# Talk:1996 Manchester bombing

i have removed the infomation about the history of the ira because it is not required MARK BEGG (talk) 17:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
The removal of Background is not just, as a reader would have no idea of the reasoning for the IRA attack or the events leading up to it. Therefore, I have undid your removal edit. The section is required due to the points I just made, therefore your point of removal is invalid. your brief description for reasoning your edit states, "this page is about the 1996 manchester bombing (not the history of the repubic of ireland)" it makes it sound like the section was unreasonably long whereas it is in actual fact 2 paragraphs long; a short description of the events leading up to the bombing. As the bombing was not a isolated occurrence it is therefore not only wise, but necessary. --Patyo1994 (talk) 22:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

That was the thinking behind the section: the event needs to be placed in context. Originally the section was too long, but I hope that two paragraphs is acceptable and if there is disagreement that it can be discussed here. I've also re-added some references which were left out when Patyo restored the background section. They were just to one book (Coogan 2002), so it may have been deliberate, but the reason is not clear so they've been reinstated. Nev1 (talk) 18:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
It wasn't deliberate, I just couldn't remember how to do book references and I had to add the section there manually, so I just left it out. --Patyo1994 (talk) 21:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Considering the section contains seven factual errors and three POV statements, some might say removal is a good idea. 2 lines of K303 13:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
This background section is just ridiculous. Starting withthe Home Rule cirisis of 1912?? Give me a break. Totally irrelevant.Jdorney (talk) 21:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Any assistance correcting these mistakes would be greatly appreciated. Nev1 (talk) 18:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Others might say it would be a good idea if you named the points that need correcting --Patyo1994 (talk) 16:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I have detailed it - it is not the background to the subject of the article and doesnt belong here.--Vintagekits (talk) 05:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I know this has been the topic of some conversation before but, just to reiterate, if the President of the United States - and therefore, the United States itself - deemed this an act of terrorism why is the use of the word 'forbade' on this article? Patyo1994 (talk) 23:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

What exactly is terrorism?--Vintagekits (talk) 05:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
The use of the word is not "forbade" on this article or anywhere else as long as it is placed in the correct context. For example, simply stating "the 1996 Manchester bombing was an act of terrorism" is no help to anyone as it is hopelessly non-descriptive. However saying that "the 1996 Manchester bombing was described as an act of terrorism by the President of the United States" (or whatever the actual facts may be in this instance) is a useful piece of information as it tells a reader what an important world figure, relevant to the event given the peace process, thought of the bombing. Such statements should of course always be provided with a reliable source. When writing, it is best to adhere as closely as possible to a description of the actual events - leave concepts like terrorism to other people, who can then be quoted if relevant, notable and reliable.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Generally, the word 'terrorism' is used in preference to 'freedom fighter' when the act is performed in a democracy where the perpetrators have an alternative peaceful means of protest, i.e., the ballot box.
People supporting Irish Republicanism had the peaceful alternative of voting for Sinn Fein, however as they were very much in a minority in Northern Ireland, they had little prospect of achieving a majority in elections and gaining power, Ireland having been partitioned in 1922 because of the larger population of Loyalists in the North who wanted to remain part of the United Kingdom and who almost invariably voted for the PUP or the UUP.
One of the principles of good democratic government is that minorities' interests and wishes should be catered-for by the sitting government where possible, except when these interests and wishes are incompatible with democracy itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.115.110 (talk) 07:37, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Don't mean to be pedantic, but it seems a lot of sources state the bomb to 3,300lb, whereas wikipedia (albeit sourced) says 3,000lb. I believe the source was merely rounding down and 3,300lb is more accurate. Patyo1994 (talk) 17:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The article state the bomb was 3 times the size of the Canary Wharf bomb, but the wikipedia article claims it was 3000lb as well? Needs to be re-verified and adjusted to suit. 14.2.65.109 (talk) 06:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Easily surpassed by 9/11 [1].  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.71.242.92 (talk) 19:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC) 

Until recently, this article had Insurers paid £411 million (£600,000,000 as of 2010)[ref] in damages, making the bombing, at the time, the most expensive man-made disaster ever.[2].  What's there to disagree with?  Mr Stephen (talk) 23:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Nothing, obviously, but some seem determined to disagree with everything on principle when Irish Republicans are involved. The story of the background remains only half told, for instance, but has been reverted twice. Without understanding the separation of Ireland  how the Hell can the casual reader make sense of the IRA's efforts at reunufication? Why are the bare facts so objectionable to some? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
(ec) The problem was with this edit, but it is now clear that the information is dated. Nev1 (talk) 23:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Piper Alpha, Exxon Valdez and Chernobyl where all man-made disasters that happened before this one and all cost considerably more than the Manchester bombing, the difference being the cost largely fell upon the relevant countries not the insurance companies. Thus it should be clarified that this was the largest man-made disaster in terms of insurance payout, anything else is false. 79.71.210.222 (talk) 23:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Verifiability is paramount. You need to provide a source saying that, as the one used in the article claims otherwise. Nev1 (talk) 23:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Piper Alpha was certainly insured, and Swiss Re picked up the tab.  You'd think they knew what they were talking about.  Mr Stephen (talk) 23:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
PS And indeed Williams, p. 87 has (in 1996, the world's most expensive man-made disaster).  I think we can tinker around with the wording, but the verifiability seems sound.  Mr Stephen (talk) 23:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Right, add that. If the IP disagrees they can provide an alternative source or leave. Nev1 (talk) 23:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I suspect that if I did that the anon would simply revert again.  I invite him/her to revert himself.  Mr Stephen (talk) 00:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
here, here and here. 89.168.224.187 (talk) 00:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
None of which mention the Manchester bombing and are therefore irrelevant to this article. The very basis of Wikipedia is "verifiability over truth". It doesn't matter if it's true or not. It only matters if there is a reliable source which says so. That's not too difficult a concept is it, even for those wishing to cower behind IP addresses. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 00:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
You really are an idiot aren't you. Does common sense play no part in your life?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.168.224.187 (talk) 00:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Idiot? I'm not the one failing to understand a very simple concept. And what does common-sense have to do with Wikipedia? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 00:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
89.168.224.187, if you can't provide good enough sources please do not attack those who can. Nev1 (talk) 00:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I think there's some rather subtle and dishonest phrasing being deployed here, no surprises in an Irish article. The captain of the Exxon Valdez was found guilty of negligence, not of deliberately causing mayhem. Similarly I don't think it was the intention of any employee at Chernobyl to blow up their nuclear reactor was it? By contrast, it was the clear intention of the IRA to deliberately cause as much damage as they possibly could. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Not to mention getting their money's worth out of the Transit. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 00:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Sometimes, when one gets involved in these Wikipedia arguments, it becomes difficult to see the wood for the trees.  I understand Malleas's point, but it is not really relevant to the wording of the article.  Undoubtedly, the disasters quoted by the anonymous IP were man-made disasters, deliberate or not.  What else could they be?  The article does not actually refer to disasters that were deliberately caused by mayhem.  The IP has got a point.  Arguably, World War II was a man-made disaster also, possibly even one deliberately caused by mayhem, and, though I've not looked for any sources, I'm willing to bet it cost a damned sight more than the Manchester Bombing.  Perhaps we need to look at how the wording can be tightened up to avoid the ambiguity that is the real cause of this argument, without having to use the dreaded "T" word. Skinsmoke (talk) 00:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I somewhat agree with that; we need a form of words we can agree on, and we don't seem to be quite there yet. Let's remember as well that close to half of the businesses affected by the bombing never recovered, the economic impact of which has not been calculated, and may be incalculable. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Two interesting sources as regards insurance cost of terrorist attacks [3] and [4]. Both of which use data from Swiss Re who are the source in the Independent article. 79.71.192.22 (talk) 01:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Interesting figures from apparently reliable sources. What about "at that time, one of the world's most expensive man-made disasters". Could you sign up to that? --Malleus Fatuorum 02:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Needs reference to insurance payouts in there, as there were other more expensive man-made disasters before this one, they just didn't feature insurance payouts, eg Challenger disaster, Chernobyl. Alternatively just substitute terrorist attacks for man-made disasters and it would work fine and be far more accurate. 79.71.192.22 (talk) 02:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I'd love to be able to agree to that, but the word "terrorist" is just an incitement to World War III apparently. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Against my better judgement, I've changed the claim along the lines you suggest. Not that I think you're wrong, just that I fear the fallout. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
The London bombings of 1993 (NatWest tower) was a bigger payout. See [5] Table 2 (page 56). 9/11 is the biggest, NatWest is second, Manchester is third. DrKay (talk) 10:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The sources are all over the place as to which payout was higher. Bishopsgate in 1993 caused the most estimated damage, but payouts were reduced from that figure for a variety of reasons too boring to go into right now other than to say all those exclusion clauses on various insurance policies are part of the reason. Even the Indy is inconsistent, claiming the Baltic Exchange in 1992 was a higher payout, and that figure (or an equivalently high one) can be sourced from several books also. Since the sentence in the article is blatantly wrong, and a breach of WP:TERRORIST to boot, I've trimmed it down to the facts which aren't in dispute at least temporarily. 2 lines of K303 14:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I hesitate to add a new thread for argument on an article about Irish republicanism, but I don't see how a piece on the Manchester Bombing can fail to draw a link with the Warrington Bombing that occurred shortly afterwards, and appeared to be linked.  What do others think? Skinsmoke (talk) 01:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Unless there's an article missing and the Warrington article is missing some recent history, I think the Warrington bomb attacks happened in 1993. It's a reasonable suggestion because Warrington is fairly close to Manchester, although perhaps best left to the see also section for now. Nev1 (talk) 01:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
It's linked in a template at the bottom, possibly two but don't quote me on that. Other than the relative proximity in geographic terms and the IRA being responsible, there's little similarity between the events. Warrington was small bombs in litter bins, Manchester was a huge truck bomb. 2 lines of K303 14:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The  article's a bit heavy on internet sources, so I thought I'd go to the library to look for some stuff in print. Searching through the indexes of the following books for "Manchester" I drew a blank:

A Farewell to Arms (both editions) by Michael Cox.
The long road to peace in Northern Ireland : peace lectures from the Institute of Irish Studies at Liverpool University by Marianne Elliott
Hennessey, Thomas (2000), The Northern Ireland Peace Process: Ending the Troubles?, Dublin: Gill & Macmillan, ISBN 0717129462 only had one mention of Manchester (on page 102): “Outside the talks process, the Republican Movement continued to conclude that no progress was possible in the Peace Process as long as John Major remained Prime Minister and John Bruton Taoiseach. Therefore the conditions for the restoration of a PIRA ceasefire did not exist. This resulted in a return to murder and bombing, most spectacularly the devastation of Manchester’s city centre where over 200 people were injured.”
English, Richard (2003), Armed Struggle: The Story of the IRA, London: Macmillan, ISBN 1-4050-0108-9 has some interesting stuff, but makes too many mistakes to be usable (it claims that over 300 were injured and a there was more than ton of explosives).
In Bell, J. Bowyer, The IRA 1968–2000, London: Frank Cass, ISBN 0-7146-5070-6 J. Bowyer Bell makes the interesting comment that although the IRA targeted “agents of the Crown” and that civilian deaths were accidental, “So little care was taken at times in Manchester or London that most observers assumed that the IRA was deploying no-warning bombs as terrorist tactics.” (p 275) Perhaps difficult to use in the article, but it gives us a little on the immediate reaction.
From Hennessey's book, I thought it might be worth chasing down something on Major to see if anyone had looked at how it affected his government. Seldon, Anthony (1997), Major: A Political Life, London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson had only one mention of the incident, but says little more than he was shocked and does not seem to cover the effects, probably because it's from 1997 (I'll check for something later).
I'll look for more tomorrow or perhaps the day after, but there doesn't seem to be a whole lot about the incident. Nev1 (talk) 18:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps worth a search through The Times archive as well. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Sources for what, exactly?  Mr Stephen (talk) 18:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Sources to expand the artcle. All I did was check the indexes for "Manchester" and go from there. Off the top of my head, only one had a footnote (the Richard English book) and it was to a news report. Nev1 (talk) 18:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for the slow response, I had an appointment with Mr Robinson.  Let me repeat what I wrote here.
Sources for 1996 & the city's response:
King, Ray (2006). Detonation: rebirth of a city. Clear Publications Limited. ISBN 0-9552621-0-0.
Lester, Sarah (2006). The Manchester bomb. Manchester: Manchester Evening News. ISBN 0-9549042-7-3. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
Williams, Gwyndaf (2003). The enterprising city centre : Manchester's development challenge. London: Spon. ISBN 0-415-25262-8.
Peck, Jamie (2002). City of revolution : restructuring Manchester. Manchester: Manchester University Press. ISBN 0-7190-5888-0. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
and several papers by Gwyndaf (Gwyn, Glen) Williams.  Is that the sort of thing you had in mind?  If you go into Manchester Library and into the local history section (go in, turn left, up the stairs, turn left, it's on the left) ask for the leaflet (it's an A4 page) on sources about the bomb.  IIRC they have a folder of news clippings.  Mr Stephen (talk) 12:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Surely if there's going to be a quote like this there has to be a source. There's nothing in the section to say who has said it - just an oblique reference at the end to some people saying it was a great thing for Manchester. Couldn't this bit just go at the end of the Reconstruction section? Richerman (talk) 13:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a good point. Here's a news story about the fuss the MP caused by saying it. Nev1 (talk) 16:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
The article already attributes the quote to "locals", but I've made some changes (the stuff in the investigation section was Malleus editing in between). I couldn't find anything about Rooney actually apologising, so I guess it came to nothing. Nev1 (talk) 17:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I'd like this to remain a separate section, at least for now – I haven't finished with it yet. I do believe that it's an important theme that needs to be properly explored, partly because it's a view I share myself. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 17:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I'd tend to agree with you but, of course, we both know that our opinions aren't important. I think it would be better with a different title though. Richerman (talk) 18:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I've been wondering about that myself, it was just the first thing that came into my head last night. Any suggestions? I'd toyed with Popular reaction, but the reaction obviously wasn't popular everywhere. Local opinion? --Malleus Fatuorum 18:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I've renamed it to Redevelopment, as that's what's the comment was really about. Would the redevelopment have taken place without the bomb? At all, or as quickly. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, missed this - yes, I think that's much better. I just thought that the original title was somewhat insulting to those injured in the blast. Richerman (talk) 12:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Does the panel think we're ready to go for GAN now? I can see a few little bits and pieces that might need a bit more tidying up, like perhaps the chronology of the Investigation section, but is there anything significant that's been missed out?
I don't think I feel confident enough with this one to take it to FAC just yet, but other opinions more than welcome. I think a review at GAN could be a useful sanity check on what's been done so far. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I was just wondering that myself. I think the article's ready for GAN. The memorials section feels a little light, although withuot the right sources I don't know how much is missing and I reckon it's enough for GAN. Also, I'm wondering if a good way to round off the article would be to move that section to the end? Nev1 (talk) 22:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I've been looking for more about memorials, but there appears to be surprisingly little. Bit like the Peterloo massacre I suppose. Moving the Memorials section to the end seems like a good idea. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Should the Redevlopment section also say something about the 2002 Commonwealth Games being a catalyst for redevelopment? It says in that article:

It is estimated that by 2008 £600m has been invested in the region as a result of the Games and that about 20,000 jobs had been created. 

 Richerman (talk) 16:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure, but I wouldn't object if someone else wanted to put in a few sentences about that. It seems to me though that the catalyst wasn't so much the Commonwealth Games but the second Olympic bid that turned things around, at least that's what most of the stuff I've read seems to suggest. After the bid failed something had to be done with the City of Manchester Stadium, and the Commonwealth Games bid seemed like a good way to keep things on track.
It seems to have a pretty complicated time; I hadn't realised, for instance, that Manchester Council gave up 10 of its eleven seats on the board of the Manchester Ship Canal Company in return for the owner of Peel Holdings, John Whittaker, investing a substantial amount of money in a joint venture with the Council, Ship Canal Developments, which has been responsible for a lot of the redevelopment in east Manchester. With the Council's majority vote gone, Peel Holdings was then able to get permission to build the Trafford Centre. So it seems to me that the sea change in confidence and attitude had happened some years before the bombing, in the early 1990s, and before the Commonwealth Games bid. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Another school of thought points to Mrs Thatcher's third win in 1997 1987.  The council realised that it had to change its ways to get anything done, and wrote a letter of surrender to the government.  Quietly, all the far-left stuff was jettisoned.  A couple of years later, Manchester was winning pretty much every grant the government offered.   Mr Stephen (talk) 17:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Stringer wrote that letter of surrender to Nicholas Ridley in the late 1980s, well before the bombing, as by then it had been made plain to him that if the Council persisted in its loony left ways there would be no redevelopment funds from central government. I don't think he did it quietly though, as he had quite a battle to carry the Labour Party councillors with him, and would probably have had to resign if he'd lost the vote. Stringer himself said this about Thachers' win in 1987: "There was no get out of jail card. We had gambled on Labour winnning the General Election and we lost." So there was clearly a sea change underway well before the bombing. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I've had a go at trying to put Thatcher's 1987 election victory and Graham Stringer's (what a poor article that is) letter of capitulation to Nicholas Ridley into context. I'd love to be able to say what I really think about the early results of that new collaboration between the previously loony left and central government, but ...
The chronology so far as I understand it is that in 1987 Manchester had an epiphany; unless it cooperated with central government it would continue to decline. Early developments were in some respects difficult, as it wouldn't have been easy to knock down ugly developments like the ridiculous Market Square, so compromises had to be made. The bomb made a lot of choices easier, by blowing up what ought not to have been built in the first place. Have I missed anything? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
The article mentioned at a few points (in the lead for example) that the provo IRA utilised force from 1971-1974, and went quite, until again in 1996. am? This has me baffelled, though from a quick scan, I think the article is very strong. Ceoil sláinte 23:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
That seems to be what the sources are claiming, but I haven't read all of them admittedly. Maybe "quiet" just means no bombs? Worth checking though. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I think the page is overly dependant on King, whoes title Detonation: Rebirth of a City indicates that his account is emotional rather than based on historical or detached (hard as that might be) fact. The sources are below par  in general. They say 1971-1974? Then all was quite in NI, until 30 years later a bomb in Manchester out of nowhere? I rembember from about 1974 to about 1994 when people on both sides were killed an a weelky basis, hundreds murdered. To say that that the IRA just appeared, from nowhere after being inactive since 1974, as ye claimed and just bommed Manchester, is just wildely wrong. I would be venimentaly anti IRA myself, but the article as stands is slightly tabloid; it lacks a broader context. I appreciate how difficult it is to work on such a sensitive topic, and as I said to MF on my talk earlier, I remember at the time wanting to distance myself as far as possible. But far more effecive to show the complexities and highlight 'political' errors. Ceoil sláinte 02:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
The article has now been changed in line with the Coogan book. If someone had got of their arse and read a book this problem could have been solved before it escalated into a slanging match. 1974 was simply wrong and the article originally said 1994 (although I'd referenced the wrong page), but a typo was later introduced. More details may be required, but the change will suffice for now. Nev1 (talk) 16:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree and I will try to help rewrite it with a more scholarly tone, if others are agreeable. --John (talk) 02:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Surely the article The Troubles gives the wider context - you can't expect all that to be reproduced here. How about a hatnote in the "Background" section that says "see main article The Troubles"? Richerman (talk) 02:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello again Richerman! The problem to my old eyes is that the context, when engaged is drawn too broad, and misses the nail. The page in thoes sects attempts to set the bombing within a 800 yr struggle, when really is was an attempt to destabalise the then current Sinn Fein leadership.  I think the article is very strong; I was delighed to read it, but to be fair lacks a historical distance (ie detached analysis) in the lead and and a contextual sect. I know both your and MF's ability, so I am very confident that I wont be griping for much longer. Sorry if I got emotional. Ceoil sláinte 02:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh dear. Without being familiar with the source or its author you condemn it because of its title, preferring instead to depend on your own personal recollections and insights. I have withdrawn this articles's GA nomination, as I don't want to see any more of this kind nonsense or anyone else to get caught up in it. Do what you will with it now; I've got other things I'd rather be doing. No wonder all of the Irish articles are absolute shite. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Either you either complety miunderstood, or your tactics rests on only 'fuck you'. I am at a loss. I said, I was at pains to say - I am both familar with the sources and have, over years developed an implicit trust in ye two editors working here. Quote me: I think the article is very strong; I was delighed to read it. I know both your and MF's ability, so I am very confident that I wont be griping for much longer.  Sorry if I got emotional. Thoes are things I said. Quote you: but I haven't read all of them admittedly. You said you were not familiar with the sources, not me.  If you have want to ignore them, and have such a need to build up enemiess, then, fuck you sincearly. If not, then I owe you a guniness. Or two. Ceoil sláinte 03:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 No wonder all of the Irish articles are absolute shite. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 And you wonder why I worry about english people aiming for FA on Ni topics. Ceoil sláinte 03:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
(ec)Hello again Ceoil. Surely that can be fixed by removing the first sentence of Background and just concentrating on The Troubles from the 1960's. That's all part of the background to it and deserves a mention. Although I'm sure you're right about destablising the then current leadership, the problem will be finding sources for that, unless there was something in one of the heavyweight newspapers at the time. Richerman (talk) 03:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I haven't done too much on the article other than some minor contributions, its Malleus whose done the hard work. However, if I had spent weeks getting an article ready for GA and someone said they were going to rewrite it in a more "scholarly tone" I'd be pissed off too. As it is, I was off to bed about two hours ago so its time I went - see you all soon. Richerman (talk) 03:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Yeah. I never said in a more "scholarly tone", but if I read that I'd be pissed too. The poster of that cmt is spillover from a dispute on Punk rock who followed me here. It is not my openion. I am impresed by this article, maybe I pressed my point inelegantly, and if I have become a pain, I'll revert to sofixit. Ceoil sláinte 03:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Ceoil, strange as it might seem, this article is on my watchlist, and I was offering to help. I was responding to "the page is overly dependant on King, whoes title Detonation: Rebirth of a City indicates that his account is emotional rather than based on historical or detached (hard as that might be) fact.", a sentiment with which I agree. I think for me it comes more into the latter part of the article. It doesn't need much work, and I meant no offense to those who have got the article to its present good state. Ceoil, I wasn't aware we were having a dispute on the other article, more working together to make it better? --John (talk) 04:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Please, you are political, and I am not a fool. Save you AGF for children. Ceoil sláinte 04:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I assure you, I am in no sense at all being political. I have no particular ax to grind in this particular historical war. I was offering to help work around the fault you yourself identified. --John (talk) 05:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I have little to add, apart from: i was lucky, People didnt die, but have not been found..?
i presume vapourised, or similar.. was talking to a young girl, the evening before, hope she wasnt there.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.17.88.237 (talk) 00:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC) 

An analysis of mobile phone records revealed Mutch as the source of the leaked documents. They placed both him and Planter at the same hotel in Skipton, Yorkshire, about 40 miles (64 km) from Manchester on the same evening.  I'm fairly sure this is too wrong to let past.  The two were linked by credit card records, but more importantly Mutch was never 'revealed' and denies to this day that he was the source.  The pair had a reason to meet, unrelated to the bombing.   Mr Stephen (talk) 07:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted it.  Mr Stephen (talk) 11:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

"Ireland came under British rule at the end of the Nine Years War in 1603"
No it didn't, the "British" did not come into existence until 100 years after this event. The British Act of Union between England and Scotland happened in 1707.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.76.203.201 (talk) 11:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC) 

I think you have confused Britain with Great Britain. The Acts of Union 1707 (there was no "British" Act of Union) brought into existence the Kingdom of Great Britain, not Britain. Britannia, from which the name Britain is derived, was a Roman province corresponding roughly to modern-day England. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I have to concur with the former point - the Union of the Crowns didn't take place until 1707, and although James I attempted a union from his ascension in 1603, the English Parliament fiercely rejected the proposal - the use of the term British signifies Great Britain - the attempt of rationale by stating the Britain derives from Britannia is tenuous at best. The phrase "Ireland came under British rule" is wrong - Ireland didn't - Ireland came under English rule, and English rule only. It is not a great sign to have such an error in the first paragraph. The Crowns of England an Scotland though today are merged, were very seperate entities, and entirely seperate states; the only thing they had in common was James I - and the Nine Years War had ended by James' ascesion anyway, so when Ireland came under rule, it was entirely English rule. And also, the term 'Britain' was completely unheard of in 1603 - the term British Isles did not exist either - none of it did - only when James I coined the term 'Great Britain' (taking inspiration from Britannia), and by extension the demonym British, it came into vernacular usage - the choice of the word British is therfore innacurate and a historical oversight. Patyo1994 (talk) 22:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
You are confusing British with Great Britain. Malleus Fatuorum 22:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
You clearly have some attachment to this article, but, it's not great that there's a staring historical inaccuracy on the first line. I have not confused British with Great Britain, British is the demonym of Britain no matter how hard you attempt to argue it used in an abstract sense or whatever. You can't claim to use the term British because Britannia roughly corresponded to where England is - they are two completely different time periods of history. The fact of the matter is Ireland became a vassal to the sovereign state of England, and therefore was under English rule. It's a simple error in the text that doesn't even merit being debated over, it just needs amended. Patyo1994 (talk) 11:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
My attachment is to accuracy, not to some partisan view of Irish history. The term "British" pre-dates even the Roman occupation,  describing the Celts who lived in what is now Great Britain until the early Middle Ages. It would be equally "incorrect" to change the opening sentence to say "Ireland came under English rule at the end of the Nine Years War in 1603, but was partitioned in 1921 under the terms of the Government of Ireland Act 1920", as there was no sovereign English state in 1921. All that happened was that England became a constituent part of the Kingdom of Great Britain in 1707, it affected Ireland not one whit. It would be pedantry gone mad to insist on "Ireland came under English rule at the end of the Nine Years War in 1603, and then British rule in 1707, but was partitioned in 1921 under the terms of the Government of Ireland Act 1920." Malleus Fatuorum 15:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

File:BBC picture Arndale centre after 1996 bomb.jpg is held on Wikipedia's servers under fair use. I imagine the rationale could be doubled up for this article if we wanted? --Jza84 |  Talk   01:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Would that add very much? There's a rather similar image in the lead, but a bit more active, with fire engines and so on. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Not sure. Possibly, or rather probably not. But if push came to shove and things changed down the line, it's always there as an alternative? --Jza84 |  Talk   01:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Always good to have choices. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 01:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The quoted text bellow is misleading in my opinion, the Provisional IRA may have been formed in 1969 but the IRA itself was formed in 1916, the use of "IRA" and not "Provisional IRA" three times in this paragraph is unhelpful in terms of the casual readers understanding in my opinion:
"Formed in 1969, the IRA adopted a strategy of violence to achieve its aim of a reunification of Ireland. Although Manchester had been the target of IRA bombs before 1996, it had not been subjected to an attack on this scale: the largest device detonated in Great Britain during peacetime.[2] The bombing was condemned by the British and Irish governments, along with US President Bill Clinton. Five days after the blast the IRA issued a statement in which it claimed responsibility, but regretted causing injury to civilians."
This is not a point on the differences within the different factions of the groups that have used the name in one form or another, I just think that for the reader it would be helpful for a distinction to be made. In my opinion it should read: 
"Formed in 1969, the Provisional IRA adopted a strategy of violence to achieve its aim of a reunification of Ireland. Although Manchester had been the target of Provisional IRA bombs before 1996, it had not been subjected to an attack on this scale: the largest device detonated in Great Britain during peacetime.[2] The bombing was condemned by the British and Irish governments, along with US President Bill Clinton. Five days after the blast the Provisional IRA issued a statement in which it claimed responsibility, but regretted causing injury to civilians."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.220.36.221 (talk) 14:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC) 

I don't think it's confusing at all, The article makes it clear by saying "The Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) was formed from the old Irish Republican Army between 1969 and 1971 ..." that all subsequent references to the IRA mean Provisional IRA. Malleus Fatuorum 23:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

In the first part of the article, it says that the attack was condemned by the British and Irish governments, "along with" Bill Clinton, not "also by" Bill Clinton. I know some people didn't like Mr. Clinton, but that might not be what the article meant! I am posting here because I don't edit stuff very much, so I wanted to see what other people think of the need for an edit.
Smilingpanda (talk) 22:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. Isn't "along with" synonymous with "also by" in this context? Malleus Fatuorum 23:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

http://archive.thisislancashire.co.uk/1996/6/17/850834.html
In 1996 Manchester bombing on 2011-05-25 06:20:54, 404 Not Found
In 1996 Manchester bombing on 2011-06-08 03:55:43, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 03:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

http://infoweb.newsbank.com/iw-search/we/InfoWeb?p_product=AWNB&p_theme=aggregated5&p_action=doc&p_docid=11244C1F6C558490&p_docnum=16&p_queryname=2
In 1996 Manchester bombing on 2011-05-25 06:20:54, 401 Authentication Required
In 1996 Manchester bombing on 2011-06-08 03:55:53, 401 Authentication Required
--JeffGBot (talk) 03:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

http://infoweb.newsbank.com/iw-search/we/InfoWeb?p_product=AWNB&p_theme=aggregated5&p_action=doc&p_docid=121E124FB7385E28&p_docnum=1&p_queryname=5
In 1996 Manchester bombing on 2011-05-25 06:21:06, 401 Authentication Required
In 1996 Manchester bombing on 2011-06-08 03:56:08, 401 Authentication Required
--JeffGBot (talk) 03:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Would be useful to have more about the injured. How close were they? Why so many were injured given the length of warning? How serious were the worst injuries? Who were they - emergency workers, office workers, shoppers? Nurg (talk) 10:04, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The EOD team did not run out of time as stated, but were unable to take action on the device due to a breach of the cordon by members of the media. The Remote Controlled Vehicle was in position ready to take disruptive action, however two photographers were spotted on the bridge to the rear. The EOD Operator halted operations in order to evacuate the two photographers. The device subsequently functioned. Is it possible to amend this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.229.116.89 (talk • contribs) 

I think this has been brought up before.  Have you got a reliable source? Mr Stephen (talk) 18:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)