Talk:Birmingham pub bombings/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

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 Wikipedia.

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 Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda. Therefore, Wikipedia 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), Wikipedia 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, Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia: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

• Hear Hear, W.Frank. Conypiece 20:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Oops, you just showed how non-neutral you are in your 3rd point there! There is no "deliberate muddying of the waters" with regards to what abbreviation is used to denote the Provisional Irish Republican Army. A cursory look through a collection of news articles over the past 38 years shows no consistency in use of IRA/PIRA etc.GiollaUidir 12:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

He has been spamming this nonsense on every article where his POV pushing has been rejected, he has also made it clear that he has no interest in discussing the issue, and intends to continue to edit war on the issue.--padraig 12:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Protected

Full protection for 3 days to stop the edit warring. People please use the talk page. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Um, what edit warring? Neil ム 08:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I've semiprotected for 7 days to discourage the sort of edit warring we saw today by and among anonymous and single-purpose accounts. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Nomination for mediation

I have nominated this article for mediation in an attempt to resolve the edit warring and the fact the discussion is going in circles re:list of dead. See:Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-08-24 Birmingham pub bombings.GiollaUidir 12:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

All of the related parties, I want your sides of the story. E-mail me if you must, but I would prefer if you used my mediation page, so that I can keep track of things. GiollaUidir, thank you for bringing this to my attention, though it looks, right now, fixed. Dreamy ^\*/_!$! 19:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

My mistake, all is not well. Please follow the above directions. Dreamy ^\*/_!$! 19:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Allright, there is a lot of edit warring, so I'm going to say this, it does not satisfy the notability claim, though it might help the article. They are not required for this article to be fully understood,though, again, it might help, all that is needed to be said about it, is that there were 21 people dead, if there are major reasons, please let me know. Aatomic1, you are incorrect and correct at the same time. Those people that are removing it, and those that are putting it in, please stop this blatant disregard for the 3RR. All of you need to stop reverting, and let this calm down. There have already been discussions on this. It has been proven over, and over again that it is not required, and that it is required. Dreamy ^\*/_!$! 19:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it has been shown that both sides are correct. I want to be given sources for both, and reasons for both sides. Dreamy ^\*/_!$! 19:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)\

The dead

Jane Davis, 17 ; Desmond Reilly, 20; Eugene Reilly, 23 ; Maureen Roberts, 20; Marylin Nash, 22 ; Pamela Palmer, 19 ; Stephen Whalley, 21; Lynn Bennett, 18 ; Anne Hayes, 19 ; Michael Beasley, 30 ; Maxine Hambleton, 18 ; John Jones, 51 ; Charles Gray, 44 ; John Rowland, 46 ; Stanley Bodman, 51 ; Trevor Thrupp, 33 ; James Caddick, 40 ; Paul Davis, 20 ; Neil Marsh, 20 ; Thomas Chaytor, 28 (Died 28 November 1974) ; James Craig, 34 (Died 10 December

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, [1]--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^{BaStun not BaTsun} 22:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Carrickmakeegan Tragedy? Aatomic1 11:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Fixed now. Regards, Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 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)

[WP:OWN] 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 ^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} 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 ^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} 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^{BaStun not BaTsun} 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. [For an encyclopaedia, the wish to have a readable and common style and avoid boring repetition must always be subservient to clarity. As an on-line encyclopaedia we have the space to be both precise and balanced]...Gaimhreadhan ^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} 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 ^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} 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 ^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} talk • 00:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

For those who are actually interested in reading the discussion on policy regarding WP:NOT, please see: [[2]]. 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. ---Theoldanarchist_Comhrá 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/wiki/Wp:not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_paper_encyclopedia coupled with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 ^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} 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 [[3]] 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)

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not# Wikipedia 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^{BaStun not BaTsun} 14:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

More to the point, if we ad the statement "Blown up while innocently out for a beer (or other refreshment)" to all the names of the dead people from the Birmingham bombings, then will we get past this amazing insistence that the names of the people that make the event notable should be excluded from the article? Hughsheehy 16:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I have asked for the Omagh List AfD to be looked at again. Much of the debate included there including WP:NOT applies here. Aatomic1 17:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The list fails WP:NOT#MEMORIAL, WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. --Domer48 23:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no, it doesn't, and consensus is for inclusion. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 23:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT#MEMORIAL, Part 1 : Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. - What relevance does this have to this article? (None to my Knowledge)

Part 2 Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered. - What relevance does this have to this article? (None to my Knowledge)

WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE Lists of Frequently Asked Questions;Plot summaries; Lyrics databases; Statistics; News reports; Trivia collections. What relevance does this have to this article? (None to my Knowledge)

WP:NOT#DIRECTORYLists or repositories of loosely associated topics; Genealogical entries or phonebook entries; directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business; Sales catalogs. What relevance does this have to this article? (None to my Knowledge). Aatomic1 12:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

If the dead can be included on Bloody Sunday (1972) then they can be included in this article. However I can now already see the WR:IR brigades response... Oh they were killed in disputed circumstances, they were killed by an army, they were innocent etc etc. A list should be included in this article and any of the many sources such as this could be used. Conypiece 23:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Coneypiece how would that link to a list of the dead in the Omagh Bombing be used in this article.--padraig 23:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Apologies, wrong talk page. Regards Conypiece 00:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Aatomic can you please stop adding lists of dead to these articles, they serve no purpose to these articles adding a bare list of names.--padraig 10:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but they do provide a purpose - I believe this has already been established Aatomic1 10:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Established where? I have no problem with naming victims if it helps give readers a better understanding of the event as it occured, but a bare list of names and ages doesen't achieved that, that is just a memorial list.--padraig 11:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see my above comment of 10:51, 2 August 2007 Aatomic1 11:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Can't find the comment your refering to, but I noticed you have again posted the list of dead, dispite being warned by a admin not to do so onless consensus is agreed here first, edit warring will not achieve consensus.--padraig 22:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

A key question should also be, Padraig, have you got full consensus that the names should not be in the article? Please do try to remember you personally do not represent the consenus. Conypiece 00:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I propose we keep the list of victims. Together they are WP:NOTE as there was as the time many news articles about the incident (and thus the victims). The would probably qualify for there own article in fact.  Tiddly Tom  10:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Would the new editors who keep putting in the list of the dead please not start an edit war and join this disscusion.BigDunc 12:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The same obviously applying to the anon IP accounts who are removing it. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 12:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly edit wars serve no purpose but to disrupt.BigDunc 12:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I am commenting here after seeing your request for mediation. The cycle of reverting has to end. On this basis of th discussion on this talk page, it does seem to me that the list of victims is not notable enough for inclusion. --Duncan 14:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I have been following some of the debates as to whether to include lists of dead, and in most cases the ones I have seen have been whether or not to include the list of dead from terrorist incidents, especially as a result of The Recent Troubles. The Greysteel massacre and the La Mon restaurant bombing don't, yet the Shankill Road bombing and Droppin Well bombing do. Having looked at those which do contain lists of dead, if they are concise, and contain information such as age and occupation, I think this adds to the article. Its not easy to gauge the demographics of the victims otherwise. However to increase this information to include other info, such as how they died, or their last words, is turning the article into a memorial. However we should beware of being too strict with WP:NOT a memorial. A simple list is not a memorial for friends and family. And similarly we should beware of the 10% rule, for if this was adhered to too strictly, articles would be added to and reduced to make the lists admissable and inadmissable. And above a certain size (?) a list becomes just that: a long list. Whatever we decide, if the list are included, they should be there for all similar events, and if not included, then they should never appear, unless there is a really well reasoned argument which is agreed by concensus. And of course we can always provide a link to an external list if needs be. --81.132.246.132 21:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit wars end now

If you guys want to face a block and perhaps having the article fully protected during the mediation (and I won't particularly care which version I protect it on, because no matter what, it will be on The Wrong Version, keep edit warring. All these arguments have to stop. Period. I've tried being the nice admin.. didn't work. Now you have a rather fed-up admin to deal with. SirFozzie 23:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Bah. I was protecting it as this was posted. The whole point of mediation and discussion is to prevent random blind reverts. It is absolutely pointless to carry on during mediation. I really detest protecting pages, but I hate blocking for edit warring more - everyone please join the discussion and come to a joint decision on that paragraph. Kuru ^talk 23:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree. Some aspects of Wikipedia are becoming so political. This is not a place for people to write their own view of history or what they want others to know. One rule I am surprised Wikipedia does not have is: Don't remove a well sourced section without consensus. I think this should stand above some other rules. That those people died is a simple and well sourced fact. What harm is there for that list to stay until there is consensus that it should be removed. Better that than for paragraphs to be removed, pending agreement. And surely dicussions should be taken to talk pages. I am annoyed that I wrote in "the dead" section above, with an opening for discussion and 1/2 hour later Domer48 decided to ignore that, and just removed the list. There is a lot to talk through and agree first before we should high-handedly take the rules into our own hands. --81.132.246.132 01:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

The text for the picture of the Rotunda should be amended as it was the Mulberry Bush that was under the Rotunda, not the Tavern in The Town —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cornisle (talk • contribs) 11:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Possible arbcom enforcement

See the note I have left at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Edit_warring_related_to_.22The_Troubles.22 --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Birmingham Six names

Removed. They were only added originally as some sort of justification for adding a different set of names. There's no need to name them, it's not that important to this article. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

O'K, let's discuss this. I believe deletion of the list is a textbook case of not following Wikipedia policies. This article is about a terrorism act. Hence the information about both terrorists and victims is relevant and should be included. For example, in the article Nuclear receptors, one would naturally provide the list of nuclear receptors. See [4]. In the article about terrorism act one would naturally provide lists of terrorists and victims. There is absolutely no difference.Biophys (talk) 20:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

We are discussing it, and not here as you're well aware. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

You made your comment here, so I replied here as well.Biophys (talk) 20:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Different discussion, you know were "the discussion" is. --Domer48 (talk) 20:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Protected

Seeing as the mediator User:Dreamafter has requested the page be protected due to an edit war while mediation is ongoing [5], I have protected the page. Please consider this the warning not to continue edit warring when it expires.. So far we've only added one user (in various incarnations), who's now indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia to the ArbCom enforcement for the Troubles articles.. I don't want to add to that list. Capisce? SirFozzie (talk) 21:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Here we go again. I've now protected the page on the M:The Wrong Version for 72 hours. Aatomic1 is now back on probation. SirFozzie (talk) 23:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Unprotect the page please. There's been discussion, and the outcome was not to add the list. Protection serves no purpose at present. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, time for PP to be lifted BigDunc (talk) 14:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The discussioon has been continuing above. Aatomic1 (talk) 14:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

That's not discussion, that's trolling. You had your chance during mediation, you chose to edit war and troll there instead as well. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

As Per ONIH and BigDunc, PP should be lifted. --Domer48 (talk) 14:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Girls please! Keep to the subject. Aatomic1 (talk) 14:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The subject of you edit warring again on this article. BigDunc (talk) 14:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Declined - Sorry, but I'm declining unprotect at this time. You guys need to sort something out here and finish this issue for once. From what I can see, the recent comment from Aatomic1 (re. BHG) has a certain merit yet is being dismissed. Either way, the protect will expire soon anyway - Alison ^❤ 15:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Memorial removed

The mediation case was nothing of the sort. No discussion has taken place on the arguments presented, despite the mediator saying "We will of course be having the discussion at length". As such, I object to the mediator making a unilateral decision. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - the list is purely a memorial - adds nothing other than the names therefore should be removed.--Vintagekits 18:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not that I object to. The mediator said discussion would take place, and it hasn't. His job is to mediate, not decide the outcome based on his own opinion. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I take that as a way of saying that my job wasn't done. I read and took into consideration what was written, and implemented it. I have started the discussion. Dreamy ^§ 20:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

This is wrong no discussion took place, this should be reopened as many of the parties involved where busy dealing with the arbcom on the troubles.--Padraig 21:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

(unindented)It is taking place right now. Dreamy ^§ 21:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• This is a memorial; This is a list of the dead; their age and where they came from. Aatomic1 (talk) 17:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:MEMORIAL applies to mainspace articles only, but I suspect you know that already - Alison ^❤ 17:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives - Thses people are not my friends or realtives - I suspect you know that too. Aatomic1 (talk) 17:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, no actually. How would I know that?? - Alison ^❤ 17:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Because I would have declaired it. Aatomic1 (talk) 17:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Bizarre! How am I supposed to know, then? Do I need to check your every edit in case you mention something I need to know about??? - Alison ^❤ 21:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC) (had a good friend who was seriously injured in the same tragedy, BTW)

What doe's a list of names and ages add to an encyclopedic article, the names can be found on numberous external links to newspaper articles written about the bombing so why not add a link as a source.--Padraig (talk) 17:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I have also provided information on where the victims came from. This information is not available by link. Aatomic1 (talk) 17:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

So OK, what doe's a list of names,ages and location of residence, add as encyclopedic value.--Padraig (talk) 17:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

BHG sums it up quite well. Aatomic1 (talk) 17:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The opinion of another editor, dosen't answer my question to you, you want to include the list so explain what it adds to the article that is of encyclopedic interest.--Padraig (talk) 19:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:Encyclopedic interest does not exist. Wikipedia:Verifiability does and the list is verifiable. During the mediation the dead were labelled as dead brummies. They were not all brummies - that information was accessible before you deleted the list. Aatomic1 (talk) 21:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed. Removed per Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-08-24 Birmingham pub bombings.If you wish to reopen discussions please do so. But just don't just start re-adding the list. Use the talk page. --Domer48 (talk) 22:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Please see my comment (It is the one directly above yours). Aatomic1 (talk) 23:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:Encyclopedic interest does not exist. Wikipedia:Verifiability does and the list is verifiable. - please see WP:NOT, specifically the content section which states "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; merely being true or informative does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia". Given your comment is a tacit admission that the list has no encyclopedic value, your position is now untenable. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Category addition

There are objections (noted by reverts with cursory edit comments) to the addition of this article to a category regarding massacres. As no discussion has taken place, I would like to request comments on the issue. --86.12.24.209 (talk) 15:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Been discussed before, see Wikipedia:Irish wikipedians' notice board/Archive19. That you think the sky being blue is the same as an unsourced POV label being applied to an event is quite telling. I'm not seeing any argument in favour of inclusion, merely the false assumption that it is up to others to justify why the category shouldn't be added. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 15:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I came here in response to the rfc. I concur with One Night in Hackney that this event cannot be trivially called a massacre, and that if it is to be in category "massacre" then there needs to be significant citations in notable media describing it as such. I went to the archive provided by One Night in Hackney. When this issue came up before, it seems that no one provided good citations. Since "massacre" is a POV term, if it is to be used at all, then there needs to be evidence of prior application of this term to that event. Can anyone provide this evidence? If not, this category should not be included on this article. Blue Rasberry 18:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I'm surprised there are only two here. Though I've only looked at one of the other related articles I tagged, I notice the same two people made comments on it as well.

I haven't looked at the discussion 2 lines of K has indicated, but I'd like to know exactly what he means by "that you think... is quite telling". What does it tell you?

Anyway, besides that irrelevant (personal attack?), my point had been that the general meaning of the word massacre applies. There is no "point of view" - who would not consider (in the case of this particular article) the murder of twenty-one people a massacre? I should think nobody of a sound mind. What other "point of view" could there possibly be? The Merriam-Webster dictionary online gives the [following definitions of the word massacre:

1. : the act or an instance of killing a number of usually helpless or unresisting human beings under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty
2. : a cruel or wanton murder
3. : a wholesale slaughter of animals
4. : an act of complete destruction <the author's massacre of traditional federalist presuppositions — R. G. McCloskey>

This event certainly fits two of those definitions. Common sense tells us this is the case. I fail to see what could possibly be "POV" about it: a dozen or two people were massacred in Birmingham. What is the .. or an.. other point of view please?

As for citations, I'll provide a quick example of a random event I Googled. The headline in a newspaper reads: "Question Richetti About Massacre". The text goes on to say, "a chance to tell what he knows about the massacre of five men in the Union station". This is only one example, though I am sure there are many, many more. This one happened to be the first article search result that I found in which the murder of less than twenty-one victims was described as a massacre.

What is the 'other' point of view to that story? Perhaps that it was actually a party..?

Another citation would be a newspaper from the affected region, the Birmingham Mail.

I don't think that the sky is blue should have to be proven however. Though I have given a couple of examples here, I believe it is up to others to prove that this wasn't a massacre. I'll leave this for now, but I will return and, unless there is any proof pointed out to me that this wasn't a massacre, I shall justifiably re-add the category. I'll probably give it at least a week. Thanks. --86.12.24.209 (talk) 22:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Allow me to add my tuppence worth here. First of all, information pages cannot overrule a policy, and your attempt to add this label to the event using a dictionary definition is OR. In addition, using the words of these journalists was discussed previously and the points raised then were never rebutted. Furthermore, no one needs to provide sources saying it was not a massacre, as you have called for. That is not how Wikipedia works. What matters is how the sources generally describe it, and most sources do not describe it as a massacre. Finally, an emotive opinion piece in a local paper cannot and should not be presented as the majority view. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Bloody Sunday (1972) is in 2 'Massacre' categories. Are we attaching a greater value to lives in NI than Brum? Any unbiased reader of this article would accept that the murder of innocents is a massacre. MJB (talk) 09:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The rational provided by Bluerasberry is reasonable and logical. That it has not been addressed and still the cat is added is telling. --Domer48_'fenian' 09:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The privileged status sought for Bloody Sunday is also eloquent and speaks of the terrorphilia of many contributors. MJB (talk) 09:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I have reviewed sources thrown up by google. Massacre seems to be an expression that Irish papers freely use but an expression UK papers avoid or place in inverted commas. It may be that UK newspaper Style Guides deter journalists. It is likely that incidents in NI or where the victims are Republican are being afforded a special status. MJB (talk) 10:10, 12 December 2009 (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 [were] 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 [were] 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^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} • 16:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

How about this obituary [6]? 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: [7]

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^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} • 16:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Not meaning to open a can of worms, but neutrality will always be an issue for this article. It will be very difficult to find any reliable citation stating that the Birminxham Six were innocent, because the conviction was quashed on the basis that evidence for conviction was, in light of the last review, unsound. This was not about proof of innocence, but rather about how robust the evidence submitted for trial was. This may have been because a retrial would have been likely to find them not guilty based on that evidence, but it may also have been because police procedures were not properly followed. For example, "Confessions to police officers improperly admitted as evidence" would have related to police failure to take contemporaneous notes at the time of the alleged confession. Metabaronic (talk) 07:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Sydney Morning Herald

Flexdream, what are you alleging this source says? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 18:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Yard of Ale

The Yard of Ale has finally completely closed (see here), and the venue is now a buffet restaurant so I have removed the reference to the pub. --77.99.63.32 (talk) 20:52, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Renaming of Pubs

I know the Tavern was originally renamed "Teddies" (with a silhouette of King Edward as a sign) for sure, so I have put it in, but I THINK the Mulberry Bush was originally renamed either "The Roundabout" or the "Ring of Roses" but I can't be sure...hope someone else knows better 213.233.149.17 (talk) 16:52, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Please remember verifiability from reliable sources.--Egghead06 (talk) 19:07, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I would have thought actually being there the day it re-opened, was as verifiable as it gets?

Here is a source for the final renaming of the Mulberry Bush: http://www.birminghamroundabout.co.uk/2011/the-rotunda/

A source for both renamings of the Tavern in the town: http://birminghamhistory.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=34420

Another reference to Teddies that might be interesting in other ways: http://birminghamhistory.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=18249&page=2

Fascinating eyewitness stuff that does not appear in article: http://birmingham999.co.uk/

I cannot find any reference to the original renaming on the Mulberry Bush (last seen in 1988) but it was a kind of vague synonym to "Mulberry Bush" that seemed odd to me. Perhaps one day someone will find a reference. I hate to see bits of history vanish online (I have seen far less trivial ones do so, sadly) I hope this has been of interest. Use or not as you please. 213.233.149.17 (talk) 15:40, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:Citing sources - how to add them yourself.--Egghead06 (talk) 20:06, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

MOJ/sources

Kieron, the bombings weren't the miscarriage of justice. Also, do you regard the Kentucky New Era as an unbiased reputable source? Roy Jenkins certainly isn't. Gob Lofa (talk) 18:38, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi. It's a reasonable source, and one which has been placed directly alongside an extremely reputable source in my opinion. I could have placed a page from Error of Judgement there as a reference, but unless people own the book they can't verify it for themselves as opposed to accessing the online links.

What would classify as a reliable online news sporce source for you? The Telegraph? I'll be happy to look deeper if you wish. Roy Jenkins' actions stem directly from this act of terrorism. The name of the Act hastily rushed into force as a result of these bombings alone should suffice, as do the acts/methodology, and general classification of the PIRA regardless of anyone's viewpoint as to British occupation of N.I. Most events perpetrated by the IRA or PIRA are classified as terrorism.

That is a book not by Roy Jenkins (if it was you could argue neutrality), but a 347-page book by an author named Clive Walker specifically focusing on terrorism in the U.K., in which he refers to the Birmingham pub bombings as being acts of terror in the two pages harked towards in the reference. Good point as to the bombings not being the miscarriage of justice. Perhaps that final sentence should be adjusted slightly as it is misleading to a degree, although the bombings are equally notable as being the acts which led to the miscarriage of justice which ensued.--Kieronoldham (talk) 19:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

So if a North Korean politician describes the US Army as terrorist, it's not a problem for you if Wikipedia does the same? 21:18, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

That's going off-tangent in your scrutiny. We're referring to several reputable and independent sources (online and in books) here in reference to one of a long line of incidents relating to the Troubles. Maybe your mindset is outside of consensus? If numerous, independent, reputable sources could be found harking to the U.S. Army as being "terrorists" (and the U.S. Army actually continually operated, via these methods, in state of an objective aim, against North Korea), then maybe.--Kieronoldham (talk) 22:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

But you're using Roy Jenkins. Gob Lofa (talk) 22:11, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not; Roy Jenkins is mentioned in the body text, further down the article, clarifying to the readers that, as then-Home Secretary, these tragic events prompted the "draconian but necessary" Prevention of Terrorism Act 1974 to be brought into effect by Jenkins. The references harking to this event being considered terrorism are completely independent of Jenkins.--Kieronoldham (talk) 22:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Gob Lofa, its not just this article where you are trying to remove the 'terrorist' word and to do so is a significant change. If you want to discuss this then you should settle one place to have the discussion and issue a RfA. I don't think you have got the proverbial cat's chance in hell of changing it but you are welcome to try. Otherwise making that change against consensus over multiple articles is potentially a breech of the general ArbCom ruling on The Troubles and can be reported as such at which point I suspect a topic ban would ensue. That would be a pity as you are doing a good job of generally improving articles ----Snowded ^TALK 06:29, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand the criteria for inclusion of the term; it seems very haphazard. For example, I see the sources describe it as terrorism, but what is their definition? Is that an acceptable definition? Do the sources share the same definition? It's a mess. Gob Lofa (talk) 08:36, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Then raise in per my suggestion above. Don't just decide to implement your perspective ----Snowded ^TALK 10:03, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

My perspective? The bombings were violent; there's no getting around that. Also, if we're going to describe German bombing as terrorism here, we'll have to do the same for British terror bombing of civilian areas in Germany. Gob Lofa (talk) 10:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I might agree with you on the issue of terror bombing but that is relevant. The issue is how are things described in the sources giving due account for weight. You are far too prone to argue an opinion than to use sources and therein lies at least part of the issue. With your block record I would be a little more cautious ----Snowded ^TALK 13:05, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Gob Lofa has been told elsewhere to open an RfC for more input if they really believe in their own convictions. They have failed every time to do so leading one to suspect that they know it is a doomed enterprise from the start. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)