Talk:Omagh bombing/Archives/2007/4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

(Early comments)

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)

Look on wiki, Omagh town is 68.2% Catholic, 29.5% Protestant. Not as above - Culnacréann 21:57, 10 April 2007 (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. —Preceding unsigned comment 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. —Preceding unsigned comment 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. —Preceding unsigned comment 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)

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)

NPOV

A disputed category has been added by a disruptive editor who has accused editors of associating with IRA members, therefor I have added the appropriate tag. One Night In Hackney303 22:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Please don't descend to name calling. I may be disrupting your agenda but I would ask you to strikeout the disruptive description.
<And I have never accused you of associating with IRA members as you know full well. Just answer the 3 questions I posed you on my talk page and return to your usual smooth and unruffled imageW. Frank 23:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC) removed defamatory and untrue personal attack by biassed administrator that claims infallibility
And I have never accused you of associating with IRA members as you know full well. Just answer the 3 questions I posed you on my talk page and return to your usual smooth and unruffled imageW. Frank 23:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC) sockpuppet -- Tyrenius 03:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
The category is not "in dispute", it is up for a CFD here. Since this article describes an event resulting in the killing of people by the IRA, a NPOV tag is not justified. See WP:IDONTLIKEIT? BastunBaStun not BaTsun 22:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Afraid it is. I've added the tag, and it is staying until the NPOV issues have been addressed. One Night In Hackney303 23:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
1. The category is being used on articles describing IRA actions that resulted in killings. 2. The Omagh bombing was an IRA action that resulted in killings. 3. It is therefore factual, not NPOV. 4. On my talk page you tell me to WP:AGF - yet you seem to not extend the same courtesy to me or the creator of the category - "a disruptive editor", or, from my talk page ""The category was specifically created for POV reasons." 5. The category is the subject of a CFD here, as you are aware (being the nominator). Allow that CFD to run its course and either it will be deleted, or accepted by the community as valid - in which case you hardly propose constant reverts to add a NPOV tag? BastunBaStun not BaTsun 23:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Bastun, please try and keep this conversation civil and balanced, I am not saying you are not I am just saying remember WP:CIVIL and please "keep cool when things get hot". I think that when you put an article into a category it should be based on 100% fact, i.e. People from XXXX place, People elected to the 7th Dail, People who appeared in a World Cup final etc - to put something into a category presents it as being 100% fact. It is relatively controversial to state that the IRA killed the people in Omagh since although it was an "IRA" bomb that killed these poor people some may argue it was a the actions of the RUC/British Army that killed them as the "IRA" targeted the centre and gave warnings - therefore "IRA killings" sounds pretty POV and unencyclopedic from that perspective, I hope you can understand the point I am trying to make here.--Vintagekits 10:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me - you say I'm not being uncivil, but you'll just quote policy at me anyway?! Bizarre. I'm restoring the category per comments above and per an admin's comments on its use, here. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 10:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Hardly bizarre, can you please WP:AGF I was trying to take the heat out of the situation before a problem occurs so that we can discuss in a rationed manner. Tyrenius states - "In the meantime it's there to be used." - that is fine, however, that does not mean its should be used in a POV manner, which I consider it to be.--Vintagekits 11:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
WP:AGF surely implies that you do not assume another user is going to be uncivil in advance. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 11:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Bastun, if you are not going to accept that I was trying to calm things down and discuss the issue without it getting heated then I am going to end this discussion here! P.S. I never accused you of being uncivil!--Vintagekits 11:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
You did not accuse me of being uncivil and I did not accuse you of saying that you did. Drawing an experienced editor's attention to such a policy when you believe he hasn't been uncivil, though, in the apparent fear that I will not keep my cool is a breach of WP:AGF. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 11:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Give it a rest Bastun - you are being a bit out of order here to be honest. Prevention is better than cure and all that. If you can not accept a friendly comment then my estimation of you has taken a serious nose dive.--Vintagekits 11:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't see the benefit in grouping the actions of seperate organisations under one category, other than to promote a POV. Ty said it shouldn't be used unless there is consensus to do so, and other than an editor who's since been blocked for sockpuppetry the consensus looks a bit thin on the ground to me. One Night In Hackney303 12:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

My initial comments to ONIH re. the cat were based solely on the talk then on his talk page, from which it seemed an existing cat in in use (i.e. with implicit previous consensus) was being arbitrarily removed or not being allowed to be used. I didn't realise the cat had only just been created, which to my mind completely reverses the situation. It is a controversial cat which has not achieved consensus for use and this should be reached before it can sensibly be employed, particularly as it's going through CfD. It seems to me in the light of previous discussions re. extreme terms that it is highly questionable whether this cat should exist at all, particularly as something comparable is apparently not in use for e.g. Al Quaida. My position based on all that is that it should not be used for the time being and should be removed from articles. Let the CfD run its course and make a decision on whether it's going to be kept or not. If it is, then discuss where and how it's going to be used before edit warring over multiple articles. All of this is an opinion and does not carry any admin implications, though of course edit warring or other actions may do (I recommend WP:BRD - it's much safer and saner than WP:3RR). It is an editorial decision, but if parties are willing to accept the above as an outside view and work to it, then it will be more harmonious all round. Tyrenius 21:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that should the category survive CfD, this does not mean there is a consensus for it to be used on any articles. The mere claim that it is factual does not mean it should be used. Otherwise what's to stop more categories being added on the grounds they are factual? Let's create Category:IRA bombings, Category:Republican bombings, Category:IRA bombings that killed more than 10 peope, Category:Bombings in Ireland etc etc. This category adds nothing that the existing categories do not already adequately serve, and attacks from different versions of the IRA should not be categorised together, as they are not the same organisation. One Night In Hackney303 16:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Quite what was the purpose of placing a bomb in the centre of a prominently RC town? Something to do with the "peace process" perhaps? Millbanks 21:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Very little!--Vintagekits 21:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)