Talk:Bloody Friday (1972)

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


May I suggest that we try and reach a consensus here before any controversial changes or reverts are made?

(It is rather difficult to track three different project pages and, so far this article's talk page has been little used other than for placing templates and one case of vandalism) W. Frank 23:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


I am a bit of an inclusionist when it comes to categories. The more the merrier unless the categories are grossly misleading. W. Frank 23:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Category: IRA killings[edit]

Replaced as per discussion on request for category deletion page. [1] W. Frank 23:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed per category talk page. That category was deleted while discussion was ongoing, and as discussion has not concluded it should not have been unilaterally recreated. One Night In Hackney303 10:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Genuine question: how can discussion on the category's talk page ever be concluded (or even start) when, as you say, the original category was deleted before this was ever concluded (conclusion was, eventually, keep)? W. Frank 12:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
As you're well aware, there is a lengthy discussion on the categorie's talk page, which you have failed to reply to, and simply assumed you could re-create the category and employ it. The category was deleted by Tyrenius to allow discussion to take place, it seems to me as the discussion wasn't going in favour of use of the category, you've chosen to ignore it completely. One Night In Hackney303 12:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Please assume good faith on my part. I think you do know that I am not as knowledgeable about the minutiae of WP and I would be grateful if you could point me towards this discussion if it is NOT this reference: [2] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by W. Frank (talkcontribs) 12:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC).
You are more than aware of the discussion on the talk page, as I posted on your talk page inviting you to contribute to it. On the talk page Tyrenius clearly states that he has deleted the category to allow discussion to take place. 12:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Genuine oversight on my part. Thank you for drawing it to my attention. In case anyone else is as stupid as me (doubtful) here's the full reference:
I think I said my piece before (resulting in me being blocked and my talk page and record being sullied) so I think I will recuse myself from further discussion and try and enjoy my (very overcast) holiday.
Thank you for assisting me in becoming a better and more useful editor. W. Frank 13:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Original research?[edit]

What was the "original research" referred to in edit summary by One Night In Hackney: (rv per talk - and please don't add original research), please ? W. Frank 12:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Adding "civilian" as a target is original research, and incorrect. One Night In Hackney303 12:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
But the article itself summarises the civilian targets:
2:09 p.m. (Windsor Park, Belfast)

A bomb (estimated at 30 pounds (14 kg) of explosive) was detonated on the footbridge over the Dublin to Belfast railway line at Windsor Park. 2:36 p.m. (Brookvale Hotel, Brookvale Avenue, north Belfast) A bomb (estimated at 50 pounds (23 kg) of explosive) exploded at the Brookvale Hotel, in Brookvale Avenue, north Belfast. 2:40 p.m. (Ulster Bank, Limestone Road, north Belfast) The car bomb (estimated at 50 pounds (23 kg) of explosive) exploded outside the branch of the Ulster Bank on the Limestone Road, north Belfast. The site of this bomb was a few hundred yards from the first bomb. This area had not been cleared. A local Catholic woman was caught in the blast and lost both legs. Motorists, in cars which were caught up in the traffic chaos, were also injured in the blast. 2:52 p.m. (Botanic Railway Station, Botanic Avenue, Belfast) A car bomb (estimated at 50 pounds (23 kg) of explosive) exploded outside the railway station in Botanic Avenue. 2:53 p.m. (Queen Elizabeth Bridge, Belfast) A car bomb (estimated at 160 pounds (73 kg) of explosive) exploded without warning on the Queen Elizabeth Bridge. 3:02 p.m. (Agnes Street, Belfast) A car bomb (estimated at 30 pounds (14 kg) of explosive) exploded outside a group of Protestant houses in Agnes Street. Those in the area did not receive a warning but there were no serious injuries. 3:02 p.m. (Liverpool Bar, Donegall Quay, Belfast) A bomb (estimated at 50 pounds (23 kg) of explosive) exploded in the Liverpool Bar in Donegall Quay. There was no clear warning and the explosion caused a few casualties. 3:02 p.m. (Bellevue, north Belfast) A bomb (estimated at 30 pounds (14 kg) of explosive) exploded on the bridge over the M2 motorway at Bellevue in north Belfast. There were no serious injuries in this explosion. 3:03 p.m. (York Street Station, York Street, Belfast) A bomb (estimated at 30 pounds (14 kg) of explosive) exploded at York Street railway station. The bomb was contained in a suitcase and exploded before the station could be cleared. There were a number of casualties. 3:04 p.m. (Ormeau Avenue, Belfast) A car bomb (estimated at 50 pounds (23 kg) of explosive) exploded in Ormeau Avenue. Those in the area did not receive a warning. However, there were no serious injuries. 3:05 p.m. (Eastwood's Garage, Donegall Road, Belfast) A car bomb (estimated at 150 pounds (68 kg) of explosive) destroyed Eastwood's Garage on Donegall Road. There were no serious injuries in the explosion. 3:10 p.m. (Oxford Street Bus Depot, Oxford Street, Belfast) A car bomb exploded outside the Ulsterbus depot in Oxford Street. This explosion resulted in the greatest loss of life and the greatest number of casualties, of any of the bombs on the day. 3:15 p.m. (Stewartstown Road, Belfast) A bomb, thought to have been abandoned on the Stewartstown Road, exploded but caused no serious injuries. 3:20 p.m. (Cavehill Road, north Belfast) A car bomb (estimated at 50 pounds (23 kg) of explosive) exploded outside a row of single storey shops near the top of the Cavehill Road, north Belfast. Those caught in the blast had no warning of the bomb. The shops were in a religiously-mixed residential area. Two women and a man died in this blast. Mrs Margaret O'Hare (37), a Catholic mother of seven children, died in her car. Her 11-year-old daughter was with her in her car and was badly injured. Miss Brigid Murray (65), a Catholic, was also killed. Stephen Parker (14), a Protestant teenager, also died in the explosion. In addition there were a number of serious injuries. 3:25 p.m. (Railway Line, near Lisburn Road, Belfast) A bomb exploded on the railway line near the Lisburn Road, but caused no casualties. 3:25 p.m. (Crumlin Road, Belfast) Two bombs (both estimated at 50 pounds (23 kg) of explosive) exploded at the Star Garage on the Crumlin Road. There were no serious injuries in the explosions. 3:30 p.m. ('Nutts Corner', west of Belfast) A landmine was detonated on the road to Nutts Corner, west of Belfast, just as a bus full of schoolchildren was passing. The driver saw the device and swerved, avoiding the worst of the blast. It was thought that the bus may have been mistaken for a British army vehicle. There were no serious injuries in the explosion. 3:30 p.m. (Northern Ireland Carriers Depot, Grosvenor Road, Belfast) A bomb (estimated at 50 pounds (23 kg) of explosive) exploded at the Northern Ireland Carriers depot on the Grosvenor Road. There were no serious injuries in the explosion.

Which of these targets should be regarded as not civilian? W. Frank 12:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Those would be victims, not targets. One Night In Hackney303 12:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Yet again ONIH has demonstrated succinct and clear reasoning; I consider W. Frank’s contribution is bordering on disruptive (no disrespect intended). I have learned more from ONIH on policies and there application through discussions such as this than I ever would by simply reading policy pages. W. Frank’s attempts to obfuscate the issue, as illustrated with their last contribution is becoming unfortunately all too familiar. Please respect the policies and the decisions reached through consultation and consensus.--Domer48 13:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that after nearly two weeks, I am entirely justified in asking pertinent unanswered questions again:
  1. Which exactly of the 22 bombs were targeted at Military targets
  2. Where exactlyare the sources for establishing the intentions of the bombers when they targeted their victims?
In the absence of exact and timely answers to these two questions, it follows as night follows day that the claim that only economic and military victims were targeted must be removed.

The article does not say any of the 22 bombs were aimed at military targets. The article says the IRA's bombing campaign targeted both economic and military targets, which is correct and not unreasonable to include in the article. The article specifically states the targets on this occasion were economic, which is again correct.

The source for establishing the intentions is in the article, this link has Chief of Staff Seán Mac Stíofáin stating that the aim of the attacks was to cause financial damage. One Night In Hackney303 14:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

W. Frank , is either, unwilling or unable to provide referenced material to substantiate their understanding of the incident. Unwilling, because this would involve research, (i.e. time and energy) in addition, one would have to have a genuine interest in furthering their knowledge and understanding of the incident, and welcoming their views being challenged. I see nothing to be gained in pandering to editors who can not back up their views with referenced material.--Domer48 14:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Belfast Bomb Blitz[edit]

Removed, as I can't find a single source that uses the term; see here. If anyone can reliably source it from more than one source, I'd have no objection to it going back. One Night In Hackney303 13:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

ONIH, you were absolutely right to remove this. Belfast Blitz refers to the Luftwaffe's devastating bombing raid on Belfast throughout the night of 15/16 April 1941. I have always heard the 21 July 1972 attacks decribed as Bloody Friday, even shortly after they took place. Belfast Bomb Blitz sounds like a casual, arbitrary title given by a journalist for an article.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Third opinion[edit]

This article has been in a static state for quite some time, and then I had to revert this edit due to failure to engage in further discussion on the talk page. I had already stated the apology could easily be sourced by an external link in the article, and that I would add footnotes when time permitted. After reverting, I made these edits to source certain aspects, and also changed the wording to match what the source actually stated. I also required a citation for one statement, and a clarification on the nature of "some".

This was then reverted by the editor as an IP. He then made these edits. The problems with them are as follows.

  • I have explained to this editor before why PIRA is not used and why IRA is, as can be seen here.
  • The figure of 139 being added doesn't even match the infobox which says 130, and the figure of 139 is completely unsourced.
  • Sean MacStiofain is not "a IRA leader", he was the IRA Chief of Staff therefore he was "the IRA leader".
  • Sean MacStiofain never said that "the bombings were part of a concerted bombing campaign carried out by the Provisional IRA against purely military and economic targets" as was added, the source says nothing of the sort. However this is a fact, it is the opinion held by every scholar who has ever written a book about the IRA, in fact it is common knowledge. The only people who refuse to accept this are people who wish to push an anti-republican POV, including this editor.
  • Sean MacStiofain didn't explicity say "the warnings were ignored by the British Army to cause civilian casualties that would discredit the IRA", in fact this is the very sentence I specifically changed to match the souce. So it should absolutely not have been changed back.
  • The infobox has had the word "economic" removed, despite this being sourced. The source was removed at the same time.
  • "However this is not widely deemed to be credible" - I specifically asked for a citation for this, the tag was removed and no citation given. That is 100% definitely a statement that requires sourcing or removing. However as it's an anti-republican statement, it's been allowed to stand unsourced to push a POV.
  • "Along with some accurate warnings" - I specifically asked for clarification on the nature of "some", and again the tag has been removed.

I am facing nothing but disruption from someone determined to push an anti-republican POV, who removes sources that don't suit his POV, refuses to cite controversial statements, has no respect for consensus, and refuses to communicate on the articles talk page. One Night In Hackney303 18:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

130 + 9 = 139
I haven't checked the IP of the anonymous editor but it was certainly not I !
Reversion should generally be kept for vandals.
Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view; presenting each point of view accurately; providing context for any given point of view, so that readers understand whose view the point represents; and presenting no one point of view as "the truth" or "the best view". It means citing verifiable, authoritative sources whenever possible, especially on such a controversial (for you) topic as this. When a conflict arises as to which version is the most neutral, declare a cool-down period and tag the article as disputed.
Enjoy the weather down south as I really must get back to my holidays. W. Frank
What sources have you cited? You removed neutral sources because you didn't like what they said! If reversion is for vandals why did you keep reverting to your preferred POV version with unsourced statements, instead of the reliably sourced version? One Night In Hackney303 19:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Also the 139 figure can't stand the way it currently is. Only two soldiers died, but you have no cite for every person injured being a civilian. One Night In Hackney303 19:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I find User talk:W._Frank behaviour disruptive and argumentative. Reasonable and logical discussion has become pointless. Either reference contributions, or respect consensus. --Domer48 19:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

3O reply[edit]

As I understand it, this issue is a disagreement between reliable and verifiable sourcing versus overall neutrality, with

  • One Night In Hackney claiming that statements in the article must be sourced to reliable. and
  • User:W._Frank claiming that WP:NPOV is equally important so as not to overly bias an article in one direction.
-Original research

In this case, WP:RS is a guideline whereas verifiability, no original research and neutral point of view are actually official policies.

W._Frank's statement:

"...It means citing verifiable, authoritative sources whenever possible.." (my highlighting)

is only partially correct. What it actually means is only citing verifiable and authoritative sources and citing them in an NPOV manner. Making any statements which are not sourced to someone else's primary or secondary published works, violates the policy against original research. The policy regarding original research is very clear:

Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say.


The policy on content neutrality is 'absolute and non-negotiable'. What this means is that every significant view (that has been published in reliable sources) can be represented fairly and without bias. It does not mean that every view can be represented nor that every view gets equal weight.

If there is no reliably sourced material, which represents a particular viewpoint, then that viewpoint is probably not significant and would not qualify to be represented under the WP:NPOV policy.

-Other comments

1. One Night In Hackney begins by claiming that s/he had to revert to an older version.

  • This is a false claim. We do not have to do anything. By taking the position that you 'have' to revert, then you are taking an uncompromising stance. It may have been easier to revert but was not mandatory.

2. One Night In Hackney stated that footnotes would be 'added later as time permitted'.

  • This asks for other editors to allow something, that they may not agree with, to stay until you can support it. I would suggest that you wait until after you have the footnotes ready, before you insert content. This is only an encyclopedia article and waiting a day or two, until you have all the required documentation ready, will not cause an end-of-world melt down.

3. One Night In Hackney, in several places, refers to W._Frank as an anti-Republican.

  • I would caution against this type of language for several reasons. Whether true or not, making the statement does not demonstrate good faith in the context of an article discussion or, more specifically, in a Third-Opinion request. Whether or not W._Frank is anti-Republican, is quite irrelevant to a factual request in a 3O. And making such claims only widens the gap of disagreement and reduces the chance of compromise. Keep in mind that, unless you want to 'protect' your article 24/7, it is always better to get a consensus from all editors.

As for the other point-by-point for each citation, I do not believe they need to be addressed at this time. If they are reliably sourced from secondary and primary sources, they should be included. If not, then they shouldn't.

Hopefully this has helped. Lsi john 22:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. My point with the footnotes is that given I had stated exactly how it could be sourced, an editor acting in good faith and not acting disruptively would have been more than able to add the required footnote rather than ask for a citation.
With regards to NPOV, that precisely what I'm aiming towards. I've introduced reliable neutral sources, and these have been removed to allow POV statements to be introduced instead. As I said above W._Frank has not added a single source to the article to back up his edits. One Night In Hackney303 22:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Again, with the 'good faith' and 'disruptive' implications. It is unproductive (and unwise) to declare judgment about another editor's motives. Had you provided all the footnotes to begin with, and then been reverted, you would be in a much better position to declare bad-faith and disruptive. As I see it, you opened the door for being reverted. Another editor might look at what you did and could conclude you were 'baiting' in bad-faith. Note: I do not choose to look at it that way. I am only suggesting that someone could sit in judgment on you and conclude bad-faith on your part. Take responsibility for your editing. Dot all the i's and cross all the t's. If you get reverted, ask yourself what you could have done differently. Sometimes it won't matter. Sometimes you will be dealing with a WP:TE editor and nothing will matter. But allow someone else to draw that conclusion. Don't lead them to it.
There is nothing requiring the sources to be 'neutral'. The sources are what they are. The requirement is that the viewpoints are presented fairly and without bias. For example, note the differences:
  • Dr Henry, PhD, claimed that medication can help people with multiple personality disorder.
  • World renowned expert psychologist, with 17 degrees in sociology, psychology and disruptive behavior, and best-selling author, Dr Henry, PhD, firmly declared that it was a proven fact that medication can help people with multiple personality disorder.
  • Dr henry, PhD, convicted 3 times for drunk driving, and later divorced, claimed that medication can help people with multiple personality disorder.
That being said, finding 17 sources which all state the same position, when 3 sources will do, is probably unnecessary. And research time would be better (and more NPOV) spent, finding less prominently published but significant and opposing views. If we are aware of opposing views, it is our responsibility as NPOV editors, to help find them and get them into the article in a fair and balanced way, in proportion to their weight. Lsi john 22:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I would also add that it is also unproductive to simply revert, rather than improve someone's edit.
Some things that might be useful in this article are:
  • Timeline - what is the verifiable source of this timeline?
  • Media response - what was the news media response from both viewpoints?
  • Economic/Society impact - what was the overall impact of this?
  • Response - were there any official responses to the situation? Were there any meetings? negotiations?
  • Resolution - was there anything which was resolved by this or is the situation still continuing today?

Lsi john 00:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree that is unproductive to revert. However when an editor removes a source to change a statement to a POV one and adds original research there is little that can be done to improve their edit other than revert, especially if they persist in continually reverting back to that version.
The timeline seems wrong looking at it. To the best of my knowledge (and CAIN are reliable) this is the timeline, and it doesn't match the article. Next on my list will be to re-write to conform to what the source says, and tidy up the ugly formatting as well. One Night In Hackney303 00:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, my comment was intended to address W._Frank's revert of your material. However if you can find value in applying it to your own actions, then so much the better. I look forward to following up and reading a better sourced and more thorough article. Something else which is absent is the reason. Why did this happen? What do the published sources say about the reasons on both sides of this debate? Keep up the good work. Lsi john 02:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Sentence removed[edit]

"Except for two British soldiers, all 139 victims were civilian" - this may or may not be true. Two soldiers died, but others may have been injured. WP:Verifiability states the burden of evidence is on the editor who adds material, please provide sources to prove this statement before adding it back. Brixton Busters 17:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

"A landmine was detonated on the road to Nutts Corner, west of Belfast, just as a bus full of schoolchildren was passing. The driver saw the device and swerved, avoiding the worst of the blast. It was thought that the bus may have been mistaken for a British army vehicle. There were no serious injuries in the explosion."

Excuses, excuses, why always excuses for IRA actions on Wikipedia? Where is the evidence provided that "It was thought the bus may have been mistaken for a British Army vehicle"?

Who thought this exactly, IRA apologists? I have removed the offending sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

"Dead" section[edit]

This is redundant. The names and the like are already mentioned inline. There is no need for information to be duplicated. Brixton Busters 22:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 05:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The photograph in use on the page[edit]

Is the photograph showing a fireman shovelling what little remains there are of a bomb victim into a body bag really necessary for this article? Captainbeecher (talk) 19:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It is an iconic image of the day. Doesn't really show blood or other gore in any detail.GiollaUidir (talk) 11:34, 18 September 2008 (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 requested more evidence in a related rfc here. Blue Rasberry 18:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


Why hasn't this article been translated into Gaelic yet? — A lizard (talk) 03:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you can guess why... --feline1 (talk) 23:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


The CAIN website has two different timelines. Timeline A is a news-sheet published by the Northern Ireland Office "in the wake of the bombings". Timeline B is "based on a number of secondary reports and accounts". Although both list most of the same locations, the times are very different...

Timeline A Timeline B
1410: Smithfield Bus Station 1409: Railway footbridge, Windsor Park
1416: Brookvale Hotel [bomb planted by armed men] 1436: Brookvale Hotel [bomb exploded]
1423: LMS Railway Station, York Road 1440: Ulster Bank, Limestone Road
1445: Star Taxis garage, Crumlin Road 1452: Railway station, Botanic Avenue
1448: Bus station, Oxford Street 1453: Queen Elizabeth Bridge
1448: Railway station, Great Victoria Street 1502: Agnes Street
1450: Ulster Bank, Limestone Road 1502: Liverpool Bar, Donegall Quay
1450: York Hotel, Botanic Avenue 1502: Motorway bridge at Bellevue Arms, Antrim Road
1455: Queen Elizabeth Bridge 1503: Railway station, York Street
1457: Liverpool ferry terminus 1504: Ormeau Avenue
1457: Gas Department office, Ormeau Avenue 1505: Eastwood’s garage, Donegall Road
1459: John Irwin’s, Garmoyle Street 1510: Bus station, Oxford Street
1504: Motorway bridge at Bellevue Arms, Antrim Road 1515: Stewartstown Road
1505: Creighton’s garage, Upper Lisburn Road 1520: Cavehill Road
1505: Sailsbury Avenue/Hughenden Avenue 1525: Railway line, near Lisburn Road
1505: Railway bridge, Finaghy Road North 1525: Star Taxis garage, Crumlin Road
1509: Railway footbridge, Windsor Park 1530: Northern Ireland Carriers Depot, Grosvenor Road
1512: Eastwood’s garage, Donegall Street 1530: Sydenham flyover [defused]
1515: Shopping centre, Cavehill Road

The current timeline (in the article) seems to be a mixture of both.
So... should we use both in full or should we only use one? If so, which one do we choose?
~Asarlaí 11:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

There's also that which is described as the "definitive list". 2 lines of K303 15:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Suggested improvements[edit]

I read this article today on the 40th anniversary of Bloody Friday. It did not strike me as particular neutral: too much weight given to the IRA's own justifications and excuses (e.g. casualities were fault of the British for not responding to the bomb warnings quickly enough), and very little mention of the RUC's response to (refutation of) this. It also does not mention who was convicted of the bombings at all. I can't be bothered editing it myself, though, as I see there's a history of endless bad faith edit warring on the article and an ArbComm has been necessary. So I won't waste my time trying to add anything that would doubtless be removed by some biased editor /sighs/ --feline1 (talk) 23:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

If what you have is reliably sourced then please make improvements to the article. There is a bias in regards to this kind of articles to justify the terrorists actions, any help in countering propaganda or bias is greatly welcomed. Mabuska (talk) 14:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
lol - I did have a go in the end, but surprise surprise it was reverted in no time by one of the usual suspects, on the spurious grounds that it was "unsourced commentary"... even though the existing sources given in the refs already contain all that material. I knew it was pointless trying to work on this article.--feline1 (talk) 15:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
The source you just added is unverifiable, it's impossible to verify whether the quotes you allege are actually in the programme. 2 lines of K303 15:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
How is a BBC television programme "unverifiable"? --feline1 (talk) 18:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Trying impossibly watching it here at this impossibly impossible well known video sharing impossible site --feline1 (talk) 18:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
No thanks, since you'll need an inline citation and you can't use that per WP:LINKVIO. 2 lines of K303 18:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Well I'm sure with your vast knowledge of wikipedia policies, you'll be able to find a way to reference this important source material, if you are genuinely interested in improving the article :)--feline1 (talk) 18:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
You are aware of just how much improvement I've made to articles about the Troubles right? 2 lines of K303 19:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Certainly I am aware of your editing, and have been for over half a decade, ever since you threatened me on a Gerry Adams article talk page. :) --feline1 (talk) 08:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── "You are aware of just how much improvement I've made to articles about the Troubles right?" - you should be careful about self-gloating about something that is extremely dubious. Your use of WP:LINKVIO is just an attempt to prevent the additions to the article as you don't like it. Television programs can be used as a source as long as no original research is being done on the editor's behalf or any misconstruing of the programs content. Wikipedia:PRIMARY#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources is more than met by the links, and as i was once informed at the Dispute Resolution board on this kind of issue: "as long as their use is limited to "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source". We could always take it to a Dispute Resolution and see how it goes Hackney? Mabuska (talk) 22:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

To be blunt, the intro of the article is farcical in terms of neutrality. There's basically three ways you could characterise what happened on that day: (1) It was all the IRA's fault cos they were evil and enjoyed blowing people up (2) It was all the British security & emergency services fault, cos they were evil and deliberately ignored bomb warnings so people would get blown up (3) it was a "ballex and a fuck up", where the IRA thought they could enact a bit of shock and awe with some explosions, but not many people would actually be hurt because they'd issue warnings... but they didn't realise the city would grid lock, the security services would be overwhelmed, and people being evacutated from one bomb would get moved into the vicinity of another... hence lots of people got blown up and casualties were much higher than they intended. (We've even learnt that some of the guys delivering the bombs were stuck in traffic jams with the bombs ticking in their back seat! Doh!). (3) is clearly the "neutral point of view", and is backed up by a wealth of evidence and statements from both sides (well summarised in the 40th anniversary BBC documentary (2) is clearly not a neutral point of view (and doesn't even make sense!) - it is a piece of biased propaganda, issued by the IRA as statement following the events as a damage limitation exercise. Yet it is (2) which is given prominence in the article's intro. Any editor who uses wikilawyering to maintain that state of affairs whilst boasting about the "improvements" they contributed will continue to have a hard time convincing me of their neutrality and value to this encyclopedia, no matter what grandiose claims they make in the relevant ArbCom submissions.--feline1 (talk) 08:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Yawn. We don't link to copyright violations, so you can't link to them as inline citations. 2 lines of K303 10:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

So you said before. I refer the honorable gentleman to the corresponding answer I gave some hours previously.--feline1 (talk) 10:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Reading the relevent policies about Verifiability of sources, it seems fine to reference a BBC program. There's no stipulation that the program must be available to view instantly via a single click of the reader's mouse. (Although it is... but we are not going to link to those for copyright reasons).--feline1 (talk) 13:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't have to be verifiable at the click of a mouse. It does however need to be verifiable. It isn't. 2 lines of K303 14:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
It's verifiable via the You Tube link you were given. Verifiability isn't copyright. It's also verifiable by anyone with a copy and with the BBC who have a copy. Unless you maintain the BBC has deleted it and wont make it available. And that no-one has a copy.--Flexdream (talk) 14:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
We don't link to copyright violations, as said several times already. The existence of taped copies in the possession of private individuals aren't verifiable to Wikipedia editors either. The entire BBC archive isn't open to the public, got any evidence that particular show is in the limited public archive? Don't think so.... 2 lines of K303 14:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
No-one is proposing to "link to a copyright violation". I simply referenced a BBC television program. Which is readily available for anyone to view and verify should they wish to (For instance by Googling it, whereupon half a dozen links manifest themselves... which is how I found the YouTube one.) --feline1 (talk) 15:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
You will find WP:RS says "However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable third party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources. Like text sources, media sources must be produced by a reliable third party and be properly cited. Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet". You don't get to substitute "archived copy" for "random copy posted on the internet in breach of copyright". 2 lines of K303 15:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
The primary "archived copy of the media" will be held by the British Broadcasting Corporation. Although obviously they can't be taken as a neutral source as they're part of the imperialist British war machine, who deliberately didn't respond to bomb warnings in order to cause mass civilian casualties. In fact I heard they sat in their offices in Ormeau Avenue every time a bomb went off going "YEO!!!" Shame on them. --feline1 (talk) 15:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Considering some of the sources you've used in the past Hackney that's rich. Also it depends on what exactly is being reported Hackney. Is it a news reporters own personal opinion or a broadcast on official findings and reports? If the former then all that has to be done is stating who said it ad the context - that is nothing new. Copyright violations is a lame excuse - referring once again to the previous discussion i was involved in on television sources linked via Youtube - the content was a copy-vio of Takara's intellectual rights but was ruled admissible by the Dispute Resolution as it served to provide the reader the source for verifiability. Mabuska (talk) 10:40, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

In fact Hackney just posted justification for using the BBC news report:
You will find WP:RS says "However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable third party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources. Like text sources, media sources must be produced by a reliable third party and be properly cited. Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet".
As far as i'm aware a clip on Youtube for all intents and purposes is an archived copy of the media that is online. Thank you for posting the justification as long as it's cited properly. Mabuska (talk) 10:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
You'll find it says "archived by a reputable third party", that means copyright violating Youtube uploaders don't cut the mustard. Can you provide evidence of me ever using an unverifiable source, or is that just empty rhetoric on your part? Unless you're going to back it up, it's definitely the latter. 2 lines of K303 10:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Hmm must dig up that previous debate i was involved in on a similar issue and use that argument for my case. Would also help if other discussions on this matter i.e. the RS/N were linked to from here. Mabuska (talk) 10:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Unlike you Hackney i don't edit behind a haze of POV and rhetoric. By the way who said i was on about verifiability? RS covers more than just that. Mabuska (talk) 10:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Yawn, more empty rhetoric. Put up or shut up. You might find WP:CONLIMITED to be of interest. 2 lines of K303 10:52, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Typical hypocrisy from your Hackney. Why should i provide evidence to back up "rhetoric" when you never could yourself for your empty abusive rhetoric claims about me supposedly being a "loyalist POV editor". Yeah, uhuh Hackney, pot calling kettle black. No surprise there with you. Mabuska (talk) 10:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, figured you'd have nothing constructive to say after your attempts to circumvent policy were shot down in flames. 2 lines of K303 10:58, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Yawn, never an answer for your own hypocrisy.
Anyway regardless of the BBC, is "However some inside sources from the Belfast PIRA brigade reportedly referred to the events as a "ballex" and a "fuck up"." academic for Wikipedia? A paraphrase of it would be better especially if it's user opinion on how to spell bollocks based upon the local accent "ballex". Mabuska (talk) 11:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Are you denying the Belfast Brigade spoke fluent Ulster Scotch? lmao. --feline1 (talk) 11:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bloody Friday (1972). 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) 09:35, 4 November 2016 (UTC)