Talk:Shankill Road bombing

While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Belfast High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belfast, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the City of Belfast, Northern Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.BelfastWikipedia:WikiProject BelfastTemplate:WikiProject BelfastBelfast-related articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Crime and Criminal Biography: Serial, mass, and spree killers / Terrorism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Serial Killer task force (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as Low-importance). Disaster management Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Explosives Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Explosives, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Explosives on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ExplosivesWikipedia:WikiProject ExplosivesTemplate:WikiProject ExplosivesExplosives articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Ireland Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: British / European / Post-Cold War This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  British military history task force European military history task force Post-Cold War task force Northern Ireland Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Northern Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Northern Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Northern IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject Northern IrelandTemplate:WikiProject Northern IrelandNorthern Ireland-related articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Unionism in Ireland (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Unionism in Ireland, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Unionism in IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject Unionism in IrelandTemplate:WikiProject Unionism in IrelandUnionism in Ireland articles United Kingdom Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Irish republicanism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Irish republicanism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Irish republicanism and Irish nationalism related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Irish republicanismWikipedia:WikiProject Irish republicanismTemplate:WikiProject Irish republicanismIrish republicanism articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Troubles, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances) Neutrality: All editors on Troubles-related articles are directed to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on October 23, 2013.

The list of the dead from the bombing has been removed, in accordance with Wikipedia regulations, but for people interested in it, it can still be found here: Previous page version, including names--Jackyd101 17:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

should something be mentioned about Gerry adams being a pallbearer at the funeral of the bomber that died?

1. In this case terrorism is POV and should be removed.

2. The target was UDA leadership not "Unionist"--Vintagekits 20:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right on the second point, I'll conceed that. However, in this instance, the term terrorism is not POV. This was a deliberate attack on a civilian target, fact that the target was intended to be empty of civilians at the time of the attack is irrelevent. Nine civilians WERE killed. This alone makes it a terrorist attack, regardless of any of a dozen other arguments for the term--Jackyd101 21:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately civilians were injured and killed in this attack, however, were civilians the target of the attack?--Vintagekits 21:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There you raise firstly the issue of whether the UDA were civilians or not, their organisation was not recognised as a military one by any official body. However this is irrelevant, because even if the target was military (which is debatable), the victims of the attack weren't. See your own talk page for a definition of terrorism which clearly includes this incident. Nine civilians died in the attack, even if they were not the direct targets of the weapon they were still the victims of it, therefore this was a terrorist attack and should be labelled as such.--Jackyd101 22:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is incorrect and contrary to wiki guidelines on the use of the term.--Vintagekits 00:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really interested in this argument, but if you plant a bomb in a chip shop with (at the most) an 11 second warning, I don't think you can argue that civilians were not targeted. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 09:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So are you denying the well documented fact that the target was the UDA leadership and are you also suggesting that it was a sucide bombing mission?--Vintagekits 09:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

God forbid that any PIRA volunteer would ever do the decent thing! Of course he isn't!

Lists of the dead are inappropriate, please see [[1]]. You can also read the discussion here [[2]]. ---Theoldanarchist_Comhrá 04:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to remove it then be my guest, I have no wish to enter into an edit war with you over this but I'd like to point out that the links you have provided totally fail to prove your point. As you would know if you actually read the text of this link, [[3]] does not apply in this case as this is not a tribute page to "departed friends and relatives" and neither is it the "subject" of the article. Thus that rule is inappropriate in this context. Furthermore, the short and sharp discussion you gave as you second link [[4]] failed to demonstrate any guidelines on the policy regarding this and was concluded by an editor since banned indefinately for edit warring and incivility. This frankly makes me doubt it's conclusions and suspect that the removal of these lists of names has a sectarian motive rather than an editorial one (not making a personal comment about you, simply commenting on a trend). For example, recently Featured Article École Polytechnique massacre quite happily contains a similar list, as does Dunblane massacre and Monash University shooting to name just two others. Only in the Northern Ireland context are such lists removed, and with very poor justification. --Jackyd101 11:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See your first post on this page. Also the status of an editor has nothing to do with any valid points they raised while they were editing. Brixton Busters 11:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brixton BustersPlease see Talk:M62 coach bombing#==The Dead== Aatomic1 14:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per Names of Omagh Bomb Victims and WP:NOT this is also purely memorial and should not be in the talk page.--Vintagekits 08:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The oldanarchist has been edit warring today using an edit summary which implies that a consensus has been reached that in our encyclopaedia we should blur and muddy the distinctions between the various flavours of terrorist groups laying claim to the title of IRA. Unless someone can propose very good reasons I propose that our article errs on the side of clarity. This is an encyclopaedia not Provisional Wikipedia...Gaimhreadhan ^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} talk • 14:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reference provided does not support the text added, tagged accordingly. Brixton Busters 11:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you actually read the reference? Many senior Irish politicians condemn Adams precisely for his coffin-carrying. In any case, four more references added, and tag removed. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 13:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did read it thanks. However in case I've missed the text in question, I suggest you post it here: The current problems with the sources for this alleged "widespread criticism" are in reference order:

• "It seems strange that somebody should carry the coffin of a person who planted the bomb and yet say they want to be part of the peace process" - not cricitism, that's interpretation on your part

• "Mr. Adams's action tonight in carrying that coffin is not a peace signal to the Unionist community." - not criticism, that's interpretation on your part

• Criticism from someone called "Mr Baird", well that's one piece of criticism.

• http://www.iraatrocities.fsnet.co.uk/shankill.htm - A totally unreliable site

• "In part Gerry Adams maintained his position by taking a step forward only when he was sure he had the support of the vast majority of the movement. That was one reason why he carried the coffin of Thomas Begley, an IRA member who killed himself along with nine bystanders when the bomb he was planting in a Shankill Road fish shop exploded prematurely, in October 1993: non-Republicans asked how he could possibly do this if he was interested in peace." - not cricitism, that's interpretation on your part

• "When Mr Adams shouldered the coffin of IRA man Thomas Begley, who was killed in the Shankill bomb, both governments moved to distance themselves from John Hume." - not criticism, that's interpretation on your part

Re-tagged. Brixton Busters 20:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

iraatrocities.com may be partisan, but no moreso than Tírghrá and An Phoblacht, which are accepted as WP:RS around here. As for interpretation on my part? Um, no, they're criticisms, and not from me. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 23:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not true, T and AnP are both attributable and verifiable. iraa is just some guy with a website, not back by a known or recognised organisation. It fails WP:RS due to WP:V.--Vintagekits 23:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. In addition you are interpreting a primary source and drawing your own conclusions, that is original research. You are also synthesising various different sources to try and draw the conclusion that Adams was "widely criticised", again that is original research. I will not re-add the tag at this moment due to a possible violation of 3RR, but it will be added back and if you continue to engage in original research I will seek further help. Brixton Busters 23:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I actually added the criticism ditty into the article - he was criticised - widely might be a strecth - but he was criticised - but also praised.--Vintagekits 23:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 10:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me that BaStun is engaging in original reasearch here and making conclusions from an unverifiable website. I am sure I can find a source from someone who praised his actions but not sure they will meet WP criteria for references.--BigDunc 09:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can (certain) members of WP:IRA please try to bear in mind WP:NPOV - we are (supposed to be) trying to write an encyclopedia. That means facts should be reported, however unpalatable they might be to one's PoV, rather than jumped on and excised. If Vintagekits is saying Adams was criticised, well, that pretty much clinches it. I've added another reference supporting the fact of the criticism - and I've also added a sentence saying his attendance was understandable, with two supporting references. Both views included, both referenced. That better? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 10:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but you're in the wrong here. You breached policy, so do not attempt to blame other editors. Here you claimed my request for a citation was "pointy", when the reference provided had no criticism of Gerry Adams. So exactly who was in the wrong? That would be you. You then added back text I removed after you refused to source it, and the reference still did not support the text of "widely criticised", and in fact you were interpreting a primary source. You then added further sources, which were generally unreliable or did not support the text. How is "When Mr Adams shouldered the coffin of IRA man Thomas Begley, who was killed in the Shankill bomb, both governments moved to distance themselves from John Hume" a criticism of Gerry Adams? Nobody has denied there was criticism of Gerry Adams, all that was asked was that you source it according to Wikipedia policy. You repeatedly failed to do so, even going so far as to say I remember it, which is a total breach of policy. If you continue to disrupt Irish patriot related articles with your policy breaches I will seek intervention. Brixton Busters 10:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*sigh*. I moved the first reference to indicate it was referring to the funeral only. I supplied five more references (then removed one because it wasn't liked). You've selectively quoted parts of one reference. The pertinent sections, in context, are most certainly critical of Adams:

"Mr. Gerry Adams, the leader of Sinn Féin has disgraced himself most of all in recent days. He disgraced and contradicted himself today by taking part in a peace process while condoning and supporting the people carrying out the atrocities. Such action must be condemned."

"Indeed one could not say this evening that there is much difference between Sinn Féin and the IRA when one witnessed the closeness of Gerry Adams today to the man who helped carry out the atrocity that occurred on the Shankill Road on Saturday last. Gerry Adams must clearly and immediately indicate his total rejection of violence in a clearer manner than he did this day if he is to retain any credibility in talks."

"It is not enough for somebody merely to say they want to be part of the peace process and refuse to condemn violence. That seems a fundamental contradiction in the thinking of Mr. Adams. It seems strange that somebody should carry the coffin of a person who planted the bomb and yet say they want to be part of the peace process. People keep telling us [184] things are different in Northern Ireland, but some things are the same."

"The hypocritical statements of regret on the part of the IRA leadership and the phoney expressions of concern on the part of Gerry Adams will be treated with the contempt they deserve by the majority of decent people on this island, particularly as his real loyalty was demonstrated by his active presence this morning at the funeral of one of the bombers."

"Nobody has denied there was criticism of Gerry Adams". Then why did you remove that from the text? "All that was asked was that you source it according to Wikipedia policy". Done. I do not disrupt articles, period, whether they are on Irish patriots or Irish terrorists. I try to be as NPOV as possible. I may not always succeed - but at least I try. I just wish others would aswell. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 11:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not selectively quote from that source. The text is lengthy, and searches for "Adams" produced dozens of results. Searching for "coffin" brought up the ones I quoted above. I specifically asked if there were any I had missed and suggested you post them here. Did you do so? No, so please do not blame me for selectively quoting when I asked you to post the relevant quotes here and you failed to do so. Why did I remove the text? I asked for a citation, and you removed the citation request without sourcing it. Verifiability not truth, as the saying goes. Brixton Busters 20:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 15:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's centralize this discussion here, rather than having multiple discussions on every one of these talk pages. This is rather ridiculous. But, to the matter, as Hack has said, it is up to you, anon. user, to indicate why the category is appropriate, not the other way 'round. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The current introduction (most of which I wrote myself) reads:

The Shankill Road bombing or Shankill bomb was one of the most notorious incidents of the Troubles in Northern Ireland. It occurred on 23 October 1993 in Belfast. The Provisional IRA's intended target was a meeting of loyalist paramilitary leaders, which was to take place above a fish shop. Unbeknownst to the IRA, the meeting had been rescheduled. Shortly after entering the shop, the bomb exploded prematurely, killing the IRA operative and nine civilians.

My proposed rewording is:

The Shankill Road bombing or Shankill bomb was one of the most notorious incidents of "the Troubles" in Northern Ireland. It occurred on 23 October 1993 in Belfast. Using a time bomb, the Provisional IRA planned to assassinate a group of loyalist paramilitary leaders. The leaders were to meet in a room above a fish shop, but – unbeknownst to the IRA – this meeting had been rescheduled. Shortly after entering the shop, the bomb exploded prematurely, killing the IRA operative and nine civilians.

For the infobox, I also plan on adding "premature explosion of time bomb" rather than simply "time bomb", since the latter is misleading.
Thoughts? ~Asarlaí 15:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing wrong with the current lead, no problem with the addition to the infobox. BigDunc 15:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a major problem with it; just that it doesn't mention the use of a time bomb ("...the bomb exploded" seems to come out of the blue) or that the meeting was to take place in a room. I'll add "premature explosion" back to the infobox. ~Asarlaí 15:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"was one of the most notorious incidents of the Troubles" should be reworded. It's unencyclopedic and unattributed. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 09:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article says it went off in the late afternoon, but I have read on a memorial site that it detonated at 13.03; this would make it early afternoon by any reckoning. Does anyone have a RS which can confirm the time of the explosion?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...forgot about MRS Morrison. Very rude!

Nollaig shona daoibh!Basket Feudalist (talk) 14:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Shankill Road 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110607093545/http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/0435/D.0435.199310270136.html to http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/0435/D.0435.199310270136.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 21:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Shankill Road 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:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20120526234825/www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,162636,00.html to http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,162636,00.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 14:01, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]