Talk:M62 coach bombing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has an assessment summary page.

Contents

[edit] Names of the dead

The names of the dead were removed from this page in accordance with Wikipedia policy, but for anybody who is interested, the list can be found here: List of those killed in the M62 coach bombing —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackyd101 (talk • contribs)

Which policy? Bastun 13:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lead section etc

"The M62 coach bombing was an attack on a coach carrying off-duty British Army personnel by the Provisional Irish Republican Army." This is incorrect. The lead section should be a summary of the article. The article does not say this.Tyrenius 02:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Terrorist

Re. use of the word "terrorist", if it is used then it must say who has applied the label. See Al Quaida: "The United Nations Security Council[2] and several UN member states[3][4][5][6][7] have labeled al-Qaeda a terrorist organization." Tyrenius 02:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] "Most sources"

Weasel wording. Say which sources specifically and reference. Tyrenius 02:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I have now addressed this and thankyou for taking a look at the article. I would however like to add that you changed "attack" in the first sentence to "incident". This strikes me as something of a weasel word itself - "attack" is not a perjorative term, and whoever committed the bus bombing and for whatever reason, it was indiputably an attack. I suggest it should be changed back.--Jackyd101 16:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Looked a it again, would suggest something along the lines of "The M62 coach bombing was an atack on a coach carrying off-duty British Army personnel and family members on the 4 February 1974. Twelve people were killed by the blast caused when 25lbs of high explosive detonated in a luggage locker of the coach . . ."--Jackyd101 16:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
We don't need incident or attack. That's even better. Also there may be people in Alabama or Prague who are not fully acquainted with the M62, so England must be specified. Tyrenius 02:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Provisional IRA actions

I removed this category from this article, it was never claimed by the IRA or proven that that they where involved in it.--padraig3uk 04:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

There are many sources claiming the IRA was involved, and the IRA never denied it. It's the silence of the IRA enough to have the category removed? IsaacMorrison (talk) 03:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Terrorism categories

Some of the following text has been copied from User talk:Tyrenius

Thanks for your comments on this talk page, I will attempt to sort out the wording in the 'most sources' section. The most significant problem here is the use of categories - when is it appropriate to use terrorism categories for IRA activities? Vintagekits wants to remove all terrorism categories from pages about IRA bombings, claiming that such categorisation in POV whilst I suggest that they should remain as to remove them is to provide undue weight to the Republican viewpoint. Is there a clear consensus about this anywhere? Clearly a category cannot sit on the fence the way an article can, neither can it be sourced to the satisfaction of all users. What should be done in this situation?--Jackyd101 03:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

No I dont, I just want those categories removed from missions where the specific target of the attack was not civilians. --Vintagekits 11:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
That hardly seems to be the case here, though. ...off-duty British Army personnel and family members Bastun 12:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
If that is the case, why did you remove the categories from the Omagh bombing without discussion?--Jackyd101 16:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Because civilians were not the target. Read the article.--Vintagekits 18:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I have, the article lists the target as "marketplace" - obviously civilian. the only other target I could discern from the text was the courthouse (400 yards away) which is still civilian - court employees are not and never have been military. There were absolutely no military targeted. Please explain your comments further?--Jackyd101 18:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
In addition, please could you point me to the Wikipedia regulation which stipulates that military targets cannot be the result of terrorism? --Jackyd101 18:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
See the Talk:Attacks on the London Underground for the UN definition of terrorism. "On March 17, 2005, a UN panel described terrorism as any act "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act."--Vintagekits 18:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

If you remember, I quoted the same thing at you about a month ago in this self same debate, see your talk page. The problem then and now was that the UN do not rule Wikipedia, and their definition is not the basis for editing Wikipedia unless it has been enshrined as a Wikipedia regulation, which this has not. Plenty of other definitions of terrorism include attacks on military property, and your removal of categories based on your interpretation of a UN statement is Original research. You also haven't answered my question about Omagh--Jackyd101 19:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Categories are to help people find articles they are interested in. They are not a definition as such. It seems to me that if anyone wanted to look at articles on terrorism, the IRA and related issues, then they would want to look at this article. That is the justification for the category. Tyrenius 02:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
This article is in Category:Terrorism in the United Kingdom, Category:Terrorist incidents in the 1970s, Category:Terrorist incidents on buses therefore if someone wanted to look at articles on terrorism it is well covered, this incident was never claimed by the IRA nor was it ever proven to have been carried out by them, therefore it is wrong to categorise it as a IRA action.--padraig3uk 14:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I realise it isn't clear above, the discussion here is about those terrorism categories, not the IRA one you removed. I added a new title.--Jackyd101 15:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, that wasn't very clear earlier.--padraig3uk 19:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Any clasification of this attack as terrorist is POV.--Vintagekits 18:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Classification of any incident as terrorism is POV, one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter, therefore these categories shouldn't be used at all.--padraig3uk 19:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Review NPOV - it's the general view of the topic using all sources that MUST be presented not the viewpoint of minority extremists. I don't hear you complaining about the UVF terrorists being called that?? Were the UVF freedom fighters? Weggie 19:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
The UVF don't regard themselfs as terrorists, and should not be categorised as such to do so is POV.--padraig3uk 19:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
If the attack doesnt target uninvloved civilians then terrorism should not apply and is purely POV and is an attempt to push a POV.--Vintagekits 19:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
That's one definition of terrorism. And in this case doesn't apply, as civilians were targetted. Both those on the coach and any near the coach who happened to be caught in the blast. Bastun 23:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes civilians got caught up in the attack, but they were not the target and were not supposed to be oin the bus.--Vintagekits 23:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Why are the terrorism categories being removed? This incident is described by numerous independent reputable sources as a terrorist attack. The only objectors I'm seeing are Padraig and a banned editor. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 13:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It would appear that in the alternative universe that is Wikipedia, the IRA are not terrorists, never harmed anybody who didn't deserve it and are peace loving people. Wikipedia is officially rubbish. The same people edit all the Northern Ireland pages to give a distinctly republican point of view. It is garbage. Ask anybody in the street if they think the IRA are/were terrorists and they will say yes. Read any newspaper and the IRA are defined as terrorists. But such realities needn't bother the cabal of editors on Wikipedia who wish to rewrite history. How can anybody not describe the M62 bombing as terrorism? Cornisle 08:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Target

"The M62 coach bombing happened on 4 February 1974 on the M62 motorway in England, when a bomb exploded in a coach carrying off-duty British Army personnel and family members." So unless anyone has any information to the contrary, the target was both army and civilians - both passengers on the coach and whatever collateral casualties there may have been in nearby traffic. I am therefore changing the 'Target:' information in the infobox to "British Army personnel and their families" as that is who the target and victims were. Bastun 23:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Right the Omagh bomb - who/what was the target then?--Vintagekits 23:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
A carbomb parked in the centre of a town? Civilians. Bastun 23:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
That has confirmed my thoughts about what you know about this issue then. Thank you for confirming that.--Vintagekits 00:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
This is not a discussion on Omagh, so that is irrelevant. The target box should be a summary of the article content. It's clear what that says. Tyrenius 00:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
What's that supposed to mean, exactly, Vintagekits? Not seeing any 'combatant' or 'legitimate military targets' among the 29 civilian men, women and children that were blown up here... Bastun 00:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Leap of logic

I see no source that supports the addition of text saying the bombers deliberately targeted the families of soldiers, and have removed it. Please provide a source stating that this was the intention of the bombers before adding the text back. Brixton Busters 06:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Likewise, there is no source supporting the contention that the bombers targets were purely military. Going by the facts presented in the article, we do know who the victims were - soldiers and their families. The box should probably contain 'Soldiers, their families, and anyone else using the M62'. Unless you can provide a source showing the intended target was purely soldiers, please do not remove the text. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 08:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
From WP:Verifiability
The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.
You added the alleged target, therefore the burden of evidence is on you to prove that what you added is true. Please provide a source, rather than attribute targets to the bombers based on your own opinion. That is against policy. Brixton Busters 09:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the entire line, please respect policy do not add back without a source that indicates the bombers intended target. Brixton Busters 09:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the blanked template line and added the information that the target was a coach. Unless maybe the unknown perpetrators put the bomb on the wrong vehicle, it seems a safe enough assumption that the coach was the target. The coach was carrying British Army personnel and their families - as stated in the article. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 14:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

You've not done that. You've added a perceived target without a source. Unless you have a source that the bombers deliberately bombed the coach knowing the families of the soldiers would be on board, you cannot add the text per policy. Brixton Busters 13:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Read the change. "target= A chartered coach, carrying British Army personnel and their families". Previously, it had been "British Army personnel and their families". What was blown up? A coach. That was the target. Who was on the coach? British Army personnel and their families. There is absolutely nothing there that is not factual and covered in the article. Nor is there anything that is a breach of policy. You may want to have a read of some policies yourself, such as WP:OWN - you seem to be the only objector to the target statement in the template. Also - please do not remove accurate categories from articles. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 13:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Stop lying. The change still says the families were deliberately targeted. You have to provide a source for that per policy. The category should not be on the article, look at the infobox. The perpetrators are "unknown", therefore it should not be stated as fact in a category. Brixton Busters 14:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me?. I think you may want to calm down a bit and be a bit more civil. You may also want to be a bit more accurate with your edit summaries - if you remove a category, your edit summary should say so. Now. Read the target section again. It explains, simply and clearly, that a coach was targeted, and what that coach contained. End of story. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 14:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
This section is headed leap of logic. It is a common factor running through the PIRA armed campaign that what (and who) got blown up often differed from their stated "targets". (eg: [1]) Now unless someone can provide a referenced summary of the state of mind (or some incriminating notes) of the animals that planned this atrocity, we have more than enough references to include the coach as the target. I do not accept the agenda of having "Solely economic and/or Military" as the "Target" of every infobox and every article covering PIRA "actions". There is such a doctrine as being negligent and careless to the point of culpability!
Please avoid personal attacks on editors. We may deprecate the tactics and motivation of the subjects of our articles (unless they are still alive) but never those of other Wikipedia editors. Please be civil...Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) talk • 15:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I am sure that in this case the families were not meant to be on the bus and it was because of transport problems elsewhere that they came to be aboard the bus on this occasion. I will see if I can find a reference to that some where.--padraig 16:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
That would help us make a better encyclopaedia, Padraig. I hope your research efforts meet with success...Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) talk • 16:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I believe that when I sourced this article I remember reading that the coaches were chartered because the train intended to carry the soldiers and their families was held up by a British Rail strike. The familes and soldiers were always going to be travelling together although it is entirely possible that the bombers were unaware of this. This article certainly seems to imply that it was normal to carry soldiers and families together (as would make sense since they all lived at the base togther) but I haven't seen any definate proof.--Jackyd101 01:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Again, text has been added that is not supported by a reference. This does not say that the bombers knew the families of the soldiers would be on board the coach, therefore it is not sufficient. It says "The coach was one of a number used to take soldiers on their weekend leave and return them to their bases" - no mention of families there. Until a reference is provided that the bombers knew the families would be on board the coach is provided, an editor saying the target included families is original research. Brixton Busters 11:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
This is twisted logic. By the same argument, there is no reference saying the perpetrators knew soldiers would be on the coach. Or that the coach would be used that day. Hey - maybe the target was the bus station! That must be it! Because the various *IRA's would never target innocent civilians, instead only hitting economic and military targets... And the whitewashing continues... The fact is the reference demonstrates that a coach carrying soldiers and their families was targetted. Much as you may not like it, that is the case. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 13:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
No, it is Wikipedia policy. You are attributing a target to the bombers without a source to prove it. It is a documented fact that Provisional IRA policy was not attack to civilian targets without (at least) attempting to give adequate warnings. Brixton Busters 13:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
First - note I've changed the text to "Coach carrying soldiers and their families" - I believe thats what I had entered before, but it got changed somewhere. Second - can you supply a reference for the assertion above? BastunBaStun not BaTsun 13:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Where was the bomb? On a coach. Who was on the coach? Soldiers and their families. Fact. Also, now, a referenced fact. I am going to restore again. Please do not remove referenced material. Reverting again would be a breach of 3RR in any case. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 13:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes. The Secret Army by J. Bowyer Bell, page 413. No text saying the target included "families" is acceptable without a source stating the bombers knew they would be on board. The BBC source says "The coach was one of a number used to take soldiers on their weekend leave and return them to their bases", no mention of families. If the IRA was responsible, why did they not claim responsibility if the coach was targeted despite knowing the families would be on board? The IRA always tried to avoid civilian casualties, it is a documented fact. Had that not been the case, car bombs would have repeatedly targeted British Army vehicles in transit in cities in Northern Ireland, but this was not the case due to the likelihood of civilian casualties. Brixton Busters 13:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Also the material is not referenced. The source does not say the bombers knew the families would be on board, it is original research. You have made similar assumptions on other articles, please brush up on Wikipedia policy. Brixton Busters 13:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
The Irish Republican Army were long gone by 1974. The PIRA are suspects - I'm not claiming they did it. In any case, it is not also a documented fact that the PIRA were not to attack the RoI - obviously Jerry McCabe's murderers never got the memo. The bottom line here is you are removing referenced material because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Please stop, and stop leaving spurious warnings on my talk page. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 14:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
IRA is the acronym for the IRA, whether you don't like it or not is irrelevant. The "reference" does not back up your claim, stop engaging in original research. Brixton Busters 14:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

(Deindent). For the last time - I'm not engaging in OR. Stop accusing me of doing so. In fact, stop your other personal attacks too. I agree - IRA is the acronym for the Irish Republican Army. And these too:

BastunBaStun not BaTsun 14:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

No attacks there, stop making false accusations. Correctly saying your edit is original research is commenting on content not contributor. I hate to break the news to you, but neither the Officials, Contos or Real IRA have referred to themselves as just the IRA and neither have the media. Brixton Busters 14:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Information must be referenced, adding additional information to a reference which is not there, is OR. --Domer48 16:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm surprised. I didn't think it'd take nearly 3 whole hours for another WP:IRA member to turn up and revert. So a reference saying a coach carrying soldiers and their families was blown up is original research (or "could be considered OR") when applied to the statement "Coach carrying soldiers and their families"? Funny, I really don't think WP:NOR covers that. So who does the WP:IRA think the target was? BastunBaStun not BaTsun 16:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
You have repeatedly been asked to provide a citation that the bombers knew the families would be on board, and have failed to do so. Brixton Busters 16:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
And? What I've been saying is that the target was a coach; and stating who was on the coach at the time the bomb exploded. Present the facts, the reader can make up their own mind. Anyway - irrelevant now, compromise in place, also factual. Or do I need to supply refs for that aswell? BastunBaStun not BaTsun 16:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but it gave the impression the bombers knew the families would be on board, when we don't know that. It's similar to say the Americans bombing a particular building thinking certain military (or similar) people would be there, and killing civilians who weren't supposed to be there in the process. Would civilians be the target in that case? Compromise is ok thank you, might need a bit of tinkering to break it down properly. Brixton Busters 16:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad to hear that you'll be changing key parts of the lede in out Bloody Friday (1972) article then Busters, since we have no way of knowing the intentions of the terrorists/freedom fighters who planted all those bombs?
And yes, I do think that the USAF is regularly careless of "collateral" damage and does not unambiguously fit the label of either terrorists or freedom fighters. Our articles need to balance and adequately present referenced POV's to arrive at an NPOV synthesis - not of OR but of language. W. Frank ✉  18:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Dead

I am not particularly happy with the age of the kids being included - it does seem more graphic than required in an enclyclopedic article - but I suspect the whole lot will be reverted despite Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus can change Aatomic1 13:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Given the numerous examples of articles containing such lists, it does seem that the definition of "memorial" needs revisiting. If the likes of American high school massacres and bombings on American soil (and elsewhere) can contain such lists (as they do), then it would seem perverse to exclude them only from articles concerning Ireland and Britain. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 14:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
As you are aware Bastun, there is a difference between a school shooting and a bombing. One has a timeline where it usually makes sense to identify each victim so the sequence of events can be followed. In a bombing people generally die at the same place and time. Brixton Busters 14:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Materially, both are the same in terms of information ultimately presented. If an article relates that nutjob Bob walked from classroom 5, shot Joe Victim in the chest, entered classroom 7 and shot Ann Target and Mick Victim, then went to the cafeteria where... etc. - I'm not really learning anything of huge significance after the event. If many deaths are spread out over a period of time, its still ultimately the same as many deaths in a very short space of time and/or an enclosed space. In any case, we do also have articles covering other bombings where the victims are named. And y'know, living in Dublin (and actually remembering the event) I don't think it'd be any harm to have the victims of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings listed. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 14:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
The Dundalk victims should be listed too (not murdered by PIRA but by another flavour of fanatic)...Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) talk • 15:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I have noted Brixton Busters's distinctions between bombings and shootings.I personally am getting no insight into the sequence of events from this article. Perhaps by adding the names of those that were killed the reader will be able to form a picture of what actually happened and hence be more informed? Aatomic1 14:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely! ...Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) talk • 15:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Per Names of Omagh Bomb Victims and WP:NOT this is also purely memorial and should not be in the talk page.--Vintagekits 08:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
This article used to have a list of those killed, but it was removed, I believe by One Night in Hackney who used the same reasoning as Vintagekits has given above. In fact there is nothing in either of the links provided which gives reason for such a lists removal, as an ongoing debate at Talk:WP:NOT shows.--Jackyd101 01:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IRA/PIRA

The discussion on Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army is whether to use PIRA instead of IRA, not vice-versa. Please leave the IRA name intact unless consensus is achieved there. Brixton Busters 19:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. W. Frank talk ✉  19:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Well I disagree with you, the IRA is correct.--padraig 19:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

My opinion would be IRA and not PIRA no body says it was a PIRA attack it would be reported as an IRA one.BigDunc 20:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thats what everyone calls them, not PIRA. This is all just time wasting. ;User talk:W._Frank will you please try to be reasonable? --Domer48 20:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
The "IRA" is common usage not "PIRA". Please provide evidence that PIRA is common usage OVER IRA or else please stop disruting wiki and edit warring. regards--Vintagekits 22:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment: There is no point in having the same discussion between the same people in two different places. Can we centralise discussion at Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 22:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. BigDunc 22:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I Agree, I have been directing editors to Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army, but they have decided not to bother. --Domer48 22:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IRA and British mainland

Re. this edit and summary, "IRA is a singular noun; when will people get that? There is no "British mainland", Britain suffices." IRA is a collective noun and as it says in that article:

British English, it is generally accepted that collective nouns can take either singular or plural verb forms depending on the context and the metonymic shift that it implies. For example, "the team is in the dressing room" (formal agreement) refers to the team as an ensemble, whilst "the team are fighting among themselves" (notional agreement) refers to the team as individuals. More strikingly, this is also British English practice with names of countries and cities in sports contexts; for example, "Germany have won the competition," "Madrid have lost three consecutive matches," etc.

British mainland is a common usage to mean England, Scotland and Wales, as opposed to the bits of Britain which are in various islands here and there, in this case specifically the bit that is called Northern Ireland. Tyrenius (talk) 22:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Middle of an armed campaign"

As far as I remember it the IRA were in the middle of a bombing campaign at the time of the M62 bombing but it's a bit of a stretch using Guildford and Birmingham as examples considering these never occurred until several months later. Are there no better examples?GiollaUidir (talk) 22:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Target (again)

Domer, you are not saying that the target was a "hired coach carrying British soldiers" and omitting the fact that it was also carrying family members. Rather than edit war, I guess its back to the weak compromise version - "Hired coach". BastunBaStun not BaTsun 11:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The coach was not the target it was obviously the British Army so they should be mentioned.BigDunc (talk) 12:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
We can either have "Hired coach" (which was the compromise that's been here for months) or "Hired coach carrying members of the British Army and their families" (which was what actually got blown up). Omitting "and their families" the latter is unverified POV. Which would you prefer? BastunBaStun not BaTsun 12:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
No the families of British Army personel where never targetted if you can find a source to say they where then put it in if not then it should remain as just the soldiers. Saying that the families where the targets is POV BigDunc (talk) 12:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
This is precisely the argument that was held a couple of sections above and we eventually settled on "Hired coach" - which was what was here for months. Do you really want to hash out all the same arguments again? Referenced Fact: A coach with British soldiers and their family members was blown up. Unless you can provide a reliable source showing that only British Army personnel were targeted, then the current edit is unreferenced POV. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 12:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
The Green Book tells you who the IRA targeted cant find Hired coaches or families in there.BigDunc (talk) 12:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Can anyone provide a reference that it is or was at the time of this bombing attack, standard practice for the British Army to transport army families in the same transport as army personal.--Padraig (talk) 15:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
[2] covers it, I think, Padraig. BigDunc - the IRA's training manual is not a sufficient source to reference who was or wasn't the target of any particular terrorist incident - even leaving aside the fact that the bomb exploded on the coach while it was on a major public road. Using it would be synthesis/OR. By that token, you'd have several rabid Unionist editors pointing to the British Army's rules of engagement to prove that they couldn't have been involved in any collusion in the North. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 16:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
That link dosen't answer the question, I ask was it standard practice to transport families along with troops in the same transport, my understanding is that it wasn't and the only reason a exception was made on this occasion was due to the families being unable to travel seperate by train due to a train strike. Something the bombers wouldn't have been aware of when planning the attack.--Padraig (talk) 17:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Synthesis and OR, I'm afraid. The perpetrators could read the papers/look at the news as well as anyone else. In any case, we don't know that they didn't normally travel on the same coaches (unless you've a reference for this?) By an extension of the logic that the target was a coach carrying army members, we could also say that the target was "A hired coach carrying British Army members and any other vehicles in the vicinity at the time." The fact is we know what blew up - a coach carrying army members and their families. In the absence of references saying otherwise, we can include that fact; or we can revert to simply "Hired coach". Anything else is whitewashing. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 18:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I would agree with you Bastun re the Green Book but I feel it is still a stretch to say that the families were the target of this attack. And as Padraig says has anyone got evidence to say that the British Army routinely carried families around with them. BigDunc (talk) 18:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
It was a hired coach on a public road - civilian casualties were extremely likely, whether on the coach or in vehicles near it! In the absence of a source saying that the target was specifically the soldiers, what are we to go on, then? The actual victims, or our opinion of what we assume the target was? Include all (soldiers and families); or include none (and revert to "Hired coach"). BastunBaStun not BaTsun 18:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I would go with hired bus, as there is no proof that the families where intended targets, as there being on board was a last minute decision due to the train strike.--Padraig (talk) 19:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Two suggestions. 1) "Coach. The coach carried soldiers and their families." This states the facts. 2) change "target" (which implies conscious intent) to a different word which implies they were the recipients of the bomb, whether intended or not (I can't think of a suitable word offhand). Tyrenius (talk) 19:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

In the spirit of compromise I suppose Hired Bus is not a bad outcome as it has not been proved that family members of the soldiers where specifically targeted. BigDunc (talk) 20:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

We could change target to location.--Padraig (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
BigDunc and Padraig, both of those work for me - though location isn't great as it implies a fixed - well, target :-) - rather than a moving one. But I can't think of a better word either. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 23:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
The target was the enemy contained within the coaches - not the fuckin coaches themselves, not the luggage or the facial scrub that they packed, or their families (who wernt supposed to be on the buses - the target was the british soliders. end of! --Vintagekits (talk) 23:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Do you have a source for that? The article seems to think the families were meant to be on the bus: "The coach had been specially commissioned to carry British Army and Royal Air Force personnel on leave with their families". Tyrenius (talk) 23:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Thats why I suggested location I couldn't think of anything else either.--Padraig (talk) 23:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Another point what is the source that the bomb contained 25lb of explosive, in sources I've seem it was 50lbs.--Padraig (talk) 00:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:NOR

The infobox should be an extract from the main article text, where the facts should be established with verifiable references. The text is unable to ascertain who did the bombing: "The true culprits have never been discovered." It is known of course that a bomb blew up on the coach and that soldiers and their families were on the coach. As we don't even know who did the bombing, we cannot tell whether they intended to target only the soldiers or the families also (or even, unlikely, that they had a vendetta against the coach company). Specifying a target thus remains OR. I suggest that a target cannot therefore be specified, only a location or victims or somesuch, as that would be the limit of verification. Anything else would be speculation. Tyrenius (talk) 00:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Well in that case all reference to the IRA would also have to be removed as WP:OR-- BigDunc (talk) 09:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
How do you arrive at that conclusion? The mentions are referenced with sources. WP:NOR applies to editors putting forward their own ideas not derived from "reliable sources". Tyrenius (talk) 12:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Well you said above As we don't even know who did the bombing how can you say it was the IRA who carried out the attack. If you are saying because the sources say that the IRA did it then it is safe to assume that the British army were the targets. Not a coach, or there families as I dont recall a campaign against coaches or serving members of the British Armys families. BigDunc (talk) 12:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not aware I said the IRA carried out the attack. The article says they were widely accused or suspected of it. The info box should summarise the article. The infobox says they were the "suspected perpetrator(s)". This then is a correct extract from the article, and no one seems to be disputing that. However, it is not then "safe to assume" anything. That is a violation of WP:SYNTH. You need a source to say what the target is. If you haven't got such a source, then you can't say it, because the only justification for saying it is your own deduction, which is WP:OR. Tyrenius (talk) 13:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Source

Can anyone provide a source which states what the target was? If so, that can be used and the ref cited. If not, then any conclusions violate WP:SYNTH. Tyrenius (talk) 12:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

As no group has ever accepted responsibility for the attacks, then such a source would be impossible to find.--Padraig (talk) 13:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
That's not necessarily the case. A source might well state that the bomb was aimed at xxxx, or targeted at xxxx, as opposed to just stating the casualties were xxxx. Tyrenius (talk) 13:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
But if no group has claimed responsibility, how can anyone say for certain the bomb was aimed for xxxx, they can say that the target most likely was xxxx as in this case, but its not 100% fact.--Padraig (talk) 14:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
It's not up to us to determine how sources arrive at their content, only to use that content per WP:NPOV. We don't add content on the basis of WP:100% fact, only on the basis of WP:VERIFY. It is anyway academic unless a source is found that says such a thing. Tyrenius (talk) 14:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Exactly until someone is convicted or an admission is made the target will never be know so location not target seems to be the only solution. BigDunc (talk) 14:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template talk:Infobox civilian attack#Remove Target section

The debate on this page has prompted me to suggest the removal of this section altogether. Shall we see what the outcome is of that suggestion? Tyrenius (talk) 14:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I would agree to that, and the Suspected perpetrator(s) Provisional IRA, should also be changed to Perpetrator(s) Unknown.--Padraig (talk) 14:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable solution. Progress anyway. --Domer48 (talk) 14:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I would agree to that too. BigDunc (talk) 15:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
(ec)That doesn't strike me as the most informative summary of the article, as some of the sources state unambiguously it was an IRA action. More accurate would be "IRA cited in the media, but not proven or admitted". Tyrenius (talk)
I've opened a new section below to discuss this. Tyrenius (talk) 15:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I've removed target section from infobox template. Let's see if it holds. How's about Location section reading:

"Coach on M62 motorway, Yorkshire, United Kingdom"

And not having a target section in this article, come-what-may. Tyrenius (talk) 18:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Changing to "Location: Coach on M62 motorway, Yorkshire, United Kingdom" per Tyenius is fine with me. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 11:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

So the republican movement bias continues on Wikipedia. A bomb was placed on a coach carrying army personnel and their civilian families and it blew up on a major road. And yet because of the ideological viewpoint of some of the editors on here we are not allowed to say that civilans were targetted in this attack? It's blindingly obvious civilians were intended targets, or if they weren't why blow up a "hired bus" on a busy motorway? The doublespeak going on here beggars belief. What exactly is wrong with saying civilians were targetted, enough of them died for goodness sake! Anyway, I'll keep my head down from now on, I realise it's not worth the hassle. Obviously whoever carried out this attack isn't going to say civilians were targetted, but just judging by the facts we do know (a bus carrying soldiers and civilans was blown up on a busy motorway) I think we can safely assume civilians were targetted. Cornisle (talk) 14:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Well thats the thing you assume and assumptions dont meet WP:V. BigDunc (talk) 15:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Perpetrator(s) section

Proposed wording: "IRA cited in the media, but not proven or admitted". Tyrenius (talk) 15:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

How about Perpetrator(s) Unknown, IRA cited in the media, but not proven or admitted.--Padraig (talk) 14:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Seems fine to me. Other editors have gone rather quiet recently, but there needs to be a visible consensus achieved to prevent future flare-ups. Tyrenius (talk) 18:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
That seems ok does everything it says on the tin. BigDunc (talk) 18:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeh, seems fine, I'd go along with that. --Domer48 (talk) 18:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems fine. Remember to adjust the categories. --John (talk) 18:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Seems fine to me too. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 11:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It would appear we have agreement on this and in the section above.--Padraig (talk) 11:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

So we would have
Location: Coach on M62 motorway, Yorkshire, United Kingdom
Perpetrator(s) Unknown, IRA cited in the media, but not proven or admitted.--Padraig (talk) 11:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox amended

Article protection removed. Infobox amended per above consensus. Editors should not change the specific info without achieving a new consensus to do so, and may be reverted otherwise. Category changed per John above. Tyrenius (talk) 15:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Corporal Clifford Haughton

His name is Houghton, with a o.--Padraig (talk) 18:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I fixed this.--Padraig (talk) 17:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Protected

Protected for one week. Please discuss and come to an agreed version on this page. Don't keep on edit-warring. Tyrenius (talk) 12:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

There has not been an edit war - one explained change from me, at any rate, does not an edit war make. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 12:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't get involved with these articles as a rule any more, but I ran across this and as the guy who created and then sourced it I'll leave a short note. Basically, in answer to those above, it is obvious that knowing for sure what the target of the bombers was is impossible as we do not know who they were, so the term "Target" is misleading. Tyrenius is correct in pointing out that other criteria like location, victims etc are more illustrative of events and much more easily sourced. Secondly, that the IRA carried out this bombing is referenced in the article by four seperate reliable sources with a range of political viewpoints (it includes for example the The Sunday Business Post, the page for which describes it as "strongly Republican"). Just because they never admitted to it doesn't mean that it cannot be accurately attributed to them. Finally, the 25lb size of the bomb is referenced to the Williams & Head book amongst other places, although if other reliable sources dispute it then they should be brought in and the discrepancy discussed in a footnote. Hopefully this clarifed a few things.--Jackyd101 (talk) 13:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Lost Lives 2007 ed, p.434, ISBN 978-1-84018-504-1 has it as a 50lb bomb.-Padraig (talk) 18:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Then I suggest a footnote immediately after "...which consisted of 25lbs of high explosive detonated in a luggage locker of the coach.", reading "Also described as a 50lb bomb in Lost Lives 2007 ed, p.434, ISBN 978-1-84018-504-1" BastunBaStun not BaTsun 11:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)