Talk:Warrington bomb attacks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Northern Ireland This article is within the scope of WikiProject Northern Ireland, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Northern Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.)

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
WikiProject Northern Ireland tasks:
Ireland Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Ireland on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the priority scale.

[edit] Terrorism

This was an act of terrorism as defined in law by section 14 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 and listed as such in the Hansard debate linked in the article [1]. Tim! 13:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Totally disagree, 1. civilians "non-combatants" were not target the target of this attack, 2. Who's definition of terrorist/terrorism are we to use? - there are 100's of definitions, 3. It is completely POV and therefore not in keeping with WP:NPOV, 4. also see Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Terrorist, terrorism.--Vintagekits 13:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Since when has Boots the Chemist become a legitimate military target? Planting bombs in shopping centres is clearly terrorism, as is bombing Gas tanks in a town centre. Astrotrain 14:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Since when is Boots the Chemist a civilian--Vintagekits 14:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
If it is POV, please give a source which doesn't say this was a terrorist incident. As for "words to avoid", it says "The words terrorism and terrorist may be cited where there is a verifiable and cited indication of who is calling a person or group terrorist" and as I say above UK law clearly defines this as a terrorist act. Tim! 14:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Wiki doesnt go by UK law alone - In UK law the city of Derry is actually Londonderry but it is not called Londonderry on wiki. Terrorist attack is POV in this occasion and other where the target was not civilians.--Vintagekits 15:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
NPOV policy is not about not stating views, it is about balancing opposing views, and who does not view this act as terrorism? The distinction between civilian and non-civilian is also a POV. Tim!
Exactly its based on POV and therefore should be removed.--Vintagekits 15:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Erm, your not even answering the question now... Tim! 15:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, here is a Britsh website and no reference to a terrorist attack - its called a bomb attack--Vintagekits 15:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
No, this does not explicity states that this was not terrorism. That article neither says it was or was not terrorism. Also if you read the article they did not know at the time of writing that the act had been perpertrated by the IRA. Tim! 16:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Lol, if it doesnt not state it is a terrorist attack then that is obviously implicit. I can add a lot more references if you issue, I can also add one where it states that it was carried out by "freedom fighters" - do you think that should be added also? It's called balance--Vintagekits 17:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
If you can find a reliable source which says this was an act of freedom fighters you can add it to balance out what you seem to perceive as bias. Tim! 18:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
That is not the way wiki works! I am going to call it a "Jelly and Icecream attack" unless you can provide a reliable source which says this was not a "Jelly and Icecream attack" then it should be added! Obviously that is nonsense but just shows that your suggestion is equally not the way forward.--Vintagekits 19:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
You're the one removing the categories despite sources which sconcur. Don't create absurd strawmen. Tim! 19:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
This is not a strawman, terrorist is POV as is freedom fighter,--Vintagekits 21:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I try not to rise to nonsense but if you can provide a link that specifically states that the target of the Warrington bomb was shoppers then I would only be more than happy to put it in the article.--Vintagekits 20:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • As you are an Irish Republican I can understand why this would be a sensitive issue for you but (1) you'll see from the above link that all Brits (no modifier saying "armed" or "military" Brits) were an acceptable IRA targets and Coogan is a reliable source (2) the bomb was placed in a busy shopping centre at midday on a Saturday and (3) the warning sent the emergency services to a totally unrelated town 15 miles away I think certainly can't describe my edit as "nonsense" or indeed POV.82.27.185.89 20:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • 1. sign your posts, 2. the link you provided doesnt say anything about Warrington 3. Get something that relates directly to Warrington and we can talk. 4. I wont be posting again until you provide information specifially about Warrington and not in relation to the Falls Curfew.--Vintagekits 20:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I think your points 2,3 and 4 are essentially saying the same thing. The link I refered to above related to the strategic reaction of the IRA to the Falls Curfew, not the event itself. As I have quoted a source setting out strategy it is, I think, acceptable to suggest that an event was in furtherance of that strategy which was, as explicitly set out in the Green Book, to kill Brits. I really don't see the problem here. Nonetheless I will defer to your experience and obvious sensitivity over such matters 82.27.185.89 21:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC) 82.27.185.89
The fact that a coded warning (however appalling botched) was given suggests to me that the intention was that shoppers should have been cleared from the area before the explosions occured. If that is the case, i think it more reasonable to assume that the target was property rather than people. Guy Hatton 22:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Have to disagree. The poster above has shown that it was IRA strategy to target all British people. All the sources I have seen say the bombs were in the street rather than the shops. If property were the target then the litter bins they were placed in were the obvious casualty. Maybe we should say the target was the bins or the street itself - the if the IRA wanted to damage a shop they tended to put the bomb IN the shop (Shankhill, Harrods etc.) 80.169.129.163 09:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
In fact, the above poster is arguably misusing the source, which refers to a particular time period, to particular events unrelated to the Warrington bombing, and which talks about who 'the people' saw as legitimate targets in those circumstances, at that time, not necessarily who the IRA viewed as such. The poster is making a generalisation which is not justified by the source, which is quoted in a highly selective manner. From Coogan, here is the full passage:
Tactics are dictated by the existing conditions. Here again the logic is quite simple. Without support Volunteers, Dumps, Weapons, Finance, etc., we cannot mount an operation, much less a campaign. In September 1969 the existing conditions dictated that Brits were not to be shot, but after the Falls curfew all Brits were to the people acceptable targets. The existing conditions had been changed.
Likewise at present, for example, although the leadership of the S.D.L.P. has proved itself to be collaborationist and thus an enemy of the people. At various stages since 1974 we could have employed the tactic of making them subjects of ridicule by tarring and feathering them when for instance they were members of an Executive which tortured and interned Irishmen, which penalised rent and rates strikers, etc., or when they recently declared at Westminster in a debate on H Block that 'Life should mean Life and there should be no Political Status'. The defensive precaution in the latter example being of course that the people be made aware beforehand that they actually did make such an utterance.
The rule of thumb for all our actions can therefore be clearly seen to be that we must explain by whatever means we have at our disposal why we bomb, why we punish criminals, why we execute informers etc. Guy Hatton 13:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, but I still don't think we can "assume" the shops were the tarket as you put it. The coded warning only mentioned Boots (and that one in Liverpool) and that the bomb was "outside". The intended target was therefore further into the street - so the targets could be the shops, thestreet itself, the litter bins, the people surrounding the litter bins or nothing (just inducing panic). Based on the location of the bombs some distance from the shops I think it would be POV (insofar as it implicitly accepts that the IRA NEVER targetted civilians and only "economic" targets in these circumstances - many would disagree as we see above) to suggest that the target was the shops. I think identifying the street/bins as the target would be neutral and leave the reader to draw their own conclusions. 80.169.129.163 13:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Agree entirely that the article should not speculate as to the intended target - I made the suggestion above with the simple intention of demonstrating that there might be more than one way of interpreting what happened. I've amended the info box to give the 'target' as Bridge Street (generally) instead of anything more specific: I think this is probably the least problematic approach. Guy Hatton 13:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Common sense dictates that the target was the location of the explosion and anything likely to be in that are at the time. No warning of the attack was given, since the call made warned of a completely separate action that didn't exist. It was an attack designed to kill civilians. Gomez2002 13:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's been 15 years now since that day when I found myself much too close for comfort to these two bombs. As for the target; being of Irish stock, I can't see any reason why Warrington in particular was targeted (as the town itself has a sizeable Irish-catholic population which has always lived peaceably in the town), but also I really can't understand why the British don't seem to grasp that the target of the IRA always was the British people as a whole. The IRA knew that it could never take on Britain militarily. The reason for the bombs was to (over time) make the British population so damned sick and tired of 'the Irish Question' that they would vote for any political party which dared to break ranks and make withdrawal from Ireland and 'dumping' the problem part of its manifesto. That is why all political parties in Britain formed an 'alliance of wills' against even discussing the idea. So the target was random - whoever happened to be standing near the bombs at the time. ChrisRed (talk) 08:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)