiscriminate information. It is funny that people say I cannot claim consensus and agreement took place between a couple of editors on a talk page while ignoring that link which was posted right at the start. Multiple editors including administrators said such lists fall under WP:NOT. Brixton Busters 13:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not# Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information covers *Lists of Frequently Asked Questions *Plot summaries *Lyrics databases *Statistics *News reports . Please give a succinct explanation of your last editAatomic1 14:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
After reading policies & discussion pages, it's clear that WP:NOT is NOT applicable. The page on the Birmingham pub bombing is not a memorial page. Similarly, including a list of the dead in a bombing is not "indiscriminate information" under any reasonable definition of the word "indiscriminate". It also seems there is no existing consensus and no "policy" against including the names of the dead in articles like this. Since there are only (a word i can´t manage to avoid here) 21 victims it´s even easy to include the victims' names so why not do it? This isn´t like trying to include the list of victims of 9/11 or WWII.
I suppose it´s possible that a list isn´t the right way to present the information. Perhaps a summary of what type of people, age range, careers, etc., is more appropriate, but the victims cannot be neglected. Their deaths are the nucleus of the event. Their deaths are what happened. All the rest is detail. Hughsheehy 00:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Its interesting though that a list of the dead is in the Bloody Sunday (1972) article. Do the people here who think the names should not included in this article also think they should not be included in the bloody sunday page? Just curious... Conypiece 11:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

From reading both articles one seems to be just a list of the dead whereas the Bloody Sunday one is not just a list it disproves the statements given at the time that these people were armed. BigDunc 12:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Surely citations only could be used? Also did the people who died in Birmingham not die in just as tragic circumstances? Conypiece 13:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Undoubtedly both were equally tragic. However, the Birmingham victims weren't subject to a 35 year smear campaign alleging that they were armed and dangerous at the time of their murder. No one disputes that the Birmingham victims were out for a quiet drink at time of death. GiollaUidir 13:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Of course they did (died tragically), but who ever planted the bomb did not say after it that the dead were all armed, if so there names could be used to disprove such a silly statement as is done on Bloody Sunday article, or do you want it to read that X was shot in back Y had no nail bomb there names are very relevant to the article because the reason for there death is disputed. BigDunc 13:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Disputed by whom? Does anyone reputable currently still claim the victims of Bloody Sunday were armed? BastunBaStun not BaTsun 14:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
More to the point, if we ad the statement "Blown up while innocently out for a beer (or other refreshment)" to all the names of the dead people from the Birmingham bombings, then will we get past this amazing insistence that the names of the people that make the event notable should be excluded from the article? Hughsheehy 16:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I have asked for the Omagh List AfD to be looked at again. Much of the debate included there including WP:NOT applies here. Aatomic1 17:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The list fails WP:NOT#MEMORIAL, WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. --Domer48 23:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, no, it doesn't, and consensus is for inclusion. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 23:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
Part 2 Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered. - What relevance does this have to this article? (None to my Knowledge)
WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE Lists of Frequently Asked Questions;Plot summaries; Lyrics databases; Statistics; News reports; Trivia collections. What relevance does this have to this article? (None to my Knowledge)
WP:NOT#DIRECTORYLists or repositories of loosely associated topics; Genealogical entries or phonebook entries; directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business; Sales catalogs. What relevance does this have to this article? (None to my Knowledge). Aatomic1 12:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
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 23:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Coneypiece how would that link to a list of the dead in the Omagh Bombing be used in this article.--padraig 23:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Apologies, wrong talk page. Regards Conypiece 00:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Aatomic can you please stop adding lists of dead to these articles, they serve no purpose to these articles adding a bare list of names.--padraig 10:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but they do provide a purpose - I believe this has already been established Aatomic1 10:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Established where? I have no problem with naming victims if it helps give readers a better understanding of the event as it occured, but a bare list of names and ages doesen't achieved that, that is just a memorial list.--padraig 11:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Please see my above comment of 10:51, 2 August 2007 Aatomic1 11:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Can't find the comment your refering to, but I noticed you have again posted the list of dead, dispite being warned by a admin not to do so onless consensus is agreed here first, edit warring will not achieve consensus.--padraig 22:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
A key question should also be, Padraig, have you got full consensus that the names should not be in the article? Please do try to remember you personally do not represent the consenus. Conypiece 00:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I propose we keep the list of victims. Together they are WP:NOTE as there was as the time many news articles about the incident (and thus the victims). The would probably qualify for there own article in fact.  Tiddly Tom  10:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Would the new editors who keep putting in the list of the dead please not start an edit war and join this disscusion.BigDunc 12:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The same obviously applying to the anon IP accounts who are removing it. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 12:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly edit wars serve no purpose but to disrupt.BigDunc 12:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I am commenting here after seeing your request for mediation. The cycle of reverting has to end. On this basis of th discussion on this talk page, it does seem to me that the list of victims is not notable enough for inclusion. --Duncan 14:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I have been following some of the debates as to whether to include lists of dead, and in most cases the ones I have seen have been whether or not to include the list of dead from terrorist incidents, especially as a result of The Recent Troubles. The Greysteel massacre and the La Mon restaurant bombing don't, yet the Shankill Road bombing and Droppin Well bombing do. Having looked at those which do contain lists of dead, if they are concise, and contain information such as age and occupation, I think this adds to the article. Its not easy to gauge the demographics of the victims otherwise. However to increase this information to include other info, such as how they died, or their last words, is turning the article into a memorial. However we should beware of being too strict with WP:NOT a memorial. A simple list is not a memorial for friends and family. And similarly we should beware of the 10% rule, for if this was adhered to too strictly, articles would be added to and reduced to make the lists admissable and inadmissable. And above a certain size (?) a list becomes just that: a long list. Whatever we decide, if the list are included, they should be there for all similar events, and if not included, then they should never appear, unless there is a really well reasoned argument which is agreed by concensus. And of course we can always provide a link to an external list if needs be. -- 21:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Victims and memorials[edit]

The Birmingham Six may have been victims, but not of these bombings; they were victims of police malpractice. And we don't have memorials to people who are alive (or who dies of natural causes years after an event which had no direct connection with their death). Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 20:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, wording the Six as "victims of the bombings" was inappropriate - I have edited it to read more like an encyclopaedic article and less like a tabloid piece. Neil  08:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Team editing to make provisional SF more electorally attractive[edit]

WP:NOT#ADVOCATE is official policy on the English Wikipedia.

It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. When editing this page, and other articles relating to the Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIRA), please ensure that your revision reflects our policy that Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda. Therefore, Wikipedia content is not:

1. Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favourite views.

2. Opinion pieces on current affairs or politics. Although current affairs and politics may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (i.e. passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced so as to put entries for current affairs in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete.

3. Self-promotion. It can be tempting to write about yourself or projects you have a strong personal involvement in. However, do remember that the standards for encyclopaedic articles apply to such pages just like any other, including the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which is difficult when writing about yourself and your friends. See Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.

Currently we have a team of editors (including, but not limited to: User:Brixton Busters, User:BigDunc, User:Domer48, User:Padraig, User:Vintagekits) that edit a consistent set of our articles in such a way as to introduce a consistent bias and ambiguity.

These editors act in relay to avoid technically breaching 3RR and consistently seek to push a minority POV endorsed by PIRA and their political wing that is to the political electoral advantage of provisional SF.

The pattern to these team editors contributions is as follows:

(1) There have been, and are currently, many flavours of political organisations including in their name the letters "IRA". These team editors consistently seek to muddy and obfuscate the distinctions between the pre 1920 IRA, the Continuity IRA (CIRA), the Official IRA (OIRA), the Provisional IRA (PIRA), the Real IRA (RIRA), and other sects. They do this by trying to obliterate any reference that clarifies that PIRA is meant in the article preferring the wholly ambiguous "IRA" instead. The political purpose of these team edits is to reduce the political significance of the competing groupings.

(2) These team editors consistently seek to muddy and obfuscate the distinctions between the pre 1920 IRA, CIRA, OIRA, PIRA, RIRA and other sects. They do this in order to mislead our readers into believing that PIRA is the direct political heir of the pre 1920 IRA and achieve greater "electoral respectability" for provisional SF thereby. This is why the team editors engage in revert warring to try to obliterate any reference that clarifies that PIRA is meant in the article and instead insert the wholly ambiguous "IRA" instead. The political purpose of these team edits is again to reduce the political significance of the competing groupings and enhance that of current political groupings sympathetic to PIRA.

(3) They seek to remove any reference to terrorism and the victims of terrorism – except when they are "PIRA-approved victims" as in our Bloody Sunday (1972) article – as in our Bloody Friday (1972)‎ article. Compare and contrast our articles with PIRA involvement and our articles with Islamic terrorist] involvement. Note the lede in World Trade Center bombing where the team's interest and influence is extremely low and the howls of anguish when that "naughty word" is used correctly to reflect the overwhelming available authoritative sources with regard to PIRA actions where non-combatants were murdered and mutilated.

According to Jimmy Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable." W. Frank talk   16:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Update on biased team editing:
  • Hear Hear, W.Frank. Conypiece 20:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Oops, you just showed how non-neutral you are in your 3rd point there! There is no "deliberate muddying of the waters" with regards to what abbreviation is used to denote the Provisional Irish Republican Army. A cursory look through a collection of news articles over the past 38 years shows no consistency in use of IRA/PIRA etc.GiollaUidir 12:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
He has been spamming this nonsense on every article where his POV pushing has been rejected, he has also made it clear that he has no interest in discussing the issue, and intends to continue to edit war on the issue.--padraig 12:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


Full protection for 3 days to stop the edit warring. People please use the talk page. Spartaz Humbug! 22:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Um, what edit warring? Neil  08:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I've semiprotected for 7 days to discourage the sort of edit warring we saw today by and among anonymous and single-purpose accounts. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Nomination for mediation[edit]

I have nominated this article for mediation in an attempt to resolve the edit warring and the fact the discussion is going in circles re:list of dead. See:Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-08-24 Birmingham pub bombings.GiollaUidir 12:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

All of the related parties, I want your sides of the story. E-mail me if you must, but I would prefer if you used my mediation page, so that I can keep track of things. GiollaUidir, thank you for bringing this to my attention, though it looks, right now, fixed. Dreamy \*/!$! 19:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
My mistake, all is not well. Please follow the above directions. Dreamy \*/!$! 19:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Allright, there is a lot of edit warring, so I'm going to say this, it does not satisfy the notability claim, though it might help the article. They are not required for this article to be fully understood,though, again, it might help, all that is needed to be said about it, is that there were 21 people dead, if there are major reasons, please let me know. Aatomic1, you are incorrect and correct at the same time. Those people that are removing it, and those that are putting it in, please stop this blatant disregard for the 3RR. All of you need to stop reverting, and let this calm down. There have already been discussions on this. It has been proven over, and over again that it is not required, and that it is required. Dreamy \*/!$! 19:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, it has been shown that both sides are correct. I want to be given sources for both, and reasons for both sides. Dreamy \*/!$! 19:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)\

Edit wars end now[edit]

If you guys want to face a block and perhaps having the article fully protected during the mediation (and I won't particularly care which version I protect it on, because no matter what, it will be on The Wrong Version, keep edit warring. All these arguments have to stop. Period. I've tried being the nice admin.. didn't work. Now you have a rather fed-up admin to deal with. SirFozzie 23:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Bah. I was protecting it as this was posted. The whole point of mediation and discussion is to prevent random blind reverts. It is absolutely pointless to carry on during mediation. I really detest protecting pages, but I hate blocking for edit warring more - everyone please join the discussion and come to a joint decision on that paragraph. Kuru talk 23:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I totally agree. Some aspects of Wikipedia are becoming so political. This is not a place for people to write their own view of history or what they want others to know. One rule I am surprised Wikipedia does not have is: Don't remove a well sourced section without consensus. I think this should stand above some other rules. That those people died is a simple and well sourced fact. What harm is there for that list to stay until there is consensus that it should be removed. Better that than for paragraphs to be removed, pending agreement. And surely dicussions should be taken to talk pages. I am annoyed that I wrote in "the dead" section above, with an opening for discussion and 1/2 hour later Domer48 decided to ignore that, and just removed the list. There is a lot to talk through and agree first before we should high-handedly take the rules into our own hands. -- 01:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Memorial removed[edit]

The mediation case was nothing of the sort. No discussion has taken place on the arguments presented, despite the mediator saying "We will of course be having the discussion at length". As such, I object to the mediator making a unilateral decision. One Night In Hackney303 18:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - the list is purely a memorial - adds nothing other than the names therefore should be removed.--Vintagekits 18:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
It's not that I object to. The mediator said discussion would take place, and it hasn't. His job is to mediate, not decide the outcome based on his own opinion. One Night In Hackney303 18:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I take that as a way of saying that my job wasn't done. I read and took into consideration what was written, and implemented it. I have started the discussion. Dreamy § 20:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
This is wrong no discussion took place, this should be reopened as many of the parties involved where busy dealing with the arbcom on the troubles.--Padraig 21:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

(unindented)It is taking place right now. Dreamy § 21:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:MEMORIAL applies to mainspace articles only, but I suspect you know that already - Alison 17:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives - Thses people are not my friends or realtives - I suspect you know that too. Aatomic1 (talk) 17:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, no actually. How would I know that?? - Alison 17:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Because I would have declaired it. Aatomic1 (talk) 17:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Bizarre! How am I supposed to know, then? Do I need to check your every edit in case you mention something I need to know about??? - Alison 21:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC) (had a good friend who was seriously injured in the same tragedy, BTW)
What doe's a list of names and ages add to an encyclopedic article, the names can be found on numberous external links to newspaper articles written about the bombing so why not add a link as a source.--Padraig (talk) 17:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I have also provided information on where the victims came from. This information is not available by link. Aatomic1 (talk) 17:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
So OK, what doe's a list of names,ages and location of residence, add as encyclopedic value.--Padraig (talk) 17:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
BHG sums it up quite well. Aatomic1 (talk) 17:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
The opinion of another editor, dosen't answer my question to you, you want to include the list so explain what it adds to the article that is of encyclopedic interest.--Padraig (talk) 19:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
WP:Encyclopedic interest does not exist. Wikipedia:Verifiability does and the list is verifiable. During the mediation the dead were labelled as dead brummies. They were not all brummies - that information was accessible before you deleted the list. Aatomic1 (talk) 21:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed. Removed per Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-08-24 Birmingham pub bombings.If you wish to reopen discussions please do so. But just don't just start re-adding the list. Use the talk page. --Domer48 (talk) 22:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Please see my comment (It is the one directly above yours). Aatomic1 (talk) 23:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
WP:Encyclopedic interest does not exist. Wikipedia:Verifiability does and the list is verifiable. - please see WP:NOT, specifically the content section which states "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; merely being true or informative does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia". Given your comment is a tacit admission that the list has no encyclopedic value, your position is now untenable. One Night In Hackney303 10:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Birmingham Six names[edit]

Removed. They were only added originally as some sort of justification for adding a different set of names. There's no need to name them, it's not that important to this article. One Night In Hackney303 23:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

O'K, let's discuss this. I believe deletion of the list is a textbook case of not following Wikipedia policies. This article is about a terrorism act. Hence the information about both terrorists and victims is relevant and should be included. For example, in the article Nuclear receptors, one would naturally provide the list of nuclear receptors. See [6]. In the article about terrorism act one would naturally provide lists of terrorists and victims. There is absolutely no difference.Biophys (talk) 20:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

We are discussing it, and not here as you're well aware. One Night In Hackney303 20:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
You made your comment here, so I replied here as well.Biophys (talk) 20:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Different discussion, you know were "the discussion" is. --Domer48 (talk) 20:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Possible arbcom enforcement[edit]

See the note I have left at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Edit_warring_related_to_.22The_Troubles.22 --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


Seeing as the mediator User:Dreamafter has requested the page be protected due to an edit war while mediation is ongoing [7], I have protected the page. Please consider this the warning not to continue edit warring when it expires.. So far we've only added one user (in various incarnations), who's now indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia to the ArbCom enforcement for the Troubles articles.. I don't want to add to that list. Capisce? SirFozzie (talk) 21:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Here we go again. I've now protected the page on the M:The Wrong Version for 72 hours. Aatomic1 is now back on probation. SirFozzie (talk) 23:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Unprotect the page please. There's been discussion, and the outcome was not to add the list. Protection serves no purpose at present. One Night In Hackney303 14:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree, time for PP to be lifted BigDunc (talk) 14:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
The discussioon has been continuing above. Aatomic1 (talk) 14:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
That's not discussion, that's trolling. You had your chance during mediation, you chose to edit war and troll there instead as well. One Night In Hackney303 14:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

As Per ONIH and BigDunc, PP should be lifted. --Domer48 (talk) 14:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Girls please! Keep to the subject. Aatomic1 (talk) 14:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
The subject of you edit warring again on this article. BigDunc (talk) 14:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Declined - Sorry, but I'm declining unprotect at this time. You guys need to sort something out here and finish this issue for once. From what I can see, the recent comment from Aatomic1 (re. BHG) has a certain merit yet is being dismissed. Either way, the protect will expire soon anyway - Alison 15:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Suitable word to replace "volunteers"[edit]

Please could a suitable word be found to replace "volunteer" in the following:

Mick Murray (a Provisional IRA volunteer arrested later for other bombings)

Volunteer is I think not a suitable word. "Terrorist" is apparently unacceptable under WP:NPOV / WP:TERRORIST, so perhaps "bomber" or some such could be settled upon for Murray? A.C. Norman (talk) 22:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

"Terrorist" is unacceptable, is it? Then how do you account for this:-- Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:57, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Category addition[edit]

There are objections (noted by reverts with cursory edit comments) to the addition of this article to a category regarding massacres. As no discussion has taken place, I would like to request comments on the issue. -- (talk) 15:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Been discussed before, see Wikipedia:Irish wikipedians' notice board/Archive19. That you think the sky being blue is the same as an unsourced POV label being applied to an event is quite telling. I'm not seeing any argument in favour of inclusion, merely the false assumption that it is up to others to justify why the category shouldn't be added. 2 lines of K303 15:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I came here in response to the rfc. I concur with One Night in Hackney that this event cannot be trivially called a massacre, and that if it is to be in category "massacre" then there needs to be significant citations in notable media describing it as such. I went to the archive provided by One Night in Hackney. When this issue came up before, it seems that no one provided good citations. Since "massacre" is a POV term, if it is to be used at all, then there needs to be evidence of prior application of this term to that event. Can anyone provide this evidence? If not, this category should not be included on this article. Blue Rasberry 18:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I'm surprised there are only two here. Though I've only looked at one of the other related articles I tagged, I notice the same two people made comments on it as well.
I haven't looked at the discussion 2 lines of K has indicated, but I'd like to know exactly what he means by "that you think... is quite telling". What does it tell you?
Anyway, besides that irrelevant (personal attack?), my point had been that the general meaning of the word massacre applies. There is no "point of view" - who would not consider (in the case of this particular article) the murder of twenty-one people a massacre? I should think nobody of a sound mind. What other "point of view" could there possibly be? The Merriam-Webster dictionary online gives the [following definitions of the word massacre:
  1.  : the act or an instance of killing a number of usually helpless or unresisting human beings under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty
  2.  : a cruel or wanton murder
  3.  : a wholesale slaughter of animals
  4.  : an act of complete destruction <the author's massacre of traditional federalist presuppositions — R. G. McCloskey>
This event certainly fits two of those definitions. Common sense tells us this is the case. I fail to see what could possibly be "POV" about it: a dozen or two people were massacred in Birmingham. What is the .. or an.. other point of view please?
As for citations, I'll provide a quick example of a random event I Googled. The headline in a newspaper reads: "Question Richetti About Massacre". The text goes on to say, "a chance to tell what he knows about the massacre of five men in the Union station". This is only one example, though I am sure there are many, many more. This one happened to be the first article search result that I found in which the murder of less than twenty-one victims was described as a massacre.
What is the 'other' point of view to that story? Perhaps that it was actually a party..?
Another citation would be a newspaper from the affected region, the Birmingham Mail.
I don't think that the sky is blue should have to be proven however. Though I have given a couple of examples here, I believe it is up to others to prove that this wasn't a massacre. I'll leave this for now, but I will return and, unless there is any proof pointed out to me that this wasn't a massacre, I shall justifiably re-add the category. I'll probably give it at least a week. Thanks. -- (talk) 22:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Allow me to add my tuppence worth here. First of all, information pages cannot overrule a policy, and your attempt to add this label to the event using a dictionary definition is OR. In addition, using the words of these journalists was discussed previously and the points raised then were never rebutted. Furthermore, no one needs to provide sources saying it was not a massacre, as you have called for. That is not how Wikipedia works. What matters is how the sources generally describe it, and most sources do not describe it as a massacre. Finally, an emotive opinion piece in a local paper cannot and should not be presented as the majority view. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 03:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Bloody Sunday (1972) is in 2 'Massacre' categories. Are we attaching a greater value to lives in NI than Brum? Any unbiased reader of this article would accept that the murder of innocents is a massacre. MJB (talk) 09:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The rational provided by Bluerasberry is reasonable and logical. That it has not been addressed and still the cat is added is telling. --Domer48'fenian' 09:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The privileged status sought for Bloody Sunday is also eloquent and speaks of the terrorphilia of many contributors. MJB (talk) 09:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I have reviewed sources thrown up by google. Massacre seems to be an expression that Irish papers freely use but an expression UK papers avoid or place in inverted commas. It may be that UK newspaper Style Guides deter journalists. It is likely that incidents in NI or where the victims are Republican are being afforded a special status. MJB (talk) 10:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Sydney Morning Herald[edit]

Flexdream, what are you alleging this source says? 2 lines of K303 18:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Yard of Ale[edit]

The Yard of Ale has finally completely closed (see here), and the venue is now a buffet restaurant so I have removed the reference to the pub. -- (talk) 20:52, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Renaming of Pubs[edit]

I know the Tavern was originally renamed "Teddies" (with a silhouette of King Edward as a sign) for sure, so I have put it in, but I THINK the Mulberry Bush was originally renamed either "The Roundabout" or the "Ring of Roses" but I can't be sure...hope someone else knows better (talk) 16:52, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Please remember verifiability from reliable sources.--Egghead06 (talk) 19:07, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
I would have thought actually being there the day it re-opened, was as verifiable as it gets?
Here is a source for the final renaming of the Mulberry Bush:
A source for both renamings of the Tavern in the town:
Another reference to Teddies that might be interesting in other ways:
Fascinating eyewitness stuff that does not appear in article:
I cannot find any reference to the original renaming on the Mulberry Bush (last seen in 1988) but it was a kind of vague synonym to "Mulberry Bush" that seemed odd to me. Perhaps one day someone will find a reference. I hate to see bits of history vanish online (I have seen far less trivial ones do so, sadly) I hope this has been of interest. Use or not as you please. (talk) 15:40, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
WP:Citing sources - how to add them yourself.--Egghead06 (talk) 20:06, 26 December 2013 (UTC)


Kieron, the bombings weren't the miscarriage of justice. Also, do you regard the Kentucky New Era as an unbiased reputable source? Roy Jenkins certainly isn't. Gob Lofa (talk) 18:38, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi. It's a reasonable source, and one which has been placed directly alongside an extremely reputable source in my opinion. I could have placed a page from Error of Judgement there as a reference, but unless people own the book they can't verify it for themselves as opposed to accessing the online links.
What would classify as a reliable online news sporce source for you? The Telegraph? I'll be happy to look deeper if you wish. Roy Jenkins' actions stem directly from this act of terrorism. The name of the Act hastily rushed into force as a result of these bombings alone should suffice, as do the acts/methodology, and general classification of the PIRA regardless of anyone's viewpoint as to British occupation of N.I. Most events perpetrated by the IRA or PIRA are classified as terrorism.

That is a book not by Roy Jenkins (if it was you could argue neutrality), but a 347-page book by an author named Clive Walker specifically focusing on terrorism in the U.K., in which he refers to the Birmingham pub bombings as being acts of terror in the two pages harked towards in the reference. Good point as to the bombings not being the miscarriage of justice. Perhaps that final sentence should be adjusted slightly as it is misleading to a degree, although the bombings are equally notable as being the acts which led to the miscarriage of justice which ensued.--Kieronoldham (talk) 19:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

So if a North Korean politician describes the US Army as terrorist, it's not a problem for you if Wikipedia does the same? 21:18, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
That's going off-tangent in your scrutiny. We're referring to several reputable and independent sources (online and in books) here in reference to one of a long line of incidents relating to the Troubles. Maybe your mindset is outside of consensus? If numerous, independent, reputable sources could be found harking to the U.S. Army as being "terrorists" (and the U.S. Army actually continually operated, via these methods, in state of an objective aim, against North Korea), then maybe.--Kieronoldham (talk) 22:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
But you're using Roy Jenkins. Gob Lofa (talk) 22:11, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm not; Roy Jenkins is mentioned in the body text, further down the article, clarifying to the readers that, as then-Home Secretary, these tragic events prompted the "draconian but necessary" Prevention of Terrorism Act 1974 to be brought into effect by Jenkins. The references harking to this event being considered terrorism are completely independent of Jenkins.--Kieronoldham (talk) 22:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Gob Lofa, its not just this article where you are trying to remove the 'terrorist' word and to do so is a significant change. If you want to discuss this then you should settle one place to have the discussion and issue a RfA. I don't think you have got the proverbial cat's chance in hell of changing it but you are welcome to try. Otherwise making that change against consensus over multiple articles is potentially a breech of the general ArbCom ruling on The Troubles and can be reported as such at which point I suspect a topic ban would ensue. That would be a pity as you are doing a good job of generally improving articles ----Snowded TALK 06:29, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm trying to understand the criteria for inclusion of the term; it seems very haphazard. For example, I see the sources describe it as terrorism, but what is their definition? Is that an acceptable definition? Do the sources share the same definition? It's a mess. Gob Lofa (talk) 08:36, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Then raise in per my suggestion above. Don't just decide to implement your perspective ----Snowded TALK 10:03, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
My perspective? The bombings were violent; there's no getting around that. Also, if we're going to describe German bombing as terrorism here, we'll have to do the same for British terror bombing of civilian areas in Germany. Gob Lofa (talk) 10:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I might agree with you on the issue of terror bombing but that is relevant. The issue is how are things described in the sources giving due account for weight. You are far too prone to argue an opinion than to use sources and therein lies at least part of the issue. With your block record I would be a little more cautious ----Snowded TALK 13:05, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Gob Lofa has been told elsewhere to open an RfC for more input if they really believe in their own convictions. They have failed every time to do so leading one to suspect that they know it is a doomed enterprise from the start. Mabuska (talk) 11:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


Hi Kieron, can you expand on your edit summary? I don't understand why you replaced 'England' with 'Britain', or added the adjective 'mainland'. Gob Lofa (talk) 17:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Both of us said the same thing. Mainland Britain is the normal term in use around the Troubles and it was to separate from Britain, not from England. ----Snowded TALK 20:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Further to Snowded's reply, I suspect you may have been implying that the PIRA focused the actual locale of their attacks from 1973 onward upon England as opposed to other areas of the U.K. which nationalists held no desire to be/remain part of (that is what I suspect was the basis of the logic of your edit re: England). As it stood and stands the U.K. (Britain) obv. consists of 3 sections on the "mainland" of the U.K., plus Northern Ireland. Despite the ideology of the likes of Nicola Sturgeon and Leanne Wood being to the contrary, Scotland and Wales remain part of the U.K., so the campaign was extended to the "mainland" of the U.K. as it stood and stands. As Snowded rightly points out, it was not just England the PIRA wished to sever union with.--Kieronoldham (talk) 21:58, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Gob Lofa also objects to using "mainland" at Ulster Resistance, continually removing it despite the fact NI can also fall under the term Britain. Mabuska (talk) 00:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
There, per agreements in the British Island articles and others I think he is correct. Yes it can fall under Britain in some sources, but that is incorrect, Britain as a geographical or political entity does not include Northern Island ----Snowded TALK 05:16, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
The IRA bombed England, which is the part of Britain I'm talking about. When we're talking about separation, I'll use Britain. Gob Lofa (talk) 08:45, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
They bombed the Midlands, which is a part of England, which is a part of Britain, which is a part of the United Kingdom, which is a part of Europe, which is a part of the World and so on. In the context of the Troubles we are talking about Britain and Ireland. ----Snowded TALK 09:37, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
They didn't just bomb the Midlands, they bombed all of England. In this context, we're talking about "In 1973, the IRA extended its campaign to England, attacking military and symbolically important targets to both increase pressure on the British government, via popular British opinion,[1] to concede to their demand to withdraw from Northern Ireland,[2] and to maintain morale amongst their supporters.[3] By 1974, England saw an average of one attack—successful or otherwise—every three days." Not just the Midlands, not quite Britain. Gob Lofa (talk) 09:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
You are (again) in a minority on this. Your quote on 1973 says Britain - did you check? Otherwise I'm not wasting time on this unless other editors engage. You are in a minority of one and this is a Troubles article covered by the sanction for which you have already been blocked ----Snowded TALK 20:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Snowded, the bombing campaign in Britain was restricted to one part of it, which has a name. This isn't an issue anywhere else. Why insist on Britain? Gob Lofa (talk) 20:39, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm with Gob Lofa in this. The PIRA deliberarely excluded Scotland and Wales from their bombing campaign. All the attacks in Great Brirain were thereby confined to England.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:17, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
not unless they've moved the Shetland Islands to England. [8].--Egghead06 (talk) 12:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Find a source which says that Jeanne and I'm open to it, as far as I remember it the general phrase was the British Mainland and they focused on the major cities or the specific location of politicians (Brighton) all of which happen to be in England ----Snowded TALK 13:24, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
[9] Gob Lofa (talk) 15:08, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Single news report which simply says there have been no attacks in Wales or Scotland. If the Conservative Party conference had been in Cardiff not Brighton then I am sure we would have been hit as well. You need an academic source really which says the targeting was specifically England not Britain ----Snowded TALK 15:13, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────It does not have to be an "academic" source. Just a reliable one. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 18:28, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Snowded, do you have a reliable source that is as sure as you are that the IRA would have hit a Tory conference in Cardiff? Gob Lofa (talk) 21:28, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Agree Imperatrix, but academic sources count highest. Gob Lofa, per comments elsewhere, when you make a serious comment I will respond ----Snowded TALK 23:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
H'mmm didn't Scotland Yard order 'close England' in 1973...? Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 10:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
One of the interesting things (and deeply irritating) about the English is that they tend to use England and Britain interchangeably, the imperial past (and to a degree present), while the Welsh, Scots and Irish are more precise in their use. As I have said if there are sources which say that PIRA deliberately only targeted England then we can look at the balance of that against the uses of Britain. ----Snowded TALK 12:37, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Please WP:AGF for the whole of fecking England :) Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 14:16, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
"If there are sources"? Gob Lofa (talk) 19:41, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Anything to add, Snowded? Gob Lofa (talk) 12:53, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
No, the point has been made and there is no consensus for change ----Snowded TALK 13:28, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
It was disingenuous of you to say that we needed an academic source instead of a reliable one; you compounded that by using the word 'if' when you knew full well a source has been provided. And now you try to provoke an edit war. Your gaming is growing tiresome, Snowded. Gob Lofa (talk) 19:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Compromise - replace England with United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 13:13, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

The point GoodDay is a political one as Gob Lofa knows well ----Snowded TALK 13:28, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
GoodDay, the point is that England is more specific than Britain and thus more accurate. UK is even less specific than GB. Gob Lofa (talk) 19:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
But the point, Gob Lofa, is that the United Kingdom does not consist of just England and Northern Ireland.--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:14, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
When we're discussing the IRA's bombing campaign in England Kieron, that's very much not the point at all. Gob Lofa (talk) 10:25, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Well you heard my earlier point regarding focusing the attacks upon England from '73 onwards, but, the objective was to disengage from the U.K. and not just England. If it'll appease you, I'll find a reference to briefly add that the actual locale of the mainland attacks were focused upon England. Perhaps immediately after the below text, something like one of the two highlighted pieces of inserted text:
In 1973, the IRA extended its campaign to mainland Britain, attacking military and symbolically important targets in England to both increase pressure on the British government, via popular British opinion, to concede to their demand to withdraw from Northern Ireland, and to maintain morale amongst their supporters. By 1974, mainland Britain saw an average of one attack—successful or otherwise—every three days. These mainland attacks themselves were focused upon England, and included five explosions which had occurred in Birmingham on 14 July, one of which had occurred at the Rotunda.
I won't go into too much depth for proposed insertions upon the talk page, but, if you like (and consensus governs), I'll morph one of these segments of information into this paragrapgh. Personally, I think it most appropriate in this section.--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
'Mainland' is redundant and makes it sound like they were coming from Anglesey or Skye. I don't see the need for 'Britain' at all, let alone twice. 'Focused upon England' is just plain misleading. Gob Lofa (talk) 01:30, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Kieronoldham I really don't see the need to compromise here, the normal use if mainland Britain and I am increasing of the view that Gob Lofa is in the category of "not to be fed" ----Snowded TALK 02:30, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
But Anglesey and Skye are part of subsections of the U.K. and I see no virulent determined movement for segregation/independence. I cannot fathom the procrastination here.
Snowded, don't worry. I agree, and this is my final reply on the matter.--Kieronoldham (talk) 02:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
"I really don't see the need to compromise here" - unfortunately that sums up a frequent attitude of yours Snowded, more's the pity that it's often on subjects your grasp of which leaves a lot to be desired. Your belligerence is unseemly and worse, encourages others. Gob Lofa (talk) 09:49, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, this is a topic I paid particular attention to. I cannot remember a single BBC news item of the time which didn't separate attacks into either the mainland or a named part of Ireland. JRPG (talk) 11:57, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
"The mainland"? Since when does Ireland have a mainland that's not the European continent? Do you think RTE or other non-British news outlets use this Anglocentric term? Gob Lofa (talk) 14:36, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Anyone (other that Gob Lofa) object to us closing this thread? There is no support for a change ----Snowded TALK 15:06, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

"No support"? Pretty much sums up your attitude to those who disagree with you. Gob Lofa (talk) 17:38, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Here we are: "We should avoid using the word "mainland" when talking about Great Britain in relation to Northern Ireland." because "The easiest mistake to avoid is the casual and loose use of language which betrays a skewed perspective on a story or an inadequate understanding of institutions in different parts of the UK.", from BBC Editorial Guidelines. [10] Happily, you folk can avoid this mistake in future. Gob Lofa (talk) 11:03, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Any other objections? Gob Lofa (talk) 22:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
You do not have agreement to any change ----Snowded TALK 05:55, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
This I could see. My question was, do I have opposition? Gob Lofa (talk) 10:19, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Don't be perverse; your change was rejected and nothing there has changed. ----Snowded TALK 22:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Endless trolling still continuing. Why not open a RfC Gob Lofa? See if you can get more input and see what they think. Mabuska (talk) 23:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
You're not meant to feed them Mabuska .... ----Snowded TALK 23:08, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Really, Snowded? The BBC's guidelines mean nothing to you? I'd be happy to join your RfC, Mabuska. Gob Lofa (talk) 23:02, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
You've definitely used odder get-out clauses than that, Snowded. Let's see how she plays. Gob Lofa (talk) 23:24, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Any other objections? Gob Lofa (talk) 20:41, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
No new ones and you still don't have support so you have no authority to make any change. If you do it will be reverted ----Snowded TALK 09:54, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Learning the BBC's guidelines doesn't affect your stance? Gob Lofa (talk) 12:22, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Birmingham pub bombings. 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 User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*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}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:16, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

List of victims[edit]

I propose to remove this as unencyclopedic. Is there any good reason within Wikipedia's mission for keeping it? --John (talk) 17:36, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes. I view it as properly encyclopedic, especially given WP:NOTPAPER. However, if you wish to remove it, feel free to do so, in the spirit of Vintagekits, ONiH, Domer, et all, once you've removed this list. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 20:18, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Well said, Bastun The list on both articles should be kept. There is no WP to justify its removal, and a proposed removal of the list on this article was thoroughly discussed around this time last year at the Teahouse. (Conclusion was WP:NOT refers to articles per se, not lists or names within an article as I say.) In what way is this "unencyclopedic" beyond apparent personal taste? There is no shortage of articles of this nature with lists like this (see La Mon restaurant bombing or even the Charlie Hebdo shooting Wiki. pages). John, if you want references added to that section, I will be more than happy to add them. The best one would be the book "Lost Lives: The Stories of the Men, Women and Children who Died as a Result of the Northern Ireland Troubles". That chronologically lists each and every life lost on both sides in the Troubles, by date...--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:32, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
One Wikipedia article does not dictate the content of another, as you well know. That list is well-referenced. Can this one be? --John (talk) 20:26, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:21, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Great. If you can find detailed high-quality sources on all the victims, that will be an asset to the article. Will 48 hours be enough? --John (talk) 21:36, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
No, I'm busy through to next week. What's your hurry, in any case? They've been in the article for months. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:22, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
I'll do it myself - 24 hours maximum. Fact, 1 encompassing reference from the book I mentioned will suffice. Cheers.--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:32, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
"1 encompassing reference from the book" probably won't do. I specified "detailed high-quality sources on all the victims" and the WP:ONUS is on anybody who wants this material kept. --John (talk) 07:33, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
What part of WP:V prevents one encompassing published reference from being sufficient, John? First time I've ever seen such a claim. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:10, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
My father and stepmother were amongst the many staff at the Birmingham Accident Hospital called in to help with casualties. However WP:MEMORIAL appears to me to prohibit the listing of names of non-notable victims. Regards JRPG (talk) 09:49, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Failing any consensus here that the list is necessary, and the lack of any detailed high quality sources, I have removed the list. Can I note here that I am not against such lists per se, but that any such list would (like anything else) have to be included for an encyclopedic reason. Wikipedia is not a memorial. If such sourcing was found or appeared, this material would be better added as a prose list than a bullet-pointed one. --John (talk) 00:25, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Also, John. Where is the "failed consensus" to keep this in the above talk? (Or the lack of a "high quality source"?) IF you want be to add another half dozen to an already verifiable, reputable one, I'm game.--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:34, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I posted more than two days ago:

I propose to remove this as unencyclopedic. Is there any good reason within Wikipedia's mission for keeping it?

  • User:Bastun cited WP:NOTPAPER and another (far better referenced) list at another article, but said he was too busy to add sources.
  • You gave no justification in policy but said you wanted to add it back anyway. You provided, as you put it, "1 encompassing reference from the book", which is presumably a list of names.
  • User:JRPG said they were against including it, citing NOTMEMORIAL.
I don't find this relatively short list particularly a problem, but it adds little to the article and WP:NOTMEMORIAL reflects an existing community wide consensus to remove it so no further discussion is needed. However in the interest of peace, I note other articles have pictures of memorials or links etc. & I have no problem with that. JRPG (talk) 09:07, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

That's what "no consensus to include" looks like.

Per WP:ONUS, the onus is on those wishing to include material to justify and demonstrate consensus that it is essential to improve the article. As that has not been done, I removed the list again. You reverted me again. I think I have explained my actions thoroughly. Maybe you could think about what you are doing and why you are doing it. I don't want the list because to me the list of non-notable people's names is listcruft and has a sniff of NOTMEMORIAL about it. Why is it important to you to include this material? Do you need more time to find significant coverage in good sources of the individual people who died? --John (talk) 00:49, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

    • John, I respect your time and dedication (and I am not trying to flatter you there - just stating a fact). Here's my reply: I initially replied well within 24 hours. User JRPG cycles me back to the original discussion at the Teahouse last year which you (all genuine respect intended) seem resistant to acknowledge, so I shall repeat: WP:NOT refers to articles per se, not lists or names within an article. How is it unuseful as per notpaper? All he/she did was repeat a flawed opinion. User Bastun seems in agreement with myself as opposed to you. NOTPAPER does not specifically state prohibiting content like this. I shall add AMPLE sources in addition to the verifiable and accessible one I initially added, should you wish. If you want to change the format of inclusion I don't mind, personally. Don't know about other contributors' opinions. Like I once said to you, consensus governs.--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:04, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
      • Oh one last thing. As for the segment of your reply re: "good sources of the individual people who died" Please access the link placed alongside the name of Michael Beasley - it is an online book (which I named above) which you can navigate, page by page and which lists ALL the names and ages of the deceased. Click upon it to verify. I suppose it's "insufficient"?

I said I was busy through to next week, and I am. As Kieron points out, NOT refers to subjects of articles, not lists within articles. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 07:27, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Remove as per NOT, and remove ask such lists from similar articles I'd desired as per NLIST. Muffled Pocketed 09:45, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The victims should obviously be named in the article. The victims of murders are normally named in articles relating to the crimes. Exceptions arise in mass-casualty events like Lockerbie where the effect would be an undifferentiated and unreadable wall of names serving no purpose. Birmingham was on a similar though somewhat larger scale to Bloody Sunday, where the victims are all named. Therefore the victims should be named. Of course everyone knows that Wikipedia articles on the Troubles are manipulated by IRA sympathisers who seek to eliminate the memory of anyone murdered by the IRA. In reality the IRA's victims were as follows:--

Stephen John Walley, 21. Anne Heyes, 15. Charles Harper Grey, 44. John Clifford Jones, 51. James Frederick Caddick, 40. Neil Robert Marsh, 20. Eugene Thomas Reilly, 23. James Goodlett Craig, 34. Paul Anthony Davis, 27. John Rowlands, 46. Maxine Hambleton, 18. Lynn Jane Bennett, 18. Marilyn Paula Nash, 22. Maureen Anne Roberts, 20. Michael William Beasley, 30. Pamela Joan Palmer, 19. Trevor George Thrupp, 33. Stanley James Bodman, 47. Thomas Frederick Chaytor, 28. Desmond William Reilly, 20. Jane Elizabeth Davis, 17.

The fact that terrorist groupies want to minimise the crimes of their terrorist heroes and erase the memory of those killed by terrorists... Well, no decent person has any right to go along with that.

Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:29, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Old discussion, and even though I stand by my and Bastun's observations, another user (I think John but MAY BE WRONG in that recollection), personally thought otherwise....--Kieronoldham (talk) 02:31, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with John and question how it is a memorial to fall foul of NOTMEMORIAL? Indeed if they feel so strongly they should have went to the WikiProjects and discussd the overall issue considering quite a lot of Troubles articles have such lists - though due to republican editors many articles on attacks by republicans don't have one for obvious bias reasons. I'd support the return of the list. Mabuska (talk) 09:32, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
The problem is that there is absolutely no consistency on WP on the actual meaning and interpretation of NOTMEMORIAL. By the way - excluding about the bit about dead Wikipedians - this is the entirety of our WP:NOTMEMORIAL policy:
"Memorials. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements."
So, a standalone list of victims of an incident is therefore definitely not allowed. Clearly. And typing "List of victims" into the search box definitely wouldn't return any articles that aren't just redirects. *cough*
A list of victims in a particular bombing incident in the Troubles will be removed, even where the list of names isn't a standalone article, but is included as part of a main article (such as this one). Because it "isn't encyclopedic" and because of NOTMEMORIAL, even though the latter applies only to the subjects of articles.
A list of victims of Bloody Sunday will be included because a chronology makes it encyclopedic, even though some of the material added seems irrelevant to the chronology. "Three witnesses said they saw a soldier take deliberate aim at the youth as he ran... Like Saville, Widgery also concluded that Duddy was unarmed... His nephew is boxer John Duddy." (We're told that it's been found that each victim was unarmed. Not like anyone's making a point, though).
But elsewhere, where chronologies are known or not, lists of victims can be, and are, included within articles. E.g., Charlie Hebdo, Orlando, and Dunblane. (There seems to be an effort to exclude lists of victims from British incidents not related to the Troubles, presumably so they don't get cited as examples...)
I would suggest, therefore, that rather than dicussing the inclusion of a list of victims here, a central discussion is held somewhere like WP:NOT's talk page, or the Village Pump. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:00, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Birmingham pub bombings. 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}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:44, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Birmingham pub bombings. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ Armed Struggle: The History of the IRA p. 169
  2. ^ O'Day, Alan. Political Violence in Northern Ireland p.20
  3. ^ BBC News 4 Mar., 2011