Talk:Dublin and Monaghan bombings

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] More info

Anyone know how this can be integrated into the article? [1] Superdude99 15:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] British Involvement

Weggie,stop changing this.The British may have helped the UVF with this one. Dermo69 16:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Rumours of involvement should be kept in perspective. The Free state police may have blamed the 'British' to cover up their useless investigation - theories abound. Good day in school? Weggie 16:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I decided to change it until i found a source.But you should agreee they are more than rumours.As Tim Pat Coogan says in Ireland in the Twentieth Century:

"Over the years,suspicion has hardened into certainty that British undercover agents trained and equipped the bombers."

As for school,I wasn't in today.:) Dermo69 16:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

We work from neutral sources not Tim Pat. Weggie 17:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Now hold on.Tim Pat is an historian so is therefore an acceptable source.And he isn't going to lie about that.Anyway I wasn't using that as a source I was just showing how it's cleary more than rumours. Dermo69 18:50, 6 Febuary 2007 (UTC)

And come on we all know what happened.

[edit] Perpetrators, and other matters

Weggie has removed my addition of 'British Security Forces' as perpetrators, without explanation. I can see this leading to further debate. There is a question of consistency to be established. If the British security forces are not to be included here, but only their subordinates, the UVF, are (this fact of security force direction is well documented at this stage), then the Kinsgmill page needs to be amended also. The inclusion of the British security forces as perpetrators is historically accurate.

Nomath 11:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

There has been discussion pal, above - if this security force aspect is a fact - PROVE IT, with material from mainstream sources that involvment was definate rather than merely suspected. Weggie 12:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Weggie (new pal): It all depends, Weggie, on what level of proof you require. Do you accept that, as per the evidence of Colin Wallace and Fred Holroyd (both respected commentators on their direct role within the British military and security establishment of the time), the British directed UVF violence and that Robert Nairac was involved in violence alongside the UVF? Where Holroyd and Wallace’s testimony has been tested, it has been found to be accurate. Nairac’s role has also been documented by other respected researchers. He was not alone and he was acting within his mission to create a sectarian war. Merlyn Rees, the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland admitted that these events occurred. Is his testimony acceptable to you?

There is another problem Weggie, Why should the standard do of proof be set by you? What gives you the right to be the arbiter in these matters?

Nomath 13:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The standard of proof is defined by Wikipedia. Review wp:npov - The article needs to reflect the standard view of the subject not just the Irish Republican one. Also, Colin Wallace and Fred Holroyd are highly controvercial sources. What do you mean by Merlyn Rees' admission? Try not be vague and try to support any argument with facts, i.e. links or I haven't the time to discuss this with you. Weggie 14:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

You adopt a smarmy and supercilious tone. While you do so, I will not have time to discuss with you. And please don't imagine that your political colours are not shining through your whole approach. So I suggest that you moderate your tone, and get serious.

Nomath 14:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Collusion

Ok, I don't want another marathon session like we had on the Kingsmill page. So let's all stick to facts here.

What we have currently is an admission by the UVF that they did it and allegations from British personel that MI6 were involved.

What we don't have is "smoking gun" type evidence. I'm not saying this doesn't exist, but it is not presented on this page. For this we would need concrete evidence of:

  • Who exactly is accused of mastermindingthe bombing -i.e. which intelligence/military unit, and what people?
  • What exactly are they accused of doing? - Did they give the UVF the explosives? Did they plant the bomb? Did they plan the operation?

Unless we get a lot of this kind of evidence, backed by references, what we have is still allegations.

I hope that helps to clarify the debate. Slagging matches will get us nowhere.

Btw, we have consensus on the Kingsmill page now, so I don't see why it would have to be amended because of a disagreement on this apge. Don't use one article as a bargaining chip against another. Same goes for the Miami Showband page. Jdorney 15:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Jdorney: If the Glenarm group was heavily infiltrated by the security forces and they did it, then collusion is proved. Collusion is also failure to prosecute through protection of the perpetrators - that is the nature of the collusion with regard to Mark Haddock and Ken Barrett. Once the RUC is involved, there is collusion, with the UDR, ditto, with MI6, also ditto. If it takes a marathon session to get an accurate picture, then it will be worth it. (Consistency is not bargaining - it is simple consistency). The exact make, shape, and size of bomb is not necessary – we don’t’ have a smoking gun, we have a smoking bomb and over 30 dead people seeking the truth. It should be reflected here to the best of our ability, despite official (or unofficial) attempts to prevent its emergence.

Nomath

Nomath, I think you misunderstand the nature of wikipedia. This is not investigative journalism. Our job is to lay out the facts as we have them as simply and as readably as possible. It is not our job to push our own interpretations. If a subject is disputed, we can't take sides we can only present both sides.

"The exact make, shape, and size of bomb is not necessary – we don’t’ have a smoking gun, we have a smoking bomb and over 30 dead people seeking the truth". That's a bit meaningless isn't it? Also, its not our concern, lobby on indymedia, not here. Again, lets be very clear, our job is facts, not interpretation.

So, in very simple terms, with no innuendo, can we please lay out exactly who is supposed to have done what and who is accusing them of it.

Also, something else I have been meaning to bring up with you; it's not really good enough to cut and paste media sources and just lob them into the text of an article in italics, as you have been doing. We have to take the relevant information out of a source and integrate it into the text of an article. I'm not disrespecting your contributions, but there are style and content norms in wp articles.

One more thing, I don't know if you've misspelt it, but the "Glenane group" is an alleged circle of loyalists, RUC/UDR and British Army who were carrying out attacks in the mid 1970s. They probably deserve their own article, but for our purposes here, they are an alleged group. We need to know, again, who accuses them of ding what, when and to whom.

Jdorney 20:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Having read through the text as it now stands, I would like to outline the case for collusion as it has been made in recent edits to this article.
  • There was a group, "known as the Glenane gang" - because they stored weapons at a farm in Glenane - who were carrying out attacks from the mid Ulster area. Allegedly this included the UVF (or part of it), the RUC Special Patrol Group, and elements attached to the BA intelligence and RUC Special Branch. For this we have the testimony of John Wier and Billy McCaughey and Colin wallace. We also have Susan McKay's opinion. And we have the fact that loyalists in the area were not being arrsted in this period (need source for this).
  • The Barron report finds that Wier is "credible". Wallace suggests a motive - that parts of the BA/MI6/RUC were trying to undermine Meryln Rees' political strategy. It also found the relevant RUC officer's testimony unsatisfactory.
  • We also have the view that the UVF did not have either the equipment or he expertise to carry out the attack on thier own. I would also add that it was a departure from the UVF's normal operations, which tended to be low tech.
That is all fine, but it does not add up to proof by WP standards. It adds up to allegations which are plausible and which the reader should be presented with. This does not mean that it is not true, it means that we cannot present it as fact. We just don't know and it is not our job to know.
Additionally, the text as it now stands takes the long way around telling the reader the preceding points.


I suggest that the text should be cut down to include the most relevant points pertaining to alleged British state involvment in the bombings.Also the sources should not be quoted so directly, the relevant info should be taken out of them and out of italics.
Jdorney 20:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Jdorney: Completely agree – lay out the facts, simply and readably (readability arrives usually after the initial presentation of evidence. Wikipedia, being a collaborative project, is ideally suited to helpful additions, amendments and suggestions.)

We are hear to lobby for the facts, for as accurate a presentation as possible – that is all I asserted.

On quotation, I believe that is helpful to the reader (sometimes difficult to integrate completely successfully) since it allows the original information to speak for itself. I am happy for a second look at how the information is initially presented, but am opposed to wholesale excisions. So cut if you wish, but not too much, or not so much that the original meaning is partially or wholly lost. The Wallace information should not be cut, and nither should direct quotation from Barron

(Glenane – yes, that is correct spelling. Garda involvement in preventing pursuit of the case, also relevant)

Nomath 21:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, its a big job, Im going to wait till tomorrow to have a look at it.Jdorney 21:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Latest edits

I have removed a large chunk of advocacy that was contained in the article. The paragrpah about the circumstances in which the Brtisih government would be guilty of collusion is out of place here. The article should have (a) facts about the bombing (b) facts about the investigation (c) the substance of allegations of collusion. It is not our place to argue the merits of the case.

I am currently reading the Barron report here. When I am finished a I plant to review the article, with a section on the Garda inquiry, a review of the Barron report section and merging of the collusion evidence into one section if possible. I will be happier when the article quotes direcctly from the Barron report itself rather via an article on indymedia.

I have no problem with presenting the evidence of Weir, Wallace and Holroyd, but I am not happy with the way it is presented now. It is very confusing to ahve it split into three sections and interspersed with biographical material that should be placed in bio articles. What we need is the substance of their evidence about the bombings

Jdorney 11:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Jdorney: Currently reading it through myself. Will see what you propose. In relation to Weir, Holroyd and Wallace: Barrons's comments on their creditability are relevant (and these relate to biography to some degree). On the overall structure, I completed a large and complex article more or less from scratch over the course of a day. It is essentially a first draft. I was thinking of improvements myself. Probably there should be sections on main conclusions, detailed findings and sections on Wallace, Weir and Holroyd's allegations - though I can't be definitive as yet, as the final shape will evolve. I am happy to examine and review your suggestions when they arrive. One example of "advocacy" I detect that you removed related to a comparison with the Birmingham Six and Guildford Four - it is not an exact comparison (they were targets of convenience, whereas Wallace and Holroyd were targeted victims of considered malevolence on the part of the authorities) though it is apt to some degree. It does not advocate anything.
The placing of the paragraphs on a state's responsibilities under the European convention of Human Rights is probably wrong - and explained at too much length. But it does relate to the way in which permitting the illegal activity that resulted in the bombings, and a refusal to investigate the suspects afterwards, amounts to collusion.

Nomath 20:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The point is, in both cases, it's opinion and thus not for WP. As for the rest - work in progress I think. I'm still reading the Barron report and am holding off editing until I finish.

Jdorney 22:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


Not to be hair splitting, but collusion has a legal definition that relates not only to active participation but also to permitting illegal acts to occur without intervention, and/or ignoring or refusing to effectively investigate the suspected perpetrators afterwards. This is accepted - not opinion. Also, a comparison is either accepted as valid or not. There were miscarriages of justice arising out of the conflict. That is a fact. Wallace was a victim, as were the Birmingham Six and Guildford Four. These are accepted and established facts. I am sure we will work it out as we go along.

Nomath 00:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Work

Nomath - STOP removing all my edits. This will go to admin if you do not stop this as from now. This is not your article. You do not own it Weggie 10:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Weggie - please be sensible. You quoted a paragraph from Barren (without citation I might add) that is already cited in full in the section on 'main findings' - you were wrong by the way in asserting earlier that the point was not included. The point is valid, I have no problem with it. I simply reiterated it in a sentence and referred readers to the paragraph below. That is all. Now, If you don't mind, I am going to do so again, as it is not removing the material, it is merely pointing the reader to where it is ON THE SAME PAGE. On the point of 'removal', I notice that you have removed a far larger chunk of text. I will review your work presently, as no doubt you are reviewing mine.
I see you now appear content with the presentation of the Galsworthy comments. Good. Let us go forth in peace and harmony, if not complete unity of propose.
Nomath 12:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
The Galsworthy comment will be updated - the essential point is who Galworthy was addressing not which publication you have sourced the material from so I will be updating. The whole article structure is a nightmare and needs substantial work. The amount of material you have deposited on the page means that to avoid undue prominence the small quote from Barron will need to remain - I'll add a quote. Also, you removed the Times reference Why? Weggie 13:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article

I'm still reading Barron, (it's a long document) but I'm not happy with the way the article has developed so far. What we need for a wp article is clear concise facts, so that someone reading it can quickly understand the topic at hand. What we have here is reams of material cut and pasted from internet sources and transcribed here. This is not the way to write an article. To the average reader it is all but indecipherable and it also, at 40k, far too long. It should be cut to half that length at least. I'll be edting with these points in mind shortly.

Jdorney 13:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Structure and comment

Jdorney, After a long absence, welcome back from your researches. Be happy to see what you propose - you don't seem too positive initially. However, hopefully we will all come to an agreement. It is a large and complex topic and requires careful presentation.

(Weggie, indicating clearly to the reader where the point is on the page answers your concern as to whether it is being given enough prominence - how much prominence it should be given is entirely a matter of your POV by the way. You obviously don't see the point on Galsworthy. In your version, you are misquoting. Read again carefully, the difference between the two edits.)

Nomath 13:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

On the ballistic history edit, Weggie, (that I have just had a quick look at) you have managed to remove material that referred specifically to the Dublin-Monaghan bombings, and left material as if from nowhere, de-contextualised, and, in the absence of the material you removed, seemingly irrelevant. I am sure that is not your purpose. I will rectify matters presently.

Nomath 13:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Dorney needs to have a look at this before I make any more edits on the article. He would appear correct in his comments above Weggie 14:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Have edited for clarity - though ballistic history material re-inserted as it relates the relationship of those accused of carrying out the bombing to their overall history of violence, that also is connected to accusations of security force involvement.
On the two paragraphs immediately after the UVF claim of responsibility - how about if they are both deleted altogether, as they essentially cancel each other out? Saves space, time and, possibly, argument.
Nomath 15:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Drive-by tagging

Taking the following as my guide:

Drive-by tagging is not permitted. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Attribution, and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort.

I propose to remove the neutrality dispute tag, as it has been up for well over a month, without any effort whatever to pinpoint the specific issues that are deemed problematic. If, on the basis of this removal, there is a flurry of counter activity, I will have difficulty in considering it in a positive light. The page has been successfully edited by new contributors, without any indication or suggestion that its neutrality is in question.

The McEntee report is scheduled to be published next week. Doubtless it will have further information relevant to the page. At that point, we can evaluate the relevance of McEntee's findings and how they might add to our understanding of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings of 1974.

Nomath 14:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Terrorists and Paramilitaries

Just to help prevent a lot of revert wars, has a consensus been reached regarding the use or one or the other of these words? In order to appease serial reverters, we apparently cannot refer to IRA/PIRA/etc attacks as "terrorist" in nature. Conversely any attack by a loyalist group remains labelled as "terrorist". Obviously the phrase has negative connotations, but I'm getting tired of chasing articles. Looking at the sum of the articles, one can see a clear slant that runs contrary to the NPOV intentions of Wikipedia. Can we get some sort of agreement on how to refer to these attacks? Either as terrorist, or as paramilitary? Does anyone else have any thoughts? 1996 Manchester Bombing article is another good example. We can't operate under double standards. 82.16.114.72 18:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Who wrote the above and how does it arise in the context of the Dublin and Monaghan Bombings page?
For what it is worth, I note that the start of the article refers to a "terrorist attack".
I have no problem if the word 'terrorist' is removed, as it it pejorative. However, this is not a discussion that is usually very enlightening, and is usually a means of masking points of view. If there is doubt, leave it out.
Nomath 15:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


I should note however that the UN refers to both Republican and Loyalist groups as terrorist organisations. Since the WTC article cites the UN as a reason for referring to that event as a "terrorist attack", I am considering a detailed correction of all of these bombing articles (with regards to Northern Ireland and the UK) as "terrorist attacks" rather than the current skewed slant of Republican attacks as "legitimate targets" and Loyalist attacks as "terrorism" (please see relevant articles). Again, Wikipedia shouldn't be operating a multi-tier approach to "terrorism" with reference to Loyalists, Republicans, or indeed Islamic Fundamentalists. Further comments appreciated, as it would be no small task to have to do, and I would imagine the UN is arguably as NPOV as you can get. 82.16.114.72 18:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, the above is unsigned and therefore unacceptable. It is also irrelevant and not even accurate. I have seen articles referring to loyalist attacks where the "terrorist" label is not used. It doesn't bother me as the detail of the event(s) allows the reader to form an opinion independent of the labels arbitrarily applied.
Is this is a wind up? The adoption of a sort of internal monologue in the second contribution indicates someone impervious to the thoughts of others.
Please go away.
Nomath 09:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


I don't think there's any need for a hissy fit just because the UN recognises Republican, Loyalist, and Islamic Fundamentalist "paramilitaries" as "terrorists". I initially suggest paramilitary as its an accurate neutral term, but having consulted other articles regarding paramilitary groups, it seems that if the group is declared terrorist by the UN, then the label should be attached to their attacks. Case in point, the WTC. As pointed out in the terrorist and paramilitary articles, one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. There are plenty of people who see Islamic Fundamentalists, Loyalists, Republicans, etc as defenders of their beliefs (religious, political, or otherwise), but if the UN is using the phrase "terrorist" and this has ALREADY BEEN ACCEPTED by Wikipedia as legitimate, then we should apply it across the board, regardless of personal beliefs. NPOV remember?

Your keen acceptance of dropping the phrase "terrorist", but now violent opposition to following the protocol on other articles, would seem to indicate a narrow minded and extremist view that goes against the spirit of Wikipedia. You'd also do well to note that metacognition is no bad thing.

By the way, I made all the preceding comments, I find it sad that you cannot accept another person's viewpoint if it disagrees with your own.

Please see the WTC article with regards to the use of the word terrorist and try and pick up our discussion from that point.

82.16.114.72 18:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

You may not be a name, but you are now at least a number. Would you mind signing in and adopting a name that we can know you by.
You are right on one point. I do not accept view points of view I disagree with. I think you may be confusing 'accept' with 'respect'. As for your pet theme, it has nothing to do with the discussion. It is irrelevant - the discussion is over the evidence in relation to the event in question. You also have misinterpreted what I wrote. I have no idea why you decided to arrive here and invent a debate that has very little to do with the page in question. Is it your intention to pick a fight or something?
Nomath 23:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


If you can't accept POV you disagree with, Wikipedia may not be the fairest outlet for your opinions. But lets not try and bog the discussion down in semantics, eh? This is not a "fight" to be picked, I've raised the same question elsewhere and thus far noone has seemed inclined to answer. I'm merely pointing out that regardless of people's vested interest in their chosen paramilitary group being "freedom fighters", its about time that some sort of consensus was reached across the board. Do we use the UN as our yardstick for terrorism, or not? If you can suggest a more relevant area for this discussion, please do so and we can take it there.


82.16.114.72 06:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/u/b/Talk%7EDublin_and_Monaghan_bombings_5ce2.html"