Talk:Omagh bombing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former good articleOmagh bombing was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
March 7, 2009Good article nomineeListed
March 9, 2009Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Terrorism cats[edit]

You have claimed I misrepresented the policy, can you please explain how. Apollo The Logician (talk) 16:11, 20 January 2017 (UTC) If you don't explain how I am misrepresenting the policy then I will just remove the catsApollo The Logician (talk)Reply[reply]

@Bastun: So you refuse to engage on the talk page and claim the deletion was unexplained? Apollo The Logician (talk) 21:25, 21 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You'll forgive me for not noticing comments about category deletions in a talk page section headed "Source distortion regarding unborn twins" where I wasn't even pinged. It's late and I'm busy. I'll respond substantively tomorrow. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for now separating this out into its own topic, Apollo The Logician. Pings are useful when you're asking someone a question. Edit summaries are useful too, and their use is encouraged.
On the substantive issue - the categories you had removed are absolutely valid, populated categories that have been in use for years. If they weren't valid, they would have been challenged, amended or removed via a category for discussion entry in the past, especially given that the whole area of the Troubles used to be a lot more contentious on WP than it is now. "Words to watch" is a subsection of the Manual of Style that includes WP:TERRORIST. This is a guideline that applies to the bodies of articles, not to categories, and explicitly does not ban use of the word "terrorist". Hopefully this clarifies things to your satisfaction. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your whole argument is "this hasnt been problem with people before". I am talking about Troubles related articles. There is a clear policy on this, don't use the word terrorist.Apollo The Logician (talk) 14:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Would you care to link to this policy? Incidentally - in other places, you have used the argument of "there's a clear consensus" to include or exclude material... how is this different? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Terrorism cats are commonly included when there are reliable sources describing the incidents as terrorism. There are plenty of sources describing this bombing, in a busy shopping street, as a terrorist attack. Jim Michael (talk) 08:42, 9 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Omagh bombing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:19, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Number of fatalities[edit]

In this article it is noted that 29 people were killed in the bombing, and also two unborn (twins) children. The boxout on the right states the number 29.

By contrast, the article on the Dublin and Monaghan bombings notes that 34 people were killed including one unborn child . The number in the boxout is 34.

For consistency, the numbers in the boxouts for each article should either be 34 and 31, or 33 and 29.

See also my post on the Dublin and Monaghan bombings. (talk) 03:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We should have it read: 31 (2 unborn). Irishpolitical (talk) 18:18, 17 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
33 and 29, per CAIN and other sources. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:51, 17 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Although the original intended target was the courthouse, the car was parked 365 yards away from it, making it obviously impossible for the blast to damage that building. Even if there weren't any places that the bombers could park the car which were nearer to it, they must have changed their target to the town/shoppers/staff/residents etc. It can't reasonably be claimed that when the bombers parked it, they intended or expected it to damage the courthouse, so that wasn't the target that they finally decided on. Therefore the ibox needs to be amended. Jim Michael (talk) 08:42, 9 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you have any reliable sources for the intentions of the bombers? FDW777 (talk) 08:01, 25 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, which is why I'm asking here. If I had reliable sources clearly stating the actual final target I'd add it to the article myself. It would have been obvious to them that the blast couldn't reach the courthouse, so to state as fact in the article that they intended to damage the courthouse with a car bomb they parked 365 yards away is obviously ridiculous. They chose to detonate their bomb in the busiest street in County Tyrone's largest town in mid-afternoon on a Saturday when it was very busy with shoppers. If the aim were to damage the courthouse, they'd have chosen the early hours of the morning, when far fewer people had been around & it would have been easy to park the car bomb near it. Jim Michael (talk) 02:06, 6 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Membership of Serial Killer task force[edit]

A question has been raised on my Talk page by Ianmacm about this article's membership of the Serial Killer task force. As Ian has reverted my edit here, and has subsequently reverted his own reversion, I think it is prudent to discuss and explain why this article is a member of the task force when it is not about a serial killer. The scope of the task force includes ".. serial killers, mass murderers, and spree killers ..." and I presume the murderous events they perpetrate. By looking at links under the counts in the assessment table for the task force I found that this article, along with many others, did not have an importance assessment. Consequently, I gave it one and assessed it as Low because I do not see this article as being of particular importance to the task force, as it was only a single act of Mass Murder rather than a biography of the Mass Murderer(s) who perpetrated the bombing. The article is far more important to other WikiProjects, and I gave higher importance ratings accordingly to other projects. If you have a different view, you are welcome to reassess the ratings I have given as well as give me feedback about why you think differently. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 22:01, 8 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here's what I said on Cameron Dewe's talk page: "The article serial killer says "A serial killer is typically a person who murders three or more people, usually in service of abnormal psychological gratification, with the murders taking place over more than a month and including a significant period of time between them." One off incidents at a single location, no matter how many people they kill, are not serial killings. Also, terrorist incidents where the motive was political or religious are not normally defined as serial killings." The problem seems to be that the Serial Killer task force includes articles that clearly fall outside this definition. I don't want to get involved in edit wars, but it is clear that the Omagh bombing is not a serial killing, and this also applies to numerous other articles with the SKTF template.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:22, 9 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Clearly this article is outside the scope of the 'serial killer' task force, by any standard definition of the term. There is a world of difference between "serial killers, mass murderers and spree killers" on the one hand, and terrorist, paramilitary and conventional armed forces actions, on the other. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 07:32, 9 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with Ianmacm: The Omagh bombing is not a serial killing! But somebody else thinks this article IS within the scope of the Serial Killer task force, as it has been a member since 2018. I think the problem that both Ian and Bastun have is that the task force name/title is misleading as the inclusion criteria or scope of the task force is really about multiple or mass murder, either serially or on one occasion and it does not exclude either politically or religious motivated murders or terrorism. I do think Ian is taking the task force name at face value and applying a stricter view based on the definition of a "serial killer". Applying Ian's more restrictive view would probably reduce the the task force articles to mostly the biographies of serial killers. This could even mean that articles about the victims of the murders committed by a serial killer would be excluded, because those are single events and don't meet the definition of happening over an extended period of time. Meanwhile, I have assumed that the less restrictive scope of the task force, as stated on the WikiProject page, applies to any existing article with the SKTF template if it relates to any form of multiple or mass murder whether these occur serially or on a single occasion, including the acts perpetrated, not just the perpetrators. Perhaps this is a too generous approach. I would observe that almost all the articles I have assessed, including this one, already had the Serial Killer task force banner template on their talk page. All I have done is assess the designated articles for their quality and then assign an importance and/or class rating. I do think this argument needs to be taken to the WikiProject Serial Killer task force talk page as, if nothing else, the WikiProject's name is misleading. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 09:24, 9 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The scope of the SKTF is much broader than its name suggests. Its banner states that it includes mass murders, which this bombing clearly was. Neither the banner nor project page make any exclusions due to victims, method, context, ideology, type of perpetrator etc. Jim Michael (talk) 17:52, 21 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Consensus here and on the serial killer task force page is that terrorism and Troubles-related articles are beyond the scope of the "Serial-killer task force". Please do not re-add without gaining consensus. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:07, 22 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's no consensus to change the task froce's scope - there's merely a few people not understanding that it extends way beyond what its name suggests. Jim Michael (talk) 20:01, 25 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While the ambition of the 18 active members of the Serial Killer "Task Force" is beyond doubt, their scope - which appears to be "every incident or perpetrator where more than one person at a time is killed, be that by 'ordinary' murder, killing spree, terrorist act or military conflict; plus serial killers" - would appear to be just a tad broad. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:37, 26 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The scope isn't quite what you stated - it's mass, spree & serial. Legitimate military actions aren't included. Jim Michael (talk) 13:41, 26 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed, there are plenty of specific wikiprojects available, so it is misleading to start off with the title "Serial Killer Task Force" and then include incidents that are obviously not serial killings.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:38, 26 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The task force's name is misleading - it should be renamed to avoid the resulting frequent misunderstanding. Very often, the banner is removed with an edit summary such as this doesn't involve serial killing before being replaced with a summary such as: true, but the SKTF also covers mass murders & spree killing. Jim Michael (talk) 13:41, 26 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, only "legitimate" military actions? Given the conclusions of the Saville Inquiry, then, I'll remove the "task force" banner from Bloody Sunday (1972), then. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:32, 26 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The specifics of Bloody Sunday are disputed, but the first sentence of Bloody Sunday describes it as a massacre. It's in mass murder & massacre cats; the article doesn't portray it as legitimate. Jim Michael (talk) 15:51, 26 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]