Talk:Omagh bombing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the Irish Republicanism WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to Irish republicanism and Irish nationalism. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.See comments
Mid This article is on a subject of mid-importance for Irish Republicanism-related articles.

Article Grading:
The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit · refresh)

Could probably do with some sort of reactions section I think, including comments from various political leaders, just to put the event in a historical context. For example the INLA announced a ceasefire immediately after, and the RIRA some time after as well, and I'm pretty sure the PIRA made a statement about the bombing as well. Also the bombing did tend to make the peace process all the more important as well, so I really think some sort of reactions section is needed. One Night In Hackney303 12:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Irish Republicanism tasks:

The article that you have on the omagh bombing is bollocks. it was as much aimed against catholics as protestants.

aidan kelly (omagh resident)

I have removed User:Stevertigo's edit "against protestant civilians." The guy's missing the point - the attack was against the peace process as a whole. The victims included Protestants, Catholics, a Mormon and two Spanish visitors - in a town which is 60/40 Protestan/Catholic. Mark 20:27, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think someone's math is off: "29 people were killed in the attack —13 women (one pregnant with twins), 9 children, and 6 men". 13+9+6=28. If you include the twins, 13+9+6+2=30. I'm just going to remove the sub-division of people, since I can't locate accurate information. Mprudhom 06:04, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There were 29 people killed by the bomb. The twins added to the total would make 31 souls taken. --Mal 12:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I've edited the entry relating to the Police Ombudsman's report from 'the' bomb to 'a' bomb. The Police had no knowledge that a car bomb would be placed in Omagh town centre that day. They did believe that Police officers in Omagh might be subject to an RPG attack sometime around the date the bomb actually went off. There was also intelligence to show that dissidents were planning a town centre 'spectacular' but the target and date were not known. The Ombudsman's primary criticism about this area was that these pieces f intelligence and others weren't amalgamated and analyzed as a whole. I also removed the bit about the officers being defensive & so on as I don't think her perception of their attitudes to her is that relevant to an article on the Omagh bomb. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Royal1608 (talk • contribs).


Until there's an article about the investigation, I think it's relevant. I wrote unexplained in my edit summary, sorry about that.

Lapsed Pacifist 23:29, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I still don't think it's relevant but don't want to get into tit-for-tat editing. However I have changed 'the' back to 'a' for the same reasons as before. If you actually read the PONI report, it's online at www.policeombudsman.org, it's very clear that NONE of the intelligence stated that a car bomb would be exploded in Omagh on the 15th August. This being the case, police can't have ignored intelligence about 'the' bomb as none existed. The intelligence specific to Omagh related to a different type of terrorist incident and a different target, Police officers rather than civilians. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Royal1608 (talk • contribs).

I would say that you are all talking bollox. The Omagh bomb was a "false flag" operation. Carried out by elements within the Brutish securocracy. I would say the same SAS unit who killed the 4 men on 7/7 and planted bombs in the underground in London did it. They also went on to murder a Brazilian man in broad daylight a week or two later, when all the CCTV cameras miraculously failed. See the Belfast Bank Robbery also!!

Kenya, Malaya, Ireland. Same game.

It began with the depopulation of Ireland in the 1850's along Malthusian lines. The population was pruned to a point where the birth and death rates were equal. The British Roman Catholic "church" was installed in Maynooth, and 5.5million people were either slaughtered or forced to flee to the Americas - where 5% were still alive a year later.

The British monarchy is responsible for 90% of the terrorism on this planet, its about time Wiki readers and mods woke up to that fact. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.71.45.71 (talk • contribs).

Take your pathetic conspiracy theories elsewhere - they'd be comical were they not so sick. Níl fáilte romhat anseo ar bith - you're not welcome here at all. (I translated that in English for your benefit as much as everyone else's - you're probably too busy spouting drivel to learn Irish.) Amach leat! - Out with you! Quiensabe 02:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Worst atrocity tag

This was just reintroduced: "The bomb is notable for having claimed the most lives in a single incident since the beginning of the Troubles"

I had put in that the Dublin & Monaghan bombings (2 carbombs) claimed the most- higher death toll. Not worth an edit war over, just putting it on record that "single incident" is less exact compared to "single bombing". Fluffy999 11:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The sentence you are talking about was not re-introduced. I added a different sentence that has significantly different meaning than the previous one which you had changed. This is not an article about the Dublin and Monaghan bombings, so I removed that and put in its stead the fact that the Omagh bomb was the worst single atrocity to have occured during the Troubles. --Mal 12:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, its not about the Dublin & Monaghan bombings and nicely done- you refered to "incident" instead which is entirely accurate as it indicates a single event.
However where I have a problem is that the majority of media (British & American anyway) commonly refers to Omagh as the "worst atrocity" of the troubles etc. Since that term "atrocity" isnt used in the article readers might get the impression thats whats meant by "incident".
For example, from the BBC hisory of the RIRA

"The Real IRA is responsible for the single worst atrocity of the Troubles; the Omagh bomb planted during the town's civic week in August 1998 killed 29 men, women and children"[1]

Also commonly appears in BBC online, TV, radio, British Parliament, more examples.
The point im making is that although it's a media POV/agenda to say it's the worst, if that POV isn't addressed in the article then, by omission, the article is helping perpetuate the dominant, misleading, POV that exists in the media. Will add it as a footnote. Fluffy999 14:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure where the problem is to be honest. As you say, this article doesn't refer to an atrocity. However, the Omagh bombing was an atrocity - particularly going by the wikipedia definition you linked to above. Likewise, the Dublin and Monaghan bombings were attrocities. Perhaps you're talking about the previous edit, and you're presumably happy enough with the current edit. I don't think the article needs to point out what you consider POV in the media. That might be better served in an article about the media rather than an article about the Omagh bomb, for a start. --Mal 00:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes I think your edit is fine. Yes it is an atrocity and is often referred to as such- see media links. Yes the Dublin & Monaghan bombings was an atrocity according to atrocity article. Yes Dublin & Monaghan bombings is the worst atrocity in the troubles- not the Omagh bombing.
A myth spread via the media- see links, is that Omagh is the "worst atrocity" of "the troubles". Since that myth isnt addressed in the article right now (one way or the other) I will include a footnote to straighten it out. Thats all my original edit did- addressed and squashed a widely disseminated myth about the Omagh bombing. Thats the point I made above, by failing to address the myth wikipedia perpetuates and reinforces it as a "fact". Fluffy999 01:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Someone has reverted it to my version. I will revert to your version and add it as a footnote. Thanks. Fluffy999 13:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of names

The article on the list of names of the Omagh bombing casualties has been moved to a subpage of this article - Omagh Bombing/names - following an AFD. Proto///type 12:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Since moved to Talk:Omagh Bombing/names.--Chaser - T 11:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I removed the link to the list of names from this article on the basis of the consensus at the AFD, which was to exclude the content from mainspace. If someone wants to link to it, a consensus needs to be established to override the consensus at the AFD, which was to remove the material from mainspace.--Chaser - T 16:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Looking at that AFD, I'm wondering how the decision to delete was arrived at. Two deletes, one saying "not sure if this shouldn't be in the main article", the other delete agreeing; three keeps; and two merges. The result should surely have been 'no consensus' or 'merge'?
The list of victims is now a subpage of a Talk page, which is permitted. There is no policy against linking to a talk (sub)page that I'm aware of, though I'm open to correction on that. Regards, Bastun 16:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I haven't been able to find a policy explicitly stating linking to non-article namespaces, but I'd say that if information is relevant enough to be linked to, it should be in its own article - which in its current state the list of names was deemed not to be article material. In my opinion the link should be removed. QmunkE 19:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
The most specific policy covering this is a section of WP:NOT, at WP:NOT#MEMORIAL, which says that people have to be notable to be mentioned.--Chaser - T 20:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, and this is probably why the original article was deleted, however we were trying to ascertain whether there is a policy for cross-namespace linking. QmunkE 20:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Those links are not clearly prohibited by any policy, but since links are to other articles (except rare self-references) doesn't it stand to reason that there shouldn't be a link to the talk namespace for content that is prohibited by policy from being in the article namespace?--Chaser - T 20:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
That section of notable states: # Memorials. Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered. I would contend that while many of the victims may not have been notable in life, the manner of their death made them notable - they were the subject of much media attention both in the immediate aftermath and following on from that in newspapers and other media, and would therefore easily satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria. Bastun 21:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Except for two things: there is no longer a section of WP:BIO that says people are notable based on the circumstances of their deaths; and the depth of the media coverage is really about the bombing, not the people who were killed.-- Chaser - T 11:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
WP:BIO is a guideline, not a policy, though. And a Google search [2] for victims of the Omagh bombing returns almost 96000 results. Bastun 16:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
That something is a guideline means it recommends an action. It doesn't mean you can ignore it if you disagree with it. See this. Besides that, you haven't indicated what in those 96000 google results makes any of these people notable.--Chaser - T 20:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
After a lot of argument about this, I'm removing the link. The prior consensus (consensus is more than a vote) was to delete the material, and in this talk section it's been 2-1 to remove the link, with no real change in the arguments that generated the first consensus.--Chaser - T 09:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Surely discussion, not argument? If you read that AFD, you will see that the consensus (not vote) was clearly not to delete - it was to merge into the main article, with improvements. While I am tempted to bring it to WP:DRV, the simpler solution for the moment seems to be to externally link to CAIN's list. It's kinda hard to prove notability for 20-month-old babies, children and young adults. Bastun 10:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, discussion if you prefer. A DRV might bring more comment on the closure. An external link strikes me as an end-run.--Chaser - T 10:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC) My mistake. I was confused about what external link you meant.-- Chaser - T 11:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Terrorism

Where shall we go with this? It seems to fit all the criteria, but some users consider it POV. Why? Probably because, to quote the terrorism article: "Many people find the terms "terrorism" and "terrorist" (someone who engages in terrorism) to have a negative connotation." It might not have such a POV in the September 11 terrorist attack article because the majority of its readers are of one POV - that the attacks were not legitimate. On the other hand, these types of articles seem to have a larger proportion of readers who do not hold a view that they were illegitimate. Thus, Vintagekits would rather refer to it as a "bomb attack" rather than a "terrorist bomb attack" because it is "POV" (to use his words), not "incorrect". Just like our 'Volunteer' discussion, it has the right to be used in some contexts (for Volunteer: if proved to be a rank), but must be sensistive to the contrasting of POVs it brings up. I'm not sure what the balance of POVs is in this discussion, nor any possible ways of mediating a common POV. This will have to be discussed. Logoistic 23:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Terrorist is not WP:NPOV - bomb attack is accurate and neutral--Vintagekits 23:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Very easy - new section 'Reactions to the bombing' - get lots of quotes with the 't' word in it from ref'd sources, I suggest ROI/UK/USA govt representatives as a start. Can't be removed as POV if referenced and meets wiki guidelines Weggie 23:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Well done, Weggie. Logoistic 23:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
A view that a car bomb detonated in a town centre (civilians), near a courthouse (civilian staff) is somehow not a terrorist attack is, in itself, POV, and if I may so, somewhat bizarre. Bastun 21:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
So if the civilians were the target why did they give warning messegeS - kinda defeats the purposes if they were the target.--Vintagekits 23:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
What? Because they sent a warning that they would bomb a civilian area that means that its no longer an attack on civilians? Even allowing for the grossly inadequate nature of the warning, that is a specious argument. You still haven't identified ANY military significance for this attack at all.--Jackyd101 01:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Omagh disgusted me - like every right mind person, that does not change the fact that civilians were not the target.
Do we all get to come up with a definition of terrorism?? Here's the EU definition: EU definition of terrorism —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Weggie (talk • contribs) 02:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC).
That just goes to show how POV it is!--Vintagekits 23:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The UN consistently refers to this organisation as a terrorist one. They also refer to 9/11 as a terrorist attack, but I'm sure there are people out there who see it as a legitimate attack on the zionist oppressors. As such, I'm editing this back to a terrorist attack, much like the Dublin & Monaghan bombings page uses the phrase "terrorist". The use of the phrase "car bomb attack" is not neutral, it IMPLIES a legitimate attack. If various other bomb attacks are labelled terrorist then this one comes under the same umbrella. If you disagree, take it up with the many many other articles regarding global terrorism. 82.4.220.108 00:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It has been discussed in several locations. Wikipedia must present facts - and the blatent fact was that it was a car bomb attack. We can then add who describes it as a terrorist attack, or who describes the IRA as terrorists, but we must detatch this from the article persona. I understand your point that it may be seen as "legitimate" if "terrorist" is avoided, but it wouldn't be because if a lot of people call it "terrorist" then this can be legitimately referenced to them and put into the article to reflect this opinion. Logoistic 14:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
It's described as a terrorist attack later in the lead, I don't see any benefit in changing "car bomb" to "terrorist" under the circumstances. One Night In Hackney303 14:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd be happier with terrorist car bomb attack then? 82.4.220.108 18:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Unless you're aware of any legitimate armies that use car bombs, I'd say it's redundant considering terrorist is already in the lead. One Night In Hackney303 18:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

You and I are discussing this elsewhere, and for our mutual sanity I feel its more sensible to continue the discussion in one place, so I choose the one where we originally bumped into one another. I note, however, that you still haven't applied your policy to Dublin/Monaghan or the WTC?

82.4.220.108 19:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

As I've already stated, I'm not running round Wikipedia making whatever edits you deem necessary. You want pages editing, off you go. One Night In Hackney303 19:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Rating"

What's the basis used by the Irish Republicanism project in deciding the relative importance of articles? It seems strange to me that the single atrocity claiming the most victims in Northern Ireland and which contributed a sea-change in attitudes north and south might just rate more than "Mid importance" - certainly so if minor IRA members get the same rating. Bastun 11:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It's the rating of importance to the WikiProject, in terms of work that needs doing. Many articles have templates for several different WikiProjects, and will rate them differently in terms of priority. It's not to signify that a minor IRA member's article is as important as this article in terms of significance, more a case of those articles need more work doing on them more urgently. Hope that clarifies things? One Night In Hackney303 11:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
It does, thanks :-) Bastun 11:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Also there are some articles which are rated slightly differently in terms of importance, for example any that have any prospect of becoming GA or FA in the not too distant future, they are given a higher priority. I'm probably wasting my time doing it, as project members will just edit what they feel like anyway.... One Night In Hackney303 12:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../o/m/a/Talk%7EOmagh_bombing_dd91.html"