Talk:1996 Manchester bombing/Archive 1

Use of the word terrorist

This is a terrorist attack. Wy don't we see just how neutral these American adminatsrators want to keep wikipedia by goig to the 9/11 page. And there is is terrorist on the 1st line. Fine keep things neutral but also keep things factual. this was a terrorist attack.

Please see WP:TERRORIST. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe "terrorist" is one of the words to avoid. While I would have no problem describing the IRA bombings in Birmingham or Guildford thus, the fact that this bomb was intended to destroy property rather than lives indicates to me they're not comparable. There was a similar debate at Talk:King David Hotel bombing.

Lapsed Pacifist 13:25, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Well I believe the words "terrorist" is not a word to avoid in this case. I come from Manchester and live in Manchester and was in Manchester that day. I know that this was a terrorist attack, a terrorist attack doesnt need to kill any one. This attack was one of the main attacks which ended the IRA ceasfire. It destroyed most of the city centre of Manchester and over 200 people were injured. The fact no one was killed was due to the excellent speed the Greater Mabnchester Police evacuated the city centre.

Kevyinus 11:39, 15 September 2005 (GMT)

As a matter of interest, do you consider the King David Hotel bombing a terrorist attack? I rather think the "excellent speed" of the police was made possible by the IRA warning them of the bomb. I don't believe the Luftwaffe were ever that obliging.

Lapsed Pacifist 13:00, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

LP you have to agree that their is a very clear concensus on the Manchester bombing here - dont compare it to something very abstract in a last bet attempt. Again you use the Luftwaffe claim rather vaguely - even in retrospect you must admitt their is a substantial difference between "the IRA" and the Luftwaffe - the latter been the air force of a sovereign (abet dictatorship) state. Something the IRA are not, they are illegal and terrorists. Djegan 17:34, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

There was nothing on this talk page until I wrote here, so where did this consensus develop? If it is truly a consensus, and not just emotionally motivated reverting, then it ought to stretch its legs throughout Wikipedia. I fail to understand the abstraction you speak of, or did you even follow the link I gave? If you think I'm being vague about the Luftwaffe campaign, let me make it clearer. The Luftwaffe, like the IRA, waged a bombing campaign against England for several years. Like the IRA, sometimes they attacked civilian targets, sometimes economic, and sometimes military. It didn't make one iota of difference to its victims or their families that the bombs came in planes rather than trucks. Your definition of terrorism seems to concentrate on violence from militant NGOs. I fail to understand the difference in the level of terror (the operative word here) caused by a bomb in a city just because one set of bombers is licensed by a government, no matter how demented. Aside from that, either all attacks from NGOs (French Resistance etc.) should be described thus, if we are describing all non-sovereign militants as terrorists, or only those which inspire terror. If the latter, although I consider it more accurate, I think it would be hard to avoid a double standard with governments who use terror as a weapon. What do you think?

Lapsed Pacifist 19:33, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

At the top of this page you say "the fact that this bomb was intended to destroy property rather than lives indicates to me they're not comparable" - you seem to use a definition of terrorism that is not in common usage - I know that the UN have recently had a hard time defining exactly what terrorism is and what it ain't, but we at Wikipedia have had and article defining what terrorism is for quite some time. Our article states that "Definitions of "terrorism" generally involve some or all of the following:"

• A terrorist act is generally unlawful.
  • clearly the case here.
• It is violent and may be life threatening.
  • certainly life threatening when you destroy an entire city centre and people suffered serious injury
• The violence is politically motivated.
  • for sure.
• The direct targets are civilians.
  • I don't believe that this was a military objective in Manchester City centre.
• The direct targets may not be the main targets.
  • The residents and owners of property in the centre of Manchester are not the British government
• The main targets may be one or more nation-states, governments, or societies; or a political, ethnic, or religious group, or an industry or commercial operation, within those societies.
  • For sure
• The objective is usually to intimidate the main targets.
  • most certainly
• There may or may not be a claim of responsibility.
  • for sure
• The perpetrator is usually a non-state entity. Where there is direct state involvement (i.e state terrorism), the state actors are clandestine or semi-clandestine special forces.
  • absolutely

So it appears that we can tick all of the boxes here. Jooler 22:34, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

The first definition is a direct consequence of the last, i.e. governments make laws which give them a monopoly on the right to use violence. If any non-governmental group claims that right, they are immediately breaking the laws of any state they operate in. Apart from those two, the rest of your definitions could apply to any state at war, at any time. Governments always call NGOs who oppose them violently, "terrorists". The Nazis ran France for much of WWII, therefore the Resistance were officially terrorist. Had they conquered Britain, any British Resistance would also have been considered as such. While it would be OK to write in the French Resistance article that the Nazis considered them terrorists, it would be POV (and an unpopular one at that) to describe them as such without attribution. Again, a similar definition could be given for the Continental Army during the American Revolution. If you want to tick boxes here, to be consistent you'll have to start ticking them elsewhere. That's a lot of boxes.

Lapsed Pacifist 11:18, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Straw Man. I make no claim one way or the other about anything other than this incident. Jooler 18:26, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. If this bombing is to be described as terrorist without attribution, then so should similar bombings in other places and at other times. Or not at all.

Lapsed Pacifist 19:30, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Go ahead and change those articles then. Jooler 22:26, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

You need only look at the history of the article to see the consensus that it is terrorism, notwithstanding your own ferocity to the contrary. Djegan 19:39, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

DJ, it's a popular opinion, but no overall consensus for the unqualified description of attacks such as these as terrorism has yet been reached, as far as I can see. I think I'm being somewhat less than ferocious, to be honest. Jooler, it's not my contention, but yours, that this and similar bombings are indisputably terrorism. I'm asking you to be consistent. Even if you won't, I will.

Lapsed Pacifist 09:45, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

• I just want to say that I would call these bombings terrorist. They were aimed at a civilian target, with an attempt to inflict fear as part of a bombing campaign. This wasn't during a time of war, unlike say a resistance movement. - Hahnchen 01:39, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

The target was neither civilian nor military, it was economic. If the IRA had wanted to kill civilians they wouldn't have given a warning to allow police to evacuate the area. I would say fear is a common by-product of any bombing campaign, Irish or British, directed against cities.

Lapsed Pacifist 09:53, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

That's really just your opinion though isn't it? And isn't that exactly what we're trying to avoid here? NPOV? Sound familiar? By your argument, the 9/11 attack on New York wasn't terrorism either. Neither was the Omagh bomb. If civilians are 'accidentally' killed in a bomb attack by an organization that is generally considered to be a 'terrorist'group, what's that called? You seem to support not only the Irish Republication movement (which is fine) but you seem to be supportive of the violence carried out in the name of that movement, which isn't fine at all if you use that motivation to push POV here on Wiki. Your contributions here leave a bad taste in my mouth, Lapsed. While I support your right to voice your opinions, no matter how hateful they are, I'm not going to pollute my life with them any longer. I'm simply going to unwatch the articles (such as this one) where you seem drawn. I regret having to do this, as I believe in the tenets of Wikipedia that push better people than me to protect the neutrality of articles from users like you. Nearside 12:18, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

My opinion? That the IRA intended to blow up Manchester city centre, but not the people who would usually be in it? What do you think the warning was for? If civilians are "accidentally" killed in an attack by a government that many consider to be "terrorist", what's that called? The vague and meandering comments you make on talk pages, Nearside, although they don't leave a bad taste in my mouth, are difficult to decode. By the way, what exactly is an Irish Republisher? Do they do violence to printing presses in the name of irredentism?

Lapsed Pacifist 17:54, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

A obvious spelling mistake. And I apologize for it. Clearly, the IRA were a heroic group of freedom fighters that always worked to make sure that innocent people did not die in explosions. It's certainly accidental that warnings are sometimes inaccurate. And those times when warnings were not given out were just oversights on their part. Hopefully this comment is clearer than my last ones.Nearside 19:19, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

LP, if you were a disabled, infirm or old person near such a bombing it may not be a great stretch of the imagination to think this was terrorism. If your "economic target" was distroyed you would equally have a valid point. Stop being a IRA Apologist, what you need is a non-wiki hobby. Djegan 18:00, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

DJ, if you were a young, able-bodied person (or any other kind) in Derry on Bloody Sunday (1972), it would not be a great stretch of the imagination to think it was terrorism. Terror was the order of the day. If either of us called it terrorism in that article and our edits were then reverted, would that make the reverters apologists of the Parachute Regiment?

Lapsed Pacifist 18:25, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

This is not the question here - the question here is clearly stated already. Ultimately their is a point that you must come to the realisation that: 1) their is a "vast right wing conspiracy" against you, or more simply and likely 2) you are wrong. Djegan 18:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I think that your counter-argument isn't really a good one. It just seems a little confrontational. That's just my opinion. We can trot out every horrific incident you like. That argument will go on for quite a while. It's not productive. Your edits and reverts here are clearly inappropriate for wikipedia. Whatever problems you have with the world, this isn't the place for it. There are plenty of forums where your opinion matters and is invited. Here, you need to report facts in a neutral, unbiased manner, which appears to be difficult for you. Your repeated bans seem to support this. Despite my personal dislike of your attitude, you appear to be a good editor and contributor when this subject matter isn't involved. Perhaps that is telling.Nearside 19:22, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Eloquently put, but I'm not convinced of either. Have you ruled out the possibility of a small, left-wing conspiracy?

Lapsed Pacifist 19:07, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

If it was a left-wing conspiracy it would be a first - socialists are not sophisticated enough for such things. Djegan 19:21, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

It might just be a very small neutral conspiracy.Nearside 20:14, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Razor-sharp political analysis, DJ. I'll have to mind my P's and Q's around you.

Lapsed Pacifist 20:12, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

In what way was setting off a truckload of semtex in a busy street of a major city NOT terrorism? FFS. Jez 00:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

In the sense that those who perpetrated it and supported it didn't consider that it was. You could ask in what way is bombing Baghdad not "terrorism" but we don't call the war on Iraq "terrorist". Read what I wrote below. Wikipedia does not allow POV descriptions of things because it is not about expressing a POV, no matter how "commonsense" you think it is. James James 00:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd say this is a no-brainer: a premeditated attack on a civilian area carried out by a non-state actor with a political agenda aiming to terrorise people as a means of achieving their goals. It's a terrorist attack. The fact nobody was killed is besides the point, as is the fact that the police were able to evacuate the area after receiving a coded warning from the IRA - they still set off a bloody great bomb. Furthermore, many IRA bombings have sought to take lives (and did so) and didn't include a warning - such as the Brighton and Omagh bombings. Ergo, the IRA bombing campaign is a terrorist campaign, and the violent actions of that campaign are terrorist actions, regardless of the outcome in terms of casualties. If the Irish Republican Army didn't want to be terrorists, then they'd call themselves the Irish Republican Party and run a non-violent campaign and stand for election. The comparison to civilian deaths attributed to state actions is also a red herring. When civilians are killed by state aggressors its not terrorism, its an act of war by one state against another state (whether it's legal or justified or not). So lets stop this woolly uber-PC dithering and call a spade a spade! 213.121.151.174 (talk) 11:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

According to your POV, one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter, that's why the word is avoided on articles. BigDunc^Talk 11:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Mind your POV

It should go without saying that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. When our boys bomb cities, we call them heroes; when theirs do, they're coldblooded murderers. So let's not, hey? What we can do is say that the attacks were described as "terrorist" by the UK gov't, or whoever, if you can find them saying that. This is the recommended method in the policy and personally, I think it's a really good way to avoid editorialising. James James 07:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

If an attack is "almost universally condemned" as "terrorist", why is it so hard for you to find a source that says so? James James 02:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Please use some common sense. It was only condemned by nearly all world leaders as a terrost attack. Then theres practically the entire world media. In fact would you like to provide any sources which *dont* describe it as a terrost attack, other than a handful of IRA zealots. Remember NPOV policy does not mean that all opinions should be treated equally if one is held by only a tiny minority. Until you can do that then I'm putting it back. G-Man * 21:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, see Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words, a somewhat abused and overused guideline in my view, but it does mean that if you can't provide a good source for your claims, you shouldn't make them.

As the definition of what constitutes terrorism is, to put it mildly, a contentious and highly politicised issue, I think what's best is just to tell people what happened and let them decide for themselves just how terrorist/evil/freedom-fighting it was. It's not our job to provide a moral verdict on the things we write about. Palmiro | Talk 18:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

If it was "condemned by nearly all world leaders as a terrorist attack", it should be easy to source one saying so. You've now reverted this article four times in 24 hours, putting you in breach of the 3RR. Please revert back to Palmiro's previous version and do not make any more reverts. James James 22:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

What does it add to the article saying that it was a "terrorist" attack? It amounts to little more than saying "the attack was bad". "Terrorism" is a contested concept and it has lots of different definitions. Defining any one given incident as "terrorist" is nothing but your point of view. Instead, if you talk about it in objective terms, from the neutral point of view, anybody reading the article can make up their minds for themselves whether in their view it constituted terrorism. There are good reasons why "terrorism" is listed under Wikipedia:Words to avoid. Palmiro | Talk 22:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with James James, the target of this attack was not civilians therefore it should not be quoted as terrorist. Here is a quote another editor listed from the UN - "On March 17, 2005, a UN panel described terrorism as any act "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act.""

Does this attack qualify on all counts?--Vintagekits 18:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Fixed weaseling

In an edit to the opening paragraph I have fixed some use of weasel words. The previous wording said that the attack was "seen as an act of terrorism by many", not really very informative. I've decided that it's better to focus on the reactions of democratically elected politicians; it can be taken as read that most people see attacks on soft targets as terrorism and we don't have to get into a debate about whether every single bombing outrage was or was not terrorism [1].

Previous version:

The bombing was seen as an act of terrorism by many, and widely condemned by political leaders, including John Major. [2]

New version:

The bombing was condemned by the UK government, the opposition, and by individual MPs as a "sickening" and "callous and barbaric" terrorist attack [3] [4]

--Tony Sidaway 13:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, now you've explained it I understand why you've removed "seen by many" - however, I don't like the words "sickening" and "callous and barbaric", even as a quote. I'm not sure what to replace it with, maybe you can think of something? -- 9cds^(talk) 14:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Those are the words that were used at the time. --Tony Sidaway 16:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Well... since I can think of nothing better to put there, I guess yours is the better version. Reverting. -- 9cds^(talk) 17:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

This attack was not intended to cause civilian casualties, hence the telephone warnings in advance. The IRA's intentions were to cause economic, infrastructural, and logistical damage to England, as with many other bombings of similar targets. I have re-editted this introductory section as it implies that PIRA intended to kill civilians, which was certainly not the case, hence the telephone warnings.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.192.76.66 (talk • contribs) 00:41, 17 December 2006.

Terrorist/Paramilitary/None of the above

I've noticed someone has tried to edit this article (as well as a related section within an article on The Troubles), with a view to removing any variation of the word "terrorist", as well as promoting some bizarre viewpoint that the people who placed the bomb were actually responsible for the zero fatality outcome. Unless any of you are claiming PIRA/IRA leadership, you cannot state that these bombings were not intended to take human life. Compare and contrast with the bomb in Omagh? Further, the "warning" was phoned into a local television station, not the local police, and the emergency services managed to evacuate Manchester city centre (at peak shopping time) within 40 minutes. Even then, the bomb was so large that the cordon was insufficient, resulting in the 200 plus casualties recorded. What happened in Manchester was that local emergency services accomplished an almost herculean task despite the risk that a second bomb could have been detonated during the chaos of evacuation (that tactic was certainly popular in the IRA when dealing with Army patrols within Northern Ireland).

It is a staggering example of bigoted self-deception to say that the UK's largest bomb attack was NOT intended to cause loss of life. Please keep the POV out of these articles, it's hard enough as is.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.16.114.72 (talk • contribs) 03:59, 23 March 2007.

Further, I've tried to maintain an acceptable NPOV by using the neutral phrase "paramilitary", as the paramilitary article covers the ambiguity of terrorism and guerilla warfare. It's worth noting that articles covering the Dublin and Monaghan bombings STILL USE THE WORD TERRORIST. This is NOT evidence of a NPOV, and As such, I'm strongly considering reverting the word in this article back to "terrorist", since we can't have one rule for one side and one for the other, not that that'll stop Vintage and Lapsed from trying to implement it. Please note that it seems clearly indicative of an extreme Nationalist or Republican apologist viewpoint rather than the NPOV required of Wikipedia.

By the way, its worth noting that the WTC attacks are referred to as "terrorist" on the strength of a UN press release - please note that in UN press releases the IRA are also referred to as a "terrorist organisation". Does anyone have any other comments?

In the absence of comments, I'm changing it back to terrorist and implementing this elsewhere.

82.4.220.108 00:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:WTA. Furthermore perhaps you can explain why if the intent of the bombers was to cause civilian casualties, why were warnings issued at all? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Wikipedia policy requires I response concisely, but I should state that the issue here is not limited to this one article, but indicative of a wider problem. To address your comment directly, I suggest reading the 9/11 attacks article, which opens with the word "terrorist" and supports it with a quote from the UN. The various paramilitary groups within NI are also regarded as terrorist by the UN - you simply cannot have one rule for one group, and one for another, but still somehow claim NPOV. Second, the warnings were given to news stations and at least one hospital. Clearly and unarguably indicative of the foreknowledge that there would be casualties and or fatalities. I apologise for the conciseness but I don't wish to start a full discussion within an article's talk page.

82.4.220.108 18:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

To paraphrase you, unless you are claiming PIRA/IRA leadership how do you know the intent of the bombers was to cause civilian casualties? Your claims sound very much like original research to me. Why would a telephone warning be phoned to a civilian organisation? Perhaps because said organisations don't have the level of security on their telephone systems that the police do? Calls to police stations are easier to trace and/or monitor, so it stands to reason a telephone warning would not be made to there. The terrorist/paramilitary point is somewhat moot, the broad consensus relating to NI seems to be that paramilitary is the preferred term and should be used. The fact that one or more articles don't currently use that is neither here nor there, nobody is preventing you from changing the offending articles. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Why phone a hospital? There is no other logical reason than to give them time to get ready for casualties, intended or otherwise. Can you suggest better? The fact that other, more well known and more contentious, articles are using the word only validates its use across the board when applied globally. May I suggest you join the 9/11 article and try and convince the people there that it was a legitimate target? Unfortunately we don't have the privilege of keeping the NI articles in a little bubble, so a local broad consensus is rendered impotent by the global view. NPOV is intended as a global action, not something to be discarded when a local majority deem it appropriate. I would say the example should be taken from the more well known and well traveled articles rather than smaller local opinions. Hence, all NI articles (relating to groups deemed terrorist organisations by the UN) are going to have to follow that lead, regardless of people's personal slant on tribal politics.

82.4.220.108 00:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Your assessment is incorrect. Also, 9/11 inst a good comparison - I cant remember any group attempting to warn those in the twin towers about the intended attack! Finally, you seem to know quite a bit about wiki for someone with very few edits, have you been registered on here before?--Vintagekits 01:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

No no, you believe my assessment is incorrect, is what you meant to say. I think you've chosen your words poorly, because I don't think you intended for one minute to give the suggestion that a phone warning to Cedar-Sinai would magically render the WTC attack as legitimate in any way. Second, I made the comments further above on this page, when I initially changed the word to "paramilitary". On reflection, after consulting many articles, it would seem that the global consensus is that groups deemed "terrorist" by the UN are in fact deemed terrorist on wikipedia. This is perhaps unfortunate, but its the situation we're in. To your later comments, I've edited quite a few wikipedia articles but my ISP does not assign a static IP as far as I am aware. To reassure you, I largely spend my time catching vandalism in various articles that end up on the front page or are related to current events, games, etc. I am sure you are enquiring out of good natured curiousity and concern that I am perhaps a serial vandal preferring to remain anonymous, rather that hoping to draw an inference that a few wikipedia edits somehow invalidates my comments with regards NPOV.

For the record, despite the "vigilance" of your good selves, the Dublin/Monaghan article remains unchanged, as does the WTC article. Please consider the global consensus and the knock-on effect when articles referring to a common source differ in their interpretation. Thanks.

82.4.220.108 19:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Right, let's sum up. The anon claims unless someone is part of the PIRA leadership, they can't say the bomb wasn't designed to cause civilian casualties. Yet he, who isn't (to the best of my knowledge) part of the PIRA leadership can say the bomb was designed to cause civilian casualties. Sorry, that won't fly. Since you like quoting the UN so much, perhaps you can provide a direct cite from the UN stating this bomb was a terrorist incident? Also how about this statement from the UN stating that any action intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants, when the purpose of such an act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population or to compel a Government or an international organization to carry out or to abstain from any act cannot be justified on any grounds and constitutes an act of terrorism? Please prove evidence that this was emphatically the case, and none of your original research please either. Other articles aren't my concern, as before nobody is preventing you from editing them I have more productive things to do. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I was unaware that Wikipedia only gave credibility to registered users? This smacks of a poor attempt at elitism to justify the oppression of neutrality and clarification.

If "pedigree" is your issue here, then perhaps I should take the time to list the various IPs I've been assigned, so you can satiate your hostility by sniffing through every article I've touched in the past few years?

You and I are both keenly aware that people phone hospitals where injuries are expected. In fact, the SOP of the emergency services as a whole is that where multiple injuries are expected, all relevant hospitals are informed so that they may prepare for an influx of patients. This is a matter of simple fact.

Furthermore, the IRA, RIRA, PIRA, INLA, UVF, UDA, and whoever else you care to mention are all uniformly guilty of punishment attacks on their own community, as well as attacks against armed forces and plenty of people within their own pubs and city centres.

Finally, I *am* being prevented from editing articles - as your yourself are most certainly aware of. Reverting, rather than helping to amend, making pithy comments regarding seemingly abhorrent anonymous submissions, you wont touch an article from what appears to be "the other side", and you won't discuss the global use of the phrase terrorism? Its a feeble excuse to claim you don't have the time to edit one article, yet you're keen enough on following any I have made under this IP?

I think you need to take time to re-examine the true meaning of NPOV, fellow user, rather than serially reverting any comment that you deem is in opposition to your own.

82.4.220.108 19:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I described you as anon as you don't have a username, not once did I use it in a derogatory manner or attempt to say your opinion held less sway. Again, I'm seeing nothing but original research with all your opinions about hospitals. You've still yet to provide the requested source that the intent of the Manchester bombers was to cause civilian casualties. I don't see what punishment beatings have go to do with the matter at hand, please stay on topic. Your evidence of stalking is incorrect, I have all the WikiProject Irish Republicanism articles watchlisted, given that I'm a member of the project and I put most of the project templates on talk pages to start with. I'm fully aware of what NPOV means, I follow the sources rather than use original research and conjecture, something you would be well advised to do as well. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

You may then have missed the article on the Guildford pub bombing, which not only has a typo (quality control failure, right there) but also fails to mention any prior warnings? Again, we must adopt the global view here - a group detonates several bombs without warning, and a few with a warning, do you label them paramilitary, or terrorist? Which the exception, which the rule? Once again, the issue here is that people will come from other articles and receive a mistaken impression because a local "NPOV" is being applied rather than a global one.

Fellow user, the issue I'm trying to raise here is not with relation to any one side in this local conflict, its with regard to how it will be interpreted by global wiki users - right now the unfortunate fact is that the global community is applying "terrorist" in a certain way, and to maintain an accurate NPOV these articles need to be altered to meet this.

Again I would remind you I initially edited this article to use the phrase "paramilitary", and noone would discuss the issue, but now that I take the "global approach" it seems that suddenly its a bone of contention?

I don't see why some of you are descending to reverts (dubbed a last resort), claims of POV pushing (extremely rude according to wiki policy), etc, which I would normally associate with the extreme distrust given to vandals. I heavily suspect there's definitely some POV pushing going on and its certainly not by myself.

I've got too caught up in discussing this particular article when my question, as posed above and elsewhere, is that to maintain true NPOV we need to follow the global lead, or ALTER the global lead. Local NPOV is worthless as it will almost certainly be taken out of context. 82.4.220.108 23:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Well if you're that concerned about a typo in another article, why haven't you fixed it? It's incredibly difficult to assume good faith if editors don't even fix typos they spot, but instead point them out to someone else and expect them to chase round at their beck and call.

I'm still waiting for a source that says this specific incident was a terrorist incident, so perhaps instead of prevaricating you'd like to supply one? After all rambling on about NPOV means nothing if there's no sources to start with, and without sources you are POV pushing as I correctly stated. As you correctly stated you called this incident a terrorist incident, as that's your opinion, but you've yet to source that claim despite repeated requests. On the subject of NPOV, perhaps you'd like to let the facts speak for themselves? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think their other attacks more than clarify the situation. You've neatly ignored the Guildford incidents, you would suggest that perhaps they just forgot to phone that day? You've ignored the SOP of the emergency services

As to why I don't correct that particular typo, I should think its apparent enough, considering the struggle to find a satisfactory way to discuss undisputed sourced UK law within the RIRA article. Besides which, as you've just said, its terribly difficult to assume good faith if a group of editors fail to act on certain articles but do on others?

Quote: "A war of attrition based on causing as many deaths as possible so as to create a demand from their [the British] people at home for their withdrawal." - Although you'll almost certainly dispute this.

One wonders what sort of ludicrous "source" you're after, since I assume you likewise have a source asserting the good intent of Northern Ireland's combined paramilitary groups?

I should think you've read the wiki article stating that facts do not necessarily equate NPOV. I've quoted a stated goal above verbatim, so when do we start the long task of changing all the paramilitary articles?

82.4.220.108 18:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

We'll continue this discussion when you find a source then. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I just gave you one, are you going to ignore that as well? I quoted it directly from wikipedia, for your convenience. By the by, I should think perhaps the articles should someday be using the phrase "former terrorist group" - with regards to the various ceasefires in progress. Again, please refute the quote, else it's evidence enough for these articles to be altered. Thanks

82.4.220.108 18:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I refer you to my previous point. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I like how you edited the article to "correct" the quote - while neglecting to point out exactly what "enemy personnel" are. Nice touch. I addressed it in the article's talk page.

82.4.220.108 22:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you refrain from using correct in quotation marks, given the current text reflects what O'Brien and the online version of the Green Book state. 22:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I apologise for the misconception, my point was that posting the letter of the text, but leaving no context, is hardly the definition of a correction or improvement, if anything it has rendered the meaning vague due to the lack of definition with regards to "enemy personnel". However, I believe you and I are hoping to correct that in the relevant article.

82.4.220.108 18:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

As much as I respect the IRA and their aims I would still argue that they and this attack should be considered as 'terrorist'. The very nature of the word implies an aim of causing terror whether that means killing people or causing economic damage. Xanucia 16:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is saying terrorist can't be used. Please see the words to avoid guideline regarding terrorist, specifically "The words terrorism and terrorist may be cited where there is a verifiable and cited indication of who is calling a person or group terrorist". As you can see above, I've repeatedly requested a source and been ignored. For example if you see the Omagh bombing article such a cite is included in the lead, but without a similar cite it shouldn't go in this article based on the opinion of an editor. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/manchester/content/articles/2006/02/27/270206_manchester_bomb_english_interview_feature.shtml

"Thanks to a massive operation to evacuate the city centre, no-one was killed although, 200 people were injured, some seriously, mostly by flying glass and debris"

"You would also have to say that the people who planted the bomb would not have been surprised had there been fatalities ie the fact that no-one was killed was not something that was built in, in a fool-proof way into this scheme"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/manchester/content/articles/2006/06/09/150606_manchester_bomb_video_feature.shtml

"It's the first time this dramatic footage, filmed from the Greater Manchester Police helicopter, has been seen since the terrorist attack ten years ago."

So, now that we have quotes, is this where people say the BBC and experts aren't reliable?

82.4.220.108 17:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

"Broken window fallacy" discussion removed

I have temporarily removed the following as unsourced:

"Some have claimed the event turned out to be positive for the city, as many of the buildings demolished or extensively rebuilt were regarded as eyesores, and the resulting redevelopment of the surrounding area has generated millions of pounds of investment. Others point out that this argument is an example of the broken window fallacy, although there is general agreement among Mancunians that the city centre now is greatly improved over its prior condition; the 'broken window' idea does not adequately model redevelopment as opposed to direct repair."

Again we're seeing the classic weasel phrase "Some have claimed..." If some people have done so then we should be able to find a reliable source for this claim. The counter-argument is irrelevant without that original claim.

Perhaps this argument has featured prominently in public debate (and I don't mean debates in pubs or on local radio talk shows!) and if so we need to discuss it in the article. If not, then it's just another irrelevant saloon bar argument. --Tony Sidaway 17:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Manchesterbomb-devestation.jpg

Image:Manchesterbomb-devestation.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 15:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Manchesterbomb-truck.jpg

Image:Manchesterbomb-truck.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 15:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)