Talk:Droppin Well bombing

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

Moved from Imogen31's talk page[edit]

Hi there, first of all Wikipedia is wonderful, well done! I am a bit concerned that the information is factual, when I looked up Droppin Well Bomb I noticed there was a part saying the building was of poor construction leading to deaths. I have a report saying the exact opposite that because of the generous use of steel in the building, many lives were saved. I edited the page but was amazed to find it had been changed hours later.

I think in historical matters such as this, independent factual reports should be the preferred source.

What is the procedure if an edit is basically libellous?

All the best, Christine

Hi Christine. You're better raising matters like this on the article's talk page, ie Talk:Droppin Well bombing. What is the source/report you have for the steel construction? Stu ’Bout ye! 15:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Stu, thanks for answering. The Northern Ireland Office commissioned an independent engineers report in to the building and to see how the bomb affected it. The building was found to have been well constructed with excess steel which effectively saved lives.The building was not designed to withstand a bomb blast - as most commercial properties in the UK are not. Again, as in most explosions the part that gave way during the explosion was along the damp proof course.There was no fault attributed to the construction of the building, indeed it's high standard saved lives.

thanks, Christine —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imogen31 (talkcontribs) 15:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Is the NIO report publically available? Online anywhere? I can't find it searching Google. Stu ’Bout ye! 15:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea if it is publically available but I do know the Northern Ireland Office would have it and could confirm it's contents. My father was the pharmacist that owned the building and this report really mattered to him because it cleared his name from scurrilous allegations like this. He knew he had if anything exceeded the safety requirements during the build so it was very hurtful for any such allegations to be made. Dad is presently waiting for a high risk heart by-pass and this sort of inaccuracy could cause him serious distress. All the best Christine —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imogen31 (talkcontribs) 16:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I object to this change which is contradicted by reliable sources and have removed the offending sentence entirely. Irish News make no claim that the construction saved lives, in fact "Because of the bar's construction the impact of the device was magnified causing a build-up of gases which brought the building crashing down" implies the exact opposite. John Bowyer Bell's "The Irish Troubles" (page 656) says "This time the luck of the Irish worked to British disadvantage: the explosion jarred back the outside wall and the entire prestressed concrete roof slab crashed down on the crowd. It too most of the night to dig out the survivors". These unsourced assertions cannot stand in the face of this evidence. O Fenian (talk) 16:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you O Fenian for explaining your position. However, the engineers report must take precedence over unsubstantiated press excerpts. The engineers report did indeed say the construction saved lives and I am going to write to the NIO and ask for a copy/confirmation to prove as much. The problem with articles in the Irish News and indeed other papers was that factual inaccuracies were reported and you know as I do, newspapers do not always report the truth. I will post the letter to the Compensation agency tomorrow, I will ask for the name of the engineers and the report - or at least a summary of the findings. I don't know if it is possible to upload the response on here? Either way I am happy to email a copy to whoever would like to see it.

Thank you for removing the offending sentence, I will endeavour to provide you with the factual report as soon as I receive it. All the best, Christine —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imogen31 (talkcontribs) 16:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC) ps. O fenian, there are some "wild allegations" I have heard recently that has left me rather confused about the back ground to this bomb. They are not repeated online. May I ask you what you think of them? They centre around the idea that an alleged individual who planned the bomb was actually working for the British Army Dirty Tricks and the person who told me this said the same person was once caught at a farmhouse between soldiers and police. The soldiers were said to have let him escape. Could there be any truth in this? Also is it true that one of the bombers went on to marry someone with a UVF background? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imogen31 (talkcontribs) 16:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there will be a way to upload the report as a source. Wikipedia's policy on verifiability states that "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source." If this report has never been published, then it cannot be used as a source on Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Archives as sources may have gotten round this problem, but it failed to be adopted as a policy. So as a primary source, it's not an option by my interpretation. I'm not doubting that the reports exists, but Wikipedia has to be based on "verifiability, not truth". However a secondary source might be found. ie, if a newspaper reported on the NIO report and you can find that, then it could be included in the article. But as the sources O_F has mentioned contradict the NIO report, both would have to be mentioned. Probably. Stu ’Bout ye! 22:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
OK, perhaps I am being a bit thick here. I have just checked "Brits" by Peter Taylor, which basically says that the bomb took out a support pillar which brought the roof down. So regardless of whether Bowyer Bell, Taylor or both are correct, I do not understand how the construction of the building saved lives. The only way I could see that statement being true is if the roof had not collapsed, and therefore casualties were limited to those actually caused by the bomb itself and not a prestressed concrete roof falling on people. O Fenian (talk) 22:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello Stu, Is an engineers report that has been distributed "to make publicly or generally known" to various parties including a court not an acceptable document?Would this not be considered being published? For example if I said something libellous in a document and sent it out to a number of people, surely even that is considered as published libel?Anyway I am confused how it would be less acceptable than an opinion in a newspaper.Seriously, if that's the case surely it must affect the credibility of Wikipedia? Maybe I am missing something...(I am no lawyer nor a fan of the profession so I would not like to argue any legal point!)If nothing else the engineer has the professional knowledge to arrive at a considered opinion unlike some journalists who sometimes bend the truth to achieve a story that suits their idealogy or simple lack of proper research.

O Fenian, you are not being thick, the printed word can sometimes be conflicting! If you look at a photo of the scene taken just after the bomb I think it will explain the situation. The very front part of the building was indeed blown away. I don't know many buildings which could withstand such a blast, indeed the bomb was planted beside a support pillar. What you will see is the first floor dispensary intact hanging over the bomb scene.It is this part which could have collapsed as well on to the disco below - it didn't because of the additional metal supports. I have actually told my father about this because I wanted to see if he had an engineers report at home. He said he is bound to but believe me, his paperwork is a nightmare and it would take ages to ever find it.

In fact when the building was being rebuilt, it was the overhanging dispensary which had to be removed first, and the contract for doing so was in two parts for this reason. That said he is happy if you want to meet him to go through a detailed examination of how the building was constructed. He retains plans, photos of the original build etc. Incidentally, he is a donegal man and can speak fluent irish.Christine In violence we forget who we are. ~Mary McCarthy

The point about the verifiability policy is that facts stated in articles should be easily verifiable by anyone. If the engineer's report isn't publically available, then the facts it contains are not verifiable. The report being distributed doesn't make it publically available, as it would only have been circulated to certain people. This is just my understanding, you could raise the issue at the Reliable sources Noticeboard. Maybe government produced reports are available somewhere, I just don't know. Again, it's verifiability, not truth that matters. If the report had been reported on by newspapers, then it becomes verifiable as old newspapers are available in libraries etc. Stu ’Bout ye! 09:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Stu, and here was me thinking it was the truth that counted! Thanks, later I will indeed visit the noticeboard. Got the heart consultant tomorrow so a bit wound up... Cheers, ChristineIn violence we forget who we are. ~Mary McCarthy 14:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imogen31 (talkcontribs)

Coordinate error[edit]

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for

Droppin Well (now 'The Well Bar & Grill'

55°02′28″N 7°00′36″W

46.23.67.139 (talk) 14:50, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

The coordinates you've given above are identical to the ones that were in the article. I've emended them to indicate the location of The Well Bar & Grill (formerly the Droppin Well). Deor (talk) 17:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)