Misplaced Pages

Talk:Birmingham pub bombings

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Conypiece (talk | contribs) at 20:34, 15 August 2007 (→Team editing to make provisional SF more electorally attractive). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 20:34, 15 August 2007 by Conypiece (talk | contribs) (→Team editing to make provisional SF more electorally attractive)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
This WikiProject is believed to be inactive.
Consider looking for related projects for help or ask at the Teahouse.
If you are not currently a project participant and wish to help you may still participate in the project. This status should be changed if collaborative activity resumes.
Wikimedia subject-area collaboration "WP:IR" redirects here. For WikiProject International relations, see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject International relations. For image requests, see Misplaced Pages:Requested pictures. For Misplaced Pages ignore all rules (IAR) policy, see Misplaced Pages:Ignore all rules.
This is a WikiProject, an area for focused collaboration among Wikipedians. New participants are welcome; please feel free to participate!
Shortcut
Irish Republicanism articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total
FA 1 1 1 3
GA 1 2 6 3 12
B 12 16 41 27 5 101
C 5 10 53 64 26 158
Start 4 37 170 198 127 536
Stub 1 26 77 29 133
List 1 2 2 10 3 18
NA 1 4 3 204 212
Assessed 24 70 303 382 204 190 1,173
Total 24 70 303 382 204 190 1,173


Welcome to the Irish Republicanism WikiProject, a collaboration of editors dedicated to improving Misplaced Pages's coverage of Irish republicanism, Irish nationalism, and related organizations, peoples, and other topics.

(For more information on WikiProjects, please see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject and the Guide to WikiProjects).

Goals

  • Improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of topics related to Irish Republicanism and Irish Nationalism.
  • Gather interested editors, and provide a central location to discuss matters pertaining to the above.

Scope

  • Topics related to Irish Republicanism and Irish Nationalism.

Guidelines

Open tasks

To-do list for Birmingham pub bombings: edit · history · watch · refresh

To-do list is empty: remove {{To do}} tag or click on edit to add an item.

This 'To do' list- has it been updated since 2007? Basket Feudalist (talk) 16:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Armed Campaigns

Republican Wars

Others

Events

Armed Republican Groups

For an organized hierarchial chart, see Genealogy of the IRA

Irish Republicans

Note: There are many, many IRA Volunteers of varying memberships, and we cannot list them all here. We have many categories for that. Only particularly notable members should be listed here.

Early Volunteers; the Wars

Later IRA

Other

Participants

This user is a member of WikiProject Irish Republicanism.

Please feel free to add yourself here, and to indicate any areas of particular interest

  1. Paddytheceltic (talk · contribs) Protestant Nationalists, Militant oganisations, Political Organizations and others..
  2. Erin Go Bragh (talk · contribs) Militant Armed Irish Republican organizations. Gaelic.
  3. Kathryn NicDhàna (talk · contribs) I've been working on some of the articles about women in the Easter Rising.
  4. Pauric (talk · contribs) Too much to mention
  5. Derry Boi (talk · contribs) Interested in all areas of republicanism really.
  6. One Night In Hackney (talk · contribs) Bit of everything
  7. Irish Republican (talk · contribs) Irish Republicanism 1798-Present
  8. Vintagekits (talk · contribs) Irish Republicanism past and present with more focus on the history of the Provisionals
  9. Phoblacht (talk · contribs) Republican Newspapers from 1790’s to Present.
  10. GiollaUidir (talk · contribs) Republican activities from the 1969-mid 80's. Also, biogs of (primarily) dead activists both political and military. Post-1986 is mainly CIRA activity and shoot-to-kill operations by the SAS etc.
  11. Leopold III (talk · contribs) The leaders in the period from the Easter Rising to the end of the Civil War.
  12. Kevin Murray (talk · contribs) Learning more and helping where I can.
  13. Scolaire (talk · contribs) 20th century history, especially the 1913-1922 period
  14. Sheehan07 (talk · contribs) Love Irish History
  15. Sbfenian1916 (talk · contribs) Love Irish Republicansim, hate Unionism.
  16. United and Free (talk · contribs)- PIRA history and operations
  17. Fluffy999 (talk · contribs) Inter(world)war republican activities. Internment and extra judicial activities surrounding Irish Republicanism.
  18. Free Scotland, Unite Ireland (talk · contribs) Interested in post- St Andrews agreement Republicanism.
  19. Diarmaid (talk · contribs) Six county sovereignty
  20. Domer48 (talk · contribs) Period covered by the Irish Confederation (Young Ireland)
  21. Conghaileach (talk · contribs) Special interest in left-republican history
  22. Max rspct (talk · contribs) PIRA;INLA; civil war era; 70s 80s 90s; links/solidarity abroad;
  23. Carrignafoy (talk · contribs) War of Independence and Civil War (especially in Cork) also development of Official Sinn Féin and its successors.
  24. Brixton Busters (talk · contribs)
  25. BigDunc (talk · contribs)
  26. Ró2000 (talk • contribs) Tá suim mhór agam i stair náisiúnta na hÉireann, neamhspleach go háirithe!!
  27. quirk666 (talk · contribs) Republicanism 1798-present. 32 County Sovereignty Movement
  28. gavcos (talk · contribs) Old IRA, War of Independence, Civil War
  29. ElementalEternity (talk · contribs) 20:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)Irish history and republicanism in general.
  30. Biofoundationsoflanguage 15:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  31. Moz1916 (talk · contribs) All Irish history, especially 1903-1932
  32. Princess Pea Face (talk · contribs) Ireland pure and simple
  33. Barryob (talk · contribs)
  34. NIscroll (talk · contribs) --NIscroll (talk) 19:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  35. RSFRuairi (talk · contribs) Anything really.
  36. Gr8opinionater (talk · contribs) 1:10 July 27 2008 (GMT), Interested in Irish nationalism in general particularly from a Political and historical point of view.
  37. Lihaas (talk · contribs) open to much
  38. EoinBach (talk · contribs) Irish republicanism in general from an academic point of view
  39. Gerard Madden (talk · contribs)
  40. SPARTAN-J024 (talk · contribs) I have ties to the Easter Rising and the Irish War of Independence
  41. NewIreland2009 (talk) The 1912-1924 period, with a particular passion for challenging popular myths of the period.
  42. Dribblingscribe (talk) 20:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  43. Tippsno1fan (talk · contribs) Tá an-spéis agam ann
  44. Gallagher-Glass (talk · contribs) General interest.
  45. Fallduff (talk · contribs) National Archives, Dublin and Na Fianna Éireann, pre Northern Troubles
  46. Mabuska (talk · contribs) maintaining neutrality and verifiability
  47. Nicholas Urquhart (talk · contribs) military operations of the "New IRAs": the Provos, the Reals and even OnH, the Official and Continuity IRA.
  48. You Can Act Like A Man (talk · contribs) 32 CSM
  49. Finnegas (talk · contribs)
  50. Sittingonthefence (talk · contribs) Irish republicanism as a philosophy. 1916 and War of Independence combatants.
  51. High_Noonan (talk · contribs) Tom Hunter, 1916, War of Independence
  52. Antiqueight (talk · contribs) Women involved in 1916 or similar.
  53. AusLondonder (talk · contribs) General matters.
  54. Tdv123 (talk · contribs) PIRA, OIRA, INLA, IPLO, ICA, IVF, SE, CRF, SARAF, PLA
  55. Irishpolitical (talk · contribs) Traditionalist Republicanism and Nationalism. Dissenting republicans post GFA. Anti-communist Republicanism.
  56. CnocBride (talk · contribs) All Irish history, though my favourite time period would be the vast 1800–2011 period.
  57. KINGHB190 (talk · contribs) A Corkonian with ancestry in the original Irish Republican Army.
  58. Endersslay (talk · contribs) Enjoy Irish republican music and history.
  59. R0paire-wiki (talk · contribs) Irish Republicanism past and present, with particular focus on Socialist Republicanism.

Userbox

Feel free to place {{User WP:IR}} on your User page to advertise our WikiProject!

Articles

Featured content

Candidates

Good articles

Candidates

Articles in need of urgent attention

Please provide a short explanation, or leave a note on our talk page if needed.

  • John Sweetman. Article on 2nd President of SF needs more footnotes, and appears to have been compiled largely from reports in The Times of London, which is hardly a neutral source on an Irish Republican.

Suggestions for new articles

Articles in Preparation

New articles

Belfast Pogrom

1923 Irish Hunger Strikes

Richard Goss (Irish Republican)

Joseph Whitty

Thomas Harte (Irish republican)

Patrick McGrath (Irish republican)

Jack McNeela

Seamus Woods

Andy O'Sullivan (Irish Republican)

Please feel free to list your new Irish Republican Army-related articles here (newer articles at the top, please). Any new articles that have an interesting or unusual fact in them should be suggested for the Did you know? box on the Main Page.

Collaboration

The article listed here is our current official article to collaborate on. Propose new articles in the Nominations section below.

Nominations

James Larkin - Grosseteste (talk) 17:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Review

Peer review
Assessment / Project's Assessment page

Assessment requests:

Language

Gaelic words and phrases should be marked up using {{lang}}, thus: {{lang|ga|Páirc na hÉireann}}.

Templates

To use the following template, simply put {{IRAs}} at the bottom of an article.

Armed Republican groups in Ireland
   

Earlier organisations

Easter Rising

Irish War of Independence

Irish Civil War

The Troubles

Dissident Campaign

To use the following template, simply put {{NIPP}} at the bottom of an article.

Steps in the Northern Ireland peace process

Banner

Articles which fall within our scope should be labeled as such on their talk pages. To do so, simply place {{WP IR}} at the top of article's talk page.

WikiProject iconIrish republicanism Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Irish republicanism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Irish republicanism and Irish nationalism related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Irish republicanismWikipedia:WikiProject Irish republicanismTemplate:WikiProject Irish republicanismIrish republicanism
???This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Categories

Regular cats

Project organisation cats

Resources

Using references

  • For a simple guide to using references, place {{subst:refstart}} (including brackets) on your user or talk page.

Related projects

WikiProject iconWest Midlands Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject West Midlands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of West Midlands on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.West MidlandsWikipedia:WikiProject West MidlandsTemplate:WikiProject West MidlandsWest Midlands
???This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Images

Is it possible to get images of the result of the bombings? Also, it might be good to get images of the sites at present times. - Erebus555 14:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you from Brum Erebus? If you've got a digital camera... It would really improve the article (I'm feeling cheeky today!)Weggie 14:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I should be able to get some present day pictures very soon. But I think pictures of the damage caused would really improve the article a lot. - Erebus555 16:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

While I don't doubt that a terrible wrong was done to the Birmingham Six, I have seen no reliable source for the claim that their "convictions overturned due to police tampering with evidence", and that is certainly not what the cited reference says was the case. Nor is Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army (in an edit summary) a viable reference. To refer to them as "Six innocent people" is also PoV, and uncited (my request for a citation has just been removed); we don't know that they were not guilty of something else, and we don't normally refer to people as such. Andy Mabbett 11:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

References from both British and Irish politicans describing them as innocent added. Brixton Busters 11:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Those are references for a statement to the effect that "several politicians described them as innocent"; not the statement in the article. Andy Mabbett 14:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
They were cleared in a court of law. Politicans have said they are innocent. Unless you have any source to say otherwise Pigsonthewing (as opposed to your own opinion), they are innocent. I am removing the tag. Brixton Busters 14:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
The tag also referred to the improperly-cited point about evidence, Kindly restore it. Andy Mabbett 16:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
The evidence point is covered in the link to CAIN. No need to restore it.GiollaUidir 16:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
CAIN says "Six men ... were freed by the Court of Appeal in London. ... The six had been found guilty on the basis of forensic evidence and confessions that the men claimed were beaten out of them. The forensic evidence was shown to be unreliable and there was evidence that the police had forged notes of interviews and had given false evidence at the original trial." It does not say "they had their convictions overturned due to police tampering with evidence". I can see that you do not agree with me on this point, but I cannot see how you can contend that there is no dispute Andy Mabbett 17:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

In this case "innocent" is being used as a factual description of the legal status of the individuals known as the Brimingham Six. It would be POV and emotive to use "innocent" in the context of "21 innocent civilians were callously murdered by the cowards etc".

Also, "we don't know that they were not guilty of something else", that is totally irrelevant. They were innocent of involvement in the Birmingham Bombings, which is the subject of the article.GiollaUidir 16:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Even if so, if they were innocent in the sense that they had their convictions overturned, to say "six innocent people ... had their convictions overturned" is a tautology. Andy Mabbett 17:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Um, not really. It's called a miscarriage of justice. GiollaUidir 17:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Police did tamper with evidence. Notes from interviews are evidence, so forging them is tampering with evidence. Brixton Busters 13:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Where did I say that they didn't? Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 14:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Right at the top. You said: I have seen no reliable source for the claim that their "convictions overturned due to police tampering with evidence. Are you saying you want more information adding about the criminal activities of West Midlands Police? Brixton Busters 14:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
So I did; but that doesn't say that the evidence was not tampered with. I want to see a citation which proves that the reason the conviction was overturned was that tampering, as currently claimed in the article, or for that currently unsourced claim to be removed. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 15:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Can't fault your logic there, Andy - but wouldn't it be fairer to the Six and their families to leave the statement in for a few days to give folks time to come up with a reference. (I know that isn't the way that WP usually works, but just to show a spirit of compromise and good will to 303, since Domer48 claims that Brixton Buster's a brand new editor? I'm sure that 303 will be able to come up with a citation pretty rqapidly.)...Gaimhreadhan • 16:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
How about this obituary ? Brixton Busters 16:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
You're getting there, but not quite there yet, since the relevant passage only reads: "The convictions were quashed four years later on the grounds that confessions to police officers had been improperly admitted in evidence." Here's a better one:
Since you're quite close to the Strand, why don't you pop round to the Judges Library near the Bear Garden and ask for a day pass for research purposes? Tell them you're contributing to an encyclopedia article and want to get your facts straight....Gaimhreadhan • 16:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The Dead

Following removed on grounds of (rv per WP:NOT) ...too cryptic for me. Aatomic1 22:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this will help you - as Per not a memorial see here for discussion.--Vintagekits 23:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Have you read the links I provided and are you going to reply to this?--Vintagekits 23:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm removing the names, the second discussion says they should not be included. Brixton Busters 08:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
my two cents, see discussion, --Domer48 21:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Vintage, Domer and Brixton are right. Including the names is a breach of WP:NOT. If there is a weblisting of them somewhere else, it could be included as an external link. Bastun 22:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Carrickmakeegan Tragedy? Aatomic1 11:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. Fixed now. Regards, Bastun 16:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT) Refers to subjects of Wkipedia articles; these people are not subjects of wiki articles. Adding the names aids the reader gain encyclodedic knowledge of the incidents. Aatomic1 16:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

See the second discussion. Pointless trivia adds nothing. Brixton Busters 16:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes it does; no it doesn't; yes it does Aatomic1 16:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Please respect consensus, both here and in the linked discussion. Brixton Busters 16:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Aatomic1 17:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Aatomic, please stop edit warring. The listing of the dead add nothing to the article and wiki is not a memorial per WP:NOT.--Vintagekits 18:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

<reduce indent> I just came across this article. While I can sort of see the point of not listing the dead on articles like this (or other tragedies/massacres), my first reaction on reading the article was "there's nothing about the victims". Also, there's nothing about wounded, survivors, etc. It's an omission. The reason the event is notable is because it killed/wounded those people. Even if they're not individually historically notable, together they are the victims of the Birmingham Pub bombings. That's notability, and the fact that "just" ordinary people killed in this event is also relevant in understanding the times and the events of the times, so a description of their "ordinariness" is relevant. In any case there were 21 of them, not thousands, so a list wouldn't be impossible. I don't know much about the events, so can't offer to help, but wanted to make that comment. Perhaps knowledgeable editors can take it into account somehow. Even if no list of names if possible, more information is badly needed. Hughsheehy 22:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I have added the names (again) Aatomic1 07:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I can understand both your reasoning, Aatomic1 (and Hughsheehy), and that of Bastun . In principle, would you be willing to enter into a more formal process to try and reach a consensus viewpoint about listing victims in articles with a Green tinge, Aatomic1 and Hughsheehy?
Aside from that question, my compromise suggestion would be to have a list of victims only where their victimhood is an important part of making the subject of the article notable and the list of victims constitutes less than 10% of the characters in our article...Gaimhreadhan talk • 08:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

In this particular article there were another set of victims namely the Birmingham Six who are still libelled and slandered often by the question If they didn’t do it then who did?. While this encyclopedia may or may not be able to answer this question, there is further information available that can enlighten the reader; such as naming members of the IRA active service unit that was operating in Birmingham at the time (I have added these to List of members of the Irish Republican Army. However for truly balanced coverage it is right that the names of direct ‘other ‘victims are available to the reader; the level of notability being set at death rather than injury. Aatomic1 10:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Consensus is not to include the names. Brixton Busters 11:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
As a relatively new account here, you are certainly not the arbiter of consensus, Brixton Busters.
Please do not edit war by reverting others without exhausting discussion on this, the article's discussion, page first.
Please also provide a reason why you wish to obfuscate the distinction between Irish_Republican_Army and Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army. Please remember that this is an encyclopaedia and is not intended to push a particular minority political viewpoint...Gaimhreadhan talk • 12:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army#Abreviate to .22PIRA.22 or .22IRA.22 .3F - be careful what you agree to. The linked discussion about the names is clear, consensus says the names stay out. Until that consensus changes, the names stay out. Brixton Busters 13:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Brixton, you are a new user, so therefore it is understandable if you don't know all the policies. What you have linked to does not meet any definition of WP:CONSENSUS. Until a short time ago, it was a discussion with one user saying 'Let's do this' and two others saying 'Well, maybe not.' (The views of a third user banned for sectarian attacks and threats of violence can be discounted). Consensus affecting many articles cannot be achieved between such a small number of users on the talk page of one article. Discussion should be centralised and involve more than a tiny handful of users. Until that happens, there isn't consensus. Bastun 14:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I have nothing to add to the erudite argument above other than to confirm that my assent was indeed limited to our specific article on the Provisional Irish Republican Army. ...Gaimhreadhan talk • 14:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there any chance we could provide the year these victims were born, instead of the age that they were when they died? I think it is more encyclopedic that way-- the year is provided as a means of identifying the victim, whereas the age could be seen as pushing the POV that people were cut down in the prime of their lives. The recently featured article, École Polytechnique massacre has year of birth, and I think it looks better.

I have no objection in principle to that.
I do object to the idea that we need to be mealy mouthed about the facts. And it's a sad but properly referenced stance that some victims were indeed cut down in their prime....Gaimhreadhan talk • 23:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Just a couple of points. WP:NOT doesn´t apply, since listing the names of the victims isn´t the same as having articles about them. The "consensus" discussion ref´d by Brixton seems to be irrelevant too. As for having some special policy about articles with a "Green tinge", I find it a bizarre suggestion (sorry to whoever made it, but that´s how i feel). Whatever the political background, this was a bomb in a pub and it killed a bunch of people out for a pint. The reason the event is notable is because these people were killed - blown to bits in mid chat (let´s not forget that this is what the event consisted of...bits of very fast metal chopping up bits of very soft people). If the warnings had been successful and no-one had been killed then the bombing itself wouldn´t really be notable. None of the political background alters that highly important fact.
As for the Birmingham Six, they were evidently the victims of a related but separate atrocity, which atrocity merits its own article. If anything, their evident and highly notorious victimisation is part of what makes the original victims of the pub bombings so notable in the first place.
IMHO, no article on the Birmingham pub bombing can be complete without a treatment of the victims. Perhaps a list of the wounded is too much, but the fatalities feel like a "must have". As for whether this conflicts with any accepted policy on other IRA or UVF or Tamil Tigers or PLO or any other such bombing, I guess I really couldn´t care less. Again, I freely admit that I have no idea (and I´m not sure I care) what is accepted policy for such cases and am reacting to this one article....although I suspect I´d feel exactly the same about similar cases anywhere else. Hughsheehy 00:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I concur...Gaimhreadhan talk • 00:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

For those who are actually interested in reading the discussion on policy regarding WP:NOT, please see: ]. In that discussion, it was clearly stated by a number of editors and administrators that lists of the dead violate the policy on memorials and indiscriminate information. Please, before you begin making pronouncements about policy and consensus, do read said discussion. And, for those of you who would dismiss the previous activities of currently-blocked editors, may I remind you that VintageKits did not take part in the discussion to which I have linked. However, even had he taken part, that would not justify its dismissal, nor does the fact that VK is now blocked automatically discount the numerous contributions he made in the past. ---TheoldanarchistComhrá 03:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a helpful reference in rehearsing the same sort of arguments editors have made here. And this reference was cited in the fifth comment (by Domer48) in this section. And the results were similarly inconclusive.
The inclusionist tendency can read powerful support, and so can the deletionists. What clinches it for me is http://en.wikipedia.org/Wp:not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_paper_encyclopedia coupled with http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules and http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Article_size#What_is_and_is_not_included_as_.22readable_prose.22 - hence my compromise suggestion above to "have a list of victims only where their victimhood is an important part of making the subject of the article notable and the list of victims constitutes less than 10% of the characters in our article". I note that you have not directly engaged this and other points made by inclusionists here, Theoldanarchist. I agree with Bastun's proposal to sort matters out like this centrally. I believe it may have been SirFozzie's hope (before he became disillusioned?) that CEM could help centralise and resolve re-occurring arguments like this one...Gaimhreadhan talk • 07:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Please find an external link for a list of the dead instead of putting them in to article as per WP NOT.--BigDunc 08:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

BigDunc please note ] Aatomic1 09:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

See the second discussion. The list fails two parts of WP:NOT, memorial and indiscriminate information. It is funny that people say I cannot claim consensus and agreement took place between a couple of editors on a talk page while ignoring that link which was posted right at the start. Multiple editors including administrators said such lists fall under WP:NOT. Brixton Busters 13:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not# Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information covers *Lists of Frequently Asked Questions *Plot summaries *Lyrics databases *Statistics *News reports . Please give a succinct explanation of your last editAatomic1 14:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
After reading policies & discussion pages, it's clear that WP:NOT is NOT applicable. The page on the Birmingham pub bombing is not a memorial page. Similarly, including a list of the dead in a bombing is not "indiscriminate information" under any reasonable definition of the word "indiscriminate". It also seems there is no existing consensus and no "policy" against including the names of the dead in articles like this. Since there are only (a word i can´t manage to avoid here) 21 victims it´s even easy to include the victims' names so why not do it? This isn´t like trying to include the list of victims of 9/11 or WWII.
I suppose it´s possible that a list isn´t the right way to present the information. Perhaps a summary of what type of people, age range, careers, etc., is more appropriate, but the victims cannot be neglected. Their deaths are the nucleus of the event. Their deaths are what happened. All the rest is detail. Hughsheehy 00:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Its interesting though that a list of the dead is in the Bloody Sunday (1972) article. Do the people here who think the names should not included in this article also think they should not be included in the bloody sunday page? Just curious... Conypiece 11:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

From reading both articles one seems to be just a list of the dead whereas the Bloody Sunday one is not just a list it disproves the statements given at the time that these people were armed. BigDunc 12:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Surely citations only could be used? Also did the people who died in Birmingham not die in just as tragic circumstances? Conypiece 13:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Undoubtedly both were equally tragic. However, the Birmingham victims weren't subject to a 35 year smear campaign alleging that they were armed and dangerous at the time of their murder. No one disputes that the Birmingham victims were out for a quiet drink at time of death. GiollaUidir 13:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Of course they did (died tragically), but who ever planted the bomb did not say after it that the dead were all armed, if so there names could be used to disprove such a silly statement as is done on Bloody Sunday article, or do you want it to read that X was shot in back Y had no nail bomb there names are very relevant to the article because the reason for there death is disputed. BigDunc 13:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Disputed by whom? Does anyone reputable currently still claim the victims of Bloody Sunday were armed? Bastun 14:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Victims and memorials

The Birmingham Six may have been victims, but not of these bombings; they were victims of police malpractice. And we don't have memorials to people who are alive (or who dies of natural causes years after an event which had no direct connection with their death). Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 20:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, wording the Six as "victims of the bombings" was inappropriate - I have edited it to read more like an encyclopaedic article and less like a tabloid piece. Neil ム 08:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


Team editing to make provisional SF more electorally attractive

WP:NOT#ADVOCATE is official policy on the English Misplaced Pages.

It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. When editing this page, and other articles relating to the Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIRA), please ensure that your revision reflects our policy that Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda. Therefore, Misplaced Pages content is not:

1. Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favourite views.

2. Opinion pieces on current affairs or politics. Although current affairs and politics may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (i.e. passionately advocate their pet point of view), Misplaced Pages is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced so as to put entries for current affairs in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, Misplaced Pages authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete.

3. Self-promotion. It can be tempting to write about yourself or projects you have a strong personal involvement in. However, do remember that the standards for encyclopaedic articles apply to such pages just like any other, including the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which is difficult when writing about yourself and your friends. See Misplaced Pages:Autobiography, Misplaced Pages:Notability and Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest.

Currently we have a team of editors (including, but not limited to: User:Brixton Busters, User:BigDunc, User:Domer48, User:Padraig, User:Vintagekits) that edit a consistent set of our articles in such a way as to introduce a consistent bias and ambiguity.

These editors act in relay to avoid technically breaching 3RR and consistently seek to push a minority POV endorsed by PIRA and their political wing that is to the political electoral advantage of provisional SF.

The pattern to these team editors contributions is as follows:

(1) There have been, and are currently, many flavours of political organisations including in their name the letters "IRA". These team editors consistently seek to muddy and obfuscate the distinctions between the pre 1920 IRA, the Continuity IRA (CIRA), the Official IRA (OIRA), the Provisional IRA (PIRA), the Real IRA (RIRA), and other sects. They do this by trying to obliterate any reference that clarifies that PIRA is meant in the article preferring the wholly ambiguous "IRA" instead. The political purpose of these team edits is to reduce the political significance of the competing groupings.

(2) These team editors consistently seek to muddy and obfuscate the distinctions between the pre 1920 IRA, CIRA, OIRA, PIRA, RIRA and other sects. They do this in order to mislead our readers into believing that PIRA is the direct political heir of the pre 1920 IRA and achieve greater "electoral respectability" for provisional SF thereby. This is why the team editors engage in revert warring to try to obliterate any reference that clarifies that PIRA is meant in the article and instead insert the wholly ambiguous "IRA" instead. The political purpose of these team edits is again to reduce the political significance of the competing groupings and enhance that of current political groupings sympathetic to PIRA.

(3) They seek to remove any reference to terrorism and the victims of terrorism – except when they are "PIRA-approved victims" as in our Bloody Sunday (1972) article – as in our Bloody Friday (1972)‎ article. Compare and contrast our articles with PIRA involvement and our articles with Islamic terrorist] involvement. Note the lede in World Trade Center bombing where the team's interest and influence is extremely low and the howls of anguish when that "naughty word" is used correctly to reflect the overwhelming available authoritative sources with regard to PIRA actions where non-combatants were murdered and mutilated.

According to Jimmy Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable." W. Frank talk ✉  16:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Update on biased team editing:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6947532.stm
Categories: