Talk:1996 Manchester bombing/Archive 1

message: 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 . 
Previous version:
: The bombing was seen as an act of terrorism by many, and widely condemned by political leaders, including John Major. 
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  
--Tony Sidaway 13:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Fixed weaseling

message: 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)
thread_title: "Broken window fallacy" discussion removed

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Manchesterbomb-devestation.jpg

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Manchesterbomb-truck.jpg