Talk:M62 coach bombing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Irish Republicanism WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to Irish republicanism and Irish nationalism. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.)
Low	This article is on a subject of low-importance for Irish Republicanism-related articles.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. WikiProject Irish Republicanism tasks: Here are some open WikiProject Irish Republicanism tasks: Official IRA: Cathal Goulding Provisional IRA: Ivor Bell Continuity IRA: Dáithí Ó Conaill Real IRA/32 County Sovereignty Movement: Bernadette Sands McKevitt INLA: Seamus Costello Sinn Féin: Sue Ramsey, Danny Morrison, Francis Brolly, Paul Butler Edit or discuss this list.

 

The names of the dead were removed from this page in accordance with Wikipedia policy, but for anybody who is interested, the list can be found here: List of those killed in the M62 coach bombing

Which policy? Bastun 13:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Contents 1 Lead section etc 2 Terrorist 3 "Most sources" 4 Category:Provisional IRA actions 5 Terrorism categories 6 Target

[edit] Lead section etc

"The M62 coach bombing was an attack on a coach carrying off-duty British Army personnel by the Provisional Irish Republican Army." This is incorrect. The lead section should be a summary of the article. The article does not say this.Tyrenius 02:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Terrorist

Re. use of the word "terrorist", if it is used then it must say who has applied the label. See Al Quaida: "The United Nations Security Council[2] and several UN member states[3][4][5][6][7] have labeled al-Qaeda a terrorist organization." Tyrenius 02:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Most sources"

Weasel wording. Say which sources specifically and reference. Tyrenius 02:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I have now addressed this and thankyou for taking a look at the article. I would however like to add that you changed "attack" in the first sentence to "incident". This strikes me as something of a weasel word itself - "attack" is not a perjorative term, and whoever committed the bus bombing and for whatever reason, it was indiputably an attack. I suggest it should be changed back.--Jackyd101 16:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Looked a it again, would suggest something along the lines of "The M62 coach bombing was an atack on a coach carrying off-duty British Army personnel and family members on the 4 February 1974. Twelve people were killed by the blast caused when 25lbs of high explosive detonated in a luggage locker of the coach . . ."--Jackyd101 16:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

We don't need incident or attack. That's even better. Also there may be people in Alabama or Prague who are not fully acquainted with the M62, so England must be specified. Tyrenius 02:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Provisional IRA actions

I removed this category from this article, it was never claimed by the IRA or proven that that they where involved in it.--padraig3uk 04:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Terrorism categories

Some of the following text has been copied from User talk:Tyrenius

Thanks for your comments on this talk page, I will attempt to sort out the wording in the 'most sources' section. The most significant problem here is the use of categories - when is it appropriate to use terrorism categories for IRA activities? Vintagekits wants to remove all terrorism categories from pages about IRA bombings, claiming that such categorisation in POV whilst I suggest that they should remain as to remove them is to provide undue weight to the Republican viewpoint. Is there a clear consensus about this anywhere? Clearly a category cannot sit on the fence the way an article can, neither can it be sourced to the satisfaction of all users. What should be done in this situation?--Jackyd101 03:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

No I dont, I just want those categories removed from missions where the specific target of the attack was not civilians. --Vintagekits 11:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

That hardly seems to be the case here, though. ...off-duty British Army personnel and family members Bastun 12:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

If that is the case, why did you remove the categories from the Omagh bombing without discussion?--Jackyd101 16:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Because civilians were not the target. Read the article.--Vintagekits 18:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I have, the article lists the target as "marketplace" - obviously civilian. the only other target I could discern from the text was the courthouse (400 yards away) which is still civilian - court employees are not and never have been military. There were absolutely no military targeted. Please explain your comments further?--Jackyd101 18:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

In addition, please could you point me to the Wikipedia regulation which stipulates that military targets cannot be the result of terrorism? --Jackyd101 18:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

See the Talk:Attacks on the London Underground for the UN definition of terrorism. "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."--Vintagekits 18:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

If you remember, I quoted the same thing at you about a month ago in this self same debate, see your talk page. The problem then and now was that the UN do not rule Wikipedia, and their definition is not the basis for editing Wikipedia unless it has been enshrined as a Wikipedia regulation, which this has not. Plenty of other definitions of terrorism include attacks on military property, and your removal of categories based on your interpretation of a UN statement is Original research. You also haven't answered my question about Omagh--Jackyd101 19:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Categories are to help people find articles they are interested in. They are not a definition as such. It seems to me that if anyone wanted to look at articles on terrorism, the IRA and related issues, then they would want to look at this article. That is the justification for the category. Tyrenius 02:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

This article is in Category:Terrorism in the United Kingdom, Category:Terrorist incidents in the 1970s, Category:Terrorist incidents on buses therefore if someone wanted to look at articles on terrorism it is well covered, this incident was never claimed by the IRA nor was it ever proven to have been carried out by them, therefore it is wrong to categorise it as a IRA action.--padraig3uk 14:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I realise it isn't clear above, the discussion here is about those terrorism categories, not the IRA one you removed. I added a new title.--Jackyd101 15:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, that wasn't very clear earlier.--padraig3uk 19:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Any clasification of this attack as terrorist is POV.--Vintagekits 18:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Classification of any incident as terrorism is POV, one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter, therefore these categories shouldn't be used at all.--padraig3uk 19:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Review NPOV - it's the general view of the topic using all sources that MUST be presented not the viewpoint of minority extremists. I don't hear you complaining about the UVF terrorists being called that?? Were the UVF freedom fighters? Weggie 19:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The UVF don't regard themselfs as terrorists, and should not be categorised as such to do so is POV.--padraig3uk 19:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

If the attack doesnt target uninvloved civilians then terrorism should not apply and is purely POV and is an attempt to push a POV.--Vintagekits 19:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

That's one definition of terrorism. And in this case doesn't apply, as civilians were targetted. Both those on the coach and any near the coach who happened to be caught in the blast. Bastun 23:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes civilians got caught up in the attack, but they were not the target and were not supposed to be oin the bus.--Vintagekits 23:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Target

"The M62 coach bombing happened on 4 February 1974 on the M62 motorway in England, when a bomb exploded in a coach carrying off-duty British Army personnel and family members." So unless anyone has any information to the contrary, the target was both army and civilians - both passengers on the coach and whatever collateral casualties there may have been in nearby traffic. I am therefore changing the 'Target:' information in the infobox to "British Army personnel and their families" as that is who the target and victims were. Bastun 23:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Right the Omagh bomb - who/what was the target then?--Vintagekits 23:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

A carbomb parked in the centre of a town? Civilians. Bastun 23:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

That has confirmed my thoughts about what you know about this issue then. Thank you for confirming that.--Vintagekits 00:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not a discussion on Omagh, so that is irrelevant. The target box should be a summary of the article content. It's clear what that says. Tyrenius 00:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

What's that supposed to mean, exactly, Vintagekits? Not seeing any 'combatant' or 'legitimate military targets' among the 29 civilian men, women and children that were blown up here... Bastun 00:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Vintagekits, why do you try and glamourise the acts of the Irish Republican army?