Talk:M62 coach bombing

message: 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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackyd101 (talk • contribs) 
:Which policy? Bastun 13:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, which policy? It's ridiculous and biased that the names of the dead cannot be listed yet an entire section is devoted to Judith Ward!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Names of the dead 

message: "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)
thread_title: Lead section etc

message: 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)
thread_title: Terrorist

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: "Most sources"

message: 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)
thread_title: Category:Provisional IRA actions

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

text: If that is the case, why did you remove the categories from the Omagh bombing without discussion?--Jackyd101 16:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because civilians were not the target. Read the article.--Vintagekits 18:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

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

text: It would appear that in the alternative universe that is Wikipedia, the IRA are not terrorists, never harmed anybody who didn't deserve it and are peace loving people.  Wikipedia is officially rubbish.  The same people edit all the Northern Ireland pages to give a distinctly republican point of view.  It is garbage.  Ask anybody in the street if they think the IRA are/were terrorists and they will say yes.  Read any newspaper and the IRA are defined as terrorists.  But such realities needn't bother the cabal of editors on Wikipedia who wish to rewrite history.  How can anybody not describe the M62 bombing as terrorism?   Cornisle 08:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Terrorism categories

message: "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)
replies: text: Right the Omagh bomb - who/what was the target then?--Vintagekits 23:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A carbomb parked in the centre of a town? Civilians. Bastun 23:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Ask the families of Omagh who lost loved one to the RIRA bombers who the targets were? Vintagekits, the answer just might cause you to think before you write utter PIRA-apologist bollocks.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Target 

message: I am not particularly happy with the age of the kids being included - it does seem more graphic than required in an enclyclopedic article - but I suspect the whole lot will be reverted despite Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus can change Aatomic1 13:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the numerous examples of articles containing such lists, it does seem that the definition of "memorial" needs revisiting. If the likes of American high school massacres and bombings on American soil (and elsewhere) can contain such lists (as they do), then it would seem perverse to exclude them only from articles concerning Ireland and Britain. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 14:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As you are aware Bastun, there is a difference between a school shooting and a bombing. One has a timeline where it usually makes sense to identify each victim so the sequence of events can be followed. In a bombing people generally die at the same place and time. Brixton Busters 14:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Materially, both are the same in terms of information ultimately presented.  If an article relates that nutjob Bob walked from classroom 5, shot Joe Victim in the chest, entered classroom 7 and shot Ann Target and Mick Victim, then went to the cafeteria where... etc. - I'm not really learning anything of huge significance after the event.  If many deaths are spread out over a period of time, its still ultimately the same as many deaths in a very short space of time and/or an enclosed space.  In any case, we do also have articles covering other bombings where the victims are named.  And y'know, living in Dublin (and actually remembering the event) I don't think it'd be any harm to have the victims of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings listed. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 14:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Dundalk victims should be listed too (not murdered by PIRA but by another flavour of fanatic)...Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) talk  • 15:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have noted Brixton Busters's distinctions between bombings and shootings.I personally am getting no insight into the sequence of events from this article. Perhaps by adding the names of those that were killed the reader will be able to form a picture of what actually happened and hence be more informed? Aatomic1 14:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Absolutely! ...Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) talk  • 15:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: This article used to have a list of those killed, but it was removed, I believe by One Night in Hackney who used the same reasoning as Vintagekits has given above. In fact there is nothing in either of the links provided which gives reason for such a lists removal, as an ongoing debate at Talk:WP:NOT shows.--Jackyd101 01:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Dead

message: The discussion on Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army is whether to use PIRA instead of IRA, not vice-versa. Please leave the IRA name intact unless consensus is achieved there. Brixton Busters 19:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. W. Frank talk ✉  19:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I disagree with you, the IRA is correct.--padraig 19:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Thats what everyone calls them, not PIRA. This is all just time wasting. ;User talk:W._Frank will you please try to be reasonable? --Domer48 20:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "IRA" is common usage not "PIRA". Please provide evidence that PIRA is common usage OVER IRA or else please stop disruting wiki and edit warring. regards--Vintagekits 22:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[IRA]]/[[PIRA]]

message: Re. this edit and summary, "IRA is a singular noun; when will people get that? There is no "British mainland", Britain suffices."  IRA is a collective noun and as it says in that article:
:British English, it is generally accepted that collective nouns can take either singular or plural verb forms depending on the context and the metonymic shift that it implies. For example, "the team is in the dressing room" (formal agreement) refers to the team as an ensemble, whilst "the team are fighting among themselves" (notional agreement) refers to the team as individuals. More strikingly, this is also British English practice with names of countries and cities in sports contexts; for example, "Germany have won the competition," "Madrid have lost three consecutive matches," etc.
British mainland is a common usage to mean England, Scotland and Wales, as opposed to the bits of Britain which are in various islands here and there, in this case specifically the bit that is called Northern Ireland. 
Tyrenius (talk) 22:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: IRA and [[British mainland]]

message: As far as I remember it the IRA were in the middle of a bombing campaign at the time of the M62 bombing but it's a bit of a stretch using Guildford and Birmingham as examples considering these never occurred until several months later. Are there no better examples?GiollaUidir (talk) 22:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "Middle of an armed campaign"

message: The infobox should be an extract from the main article text, where the facts should be established with verifiable references. The text is unable to ascertain who did the bombing: "The true culprits have never been discovered." It is known of course that a bomb blew up on the coach and that soldiers and their families were on the coach. As we don't even know who did the bombing, we cannot tell whether they intended to target only the soldiers or the families also (or even, unlikely, that they had a vendetta against the coach company).  Specifying a target thus remains OR.  I suggest that a target cannot therefore be specified, only a location or victims or somesuch, as that would be the limit of verification. Anything else would be speculation. Tyrenius (talk) 00:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well in that case all reference to the IRA would also have to be removed as WP:OR-- BigDunc (talk) 09:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you arrive at that conclusion? The mentions are referenced with sources. WP:NOR applies to editors putting forward their own ideas not derived from "reliable sources". Tyrenius (talk) 12:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well you said above  As we don't even know who did the bombing  how can you say it was the IRA who carried out the attack. If you are saying because the sources say that the IRA did it then it is safe to assume that the British army were the targets. Not a coach, or there families as I dont recall a campaign against coaches or serving members of the British Armys families. BigDunc (talk) 12:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not aware I said the IRA carried out the attack. The article says they were widely accused or suspected of it. The info box should summarise the article. The infobox says they were the "suspected perpetrator(s)". This then is a correct extract from the article, and no one seems to be disputing that. However, it is not then "safe to assume" anything. That is a violation of WP:SYNTH. You need a source to say what the target is. If you haven't got such a source, then you can't say it, because the only justification for saying it is your own deduction, which is WP:OR. Tyrenius (talk) 13:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:NOR]]

message: Can anyone provide a source which states what the target was? If so, that can be used and the ref cited. If not, then any conclusions violate WP:SYNTH. Tyrenius (talk) 12:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As no group has ever accepted responsibility for the attacks, then such a source would be impossible to find.--Padraig (talk) 13:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not necessarily the case. A source might well state that the bomb was aimed at xxxx, or targeted at xxxx, as opposed to just stating the casualties were xxxx. Tyrenius (talk) 13:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But if no group has claimed responsibility, how can anyone say for certain the bomb was aimed for xxxx, they can say that the target most likely was xxxx as in this case, but its not 100% fact.--Padraig (talk) 14:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not up to us to determine how sources arrive at their content, only to use that content per WP:NPOV. We don't add content on the basis of WP:100% fact, only on the basis of WP:VERIFY. It is anyway academic unless a source is found that says such a thing. Tyrenius (talk) 14:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Exactly until someone is convicted or an admission is made the target will never be know so location not target seems to be the only solution. BigDunc (talk) 14:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Source

message: Article protection removed. Infobox amended per above consensus. Editors should not change the specific info without achieving a new consensus to do so, and may be reverted otherwise. Category changed per John above. Tyrenius (talk) 15:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox amended

message: Protected for one week. Please discuss and come to an agreed version on this page. Don't keep on edit-warring. Tyrenius (talk) 12:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There has not been an edit war - one explained change from me, at any rate, does not an edit war make. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 12:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't get involved with these articles as a rule any more, but I ran across this and as the guy who created and then sourced it I'll leave a short note. Basically, in answer to those above, it is obvious that knowing for sure what the target of the bombers was is impossible as we do not know who they were, so the term "Target" is misleading. Tyrenius is correct in pointing out that other criteria like location, victims etc are more illustrative of events and much more easily sourced. Secondly, that the IRA carried out this bombing is referenced in the article by four seperate reliable sources with a range of political viewpoints (it includes for example the The Sunday Business Post, the page for which describes it as "strongly Republican"). Just because they never admitted to it doesn't mean that it cannot be accurately attributed to them. Finally, the 25lb size of the bomb is referenced to the Williams & Head book amongst other places, although if other reliable sources dispute it then they should be brought in and the discrepancy discussed in a footnote. Hopefully this clarifed a few things.--Jackyd101 (talk) 13:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Lost Lives 2007 ed, p.434,  has it as a 50lb bomb.-Padraig (talk) 18:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I suggest a footnote immediately after "...which consisted of 25lbs of high explosive detonated in a luggage locker of the coach.", reading "Also described as a 50lb bomb in Lost Lives 2007 ed, p.434, " BastunBaStun not BaTsun 11:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Protected

message: The coordinates attributed to the bombing are currently 53°44′35.4″N 1°40′12″W, due north of Oakwell Hall. This is around 4.5 miles away from Hartshead Moor Service Station, and i find it odd that this is considered to be "near Hartshead Moor Motorway service area", when there are other, closer, landmarks to be used as a reference point. Can anyone find a reference for the exact location of the explosion? I've looked, with no success. Julianhall (talk) 23:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Over a year and a half on, i've found something. This article suggests that the coordinates listed are correct - "as it passed Moor Lane bridge in Birkenshaw, when the bomb was detonated." - so the position would be East of the Moor Lane bridge, as it is. I suspect that the reference to it being "near Hartshead Moor Motorway service area" can be changed to referencing a nearer nearby location.Julianhall (talk) 11:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location of bombing? 

message: I've added some new images. A gallery may not be required - the images might be better integrated with the text. The distant ones are not the best quality, as they a a bit blurred - a better camera on a tripod is really required. The installation is quite a big deal at the services, as it is also very visibly advertised by a large double-sided plastic banner. I did not think this was a suitable image as it's not clear if it's intended to be permanent and it also rather prominently shows the sponsor - Marshalls plc. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:32, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You are quite right a gallery is not required. J3Mrs (talk) 17:50, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: So the images can just be all thrown away then. Thanks so much for your helpful advice. And for your wholly dismissive and condescending edit summary. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:10, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: If the images are on Commons you could create a category there to collect them together, then you could add a  or  template to the article to allow users to access them. Keith D (talk) 17:13, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. That's a good idea. They are all under "Hartshead Moor Services", but do you think we need a new category for "M62 coach bombing"? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: May be best as you can then include the Oldham plaque. Keith D (talk) 00:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Hartshead Moor services]] memorial 

message: FYI. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:34, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judith Ward]] 

message: Substituted at 22:42, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: An editor is repeatedly removing the obvious category :Category:Terrorist incidents in the United Kingdom in 1974 from this article. Before I take this to ANEW, are you going to explain why? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Already did. Per WP:LABEL and WP:NPOV.Apollo The Logician (talk) 21:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  So what are you objecting to? Do you want to see it renamed as "War against the English oppressor state during the war for the freedom of Ireland"? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The title is fine the way it is. All I am saying is WP:LABEL and WP:NPOV discourage this kind of thing.Apollo The Logician (talk) 21:15, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of category 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on M62 coach 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/20070926222352/http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2003/12/14/story198885913.asp to http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2003/12/14/story198885913.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:30, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Is it not worth mentioning that George Oldfield led and also botched the Yorkshire Ripper case?46.7.195.132 (talk) 21:36, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes and no. The first is sourceable and relevant. The second is editorialising and giving our opinion (which we don't do). Andy Dingley (talk) 21:58, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[George Oldfield (police officer)|George Oldfield]]