Talk:Strabane

message: "Some nationalists also claim that police brutality and intimidation is still common in the town" 
Can you give your source please? If not, then it should not be included. Living in the town, I and many others would dispute this claim.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.223.135 (talk) 10:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another NPOV dispute 

message: Article seriously needs updating and inclusion of recent regeneration efforts. No mention of culturally significant locations such as the Alley Theatre. New photographs of the town (perhaps the new pig sculpture etc) are required - not just the "run down" areas!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.223.135 (talk) 10:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article needs updating 

message: ]This article is quite POV even though the subtle ways the POV are expressed are not particularly offensive, but definitely exhibit a bias. The following are examples.
POV- 01
"Strabane (Irish Gaelic, an Srath Bán, which translates as 'The White Strand') is a town in the west of County Tyrone in Northern Ireland (known to most in the town as the 6 Counties) on the border with County Donegal."
Is there really any need to expand on the name of Northern Ireland by inserting "(known to most in the town as the 6 Counties)" This is dealt with under "Northern Ireland" and gives the article a POV bias from the start.
POV- 02
“Many innocent civilians were killed during the Troubles in Strabane, some deliberately by the British Army and others when caught up in IRA attacks.”
This seems very POV and should be backed up by evidence and references. In my lifetime (32 years) I don’t know of any proven cases off the British Army being accused of deliberately killing civilians in Strabane? Or does this mean alleged IRA volunteers? Who was killed and in what circumstances? Is this the NPOV version of events or is this in dispute? To make this statement without backing it up seems biased. Bloody Sunday is one incident where this claim would be less POV, but even it acknowledges that there is a dispute over the events.
POV- 03
“The most notable incident occurred in 1985 when three unarmed local IRA volunteers, Charlie Breslin (23), David Devine (16) and Michael Devine (18), were assassinated by a SAS unit as they returned to an arms dump. The SAS employed their "shoot-to-kill" policy, firing over 150 rounds at the three insurgents.”
This is POV as we are not given the British Army’s version of the events. Does the British Army agree that they were unarmed? Maybe so! Did the British Army admit they assassinated them? Or are the versions of events, whichever is actually true, disputed. Therefore this is POV. Killed would be the NPOV word to use.
The "shoot-to-kill" policy, from my understanding, has always been an issue of contention and is therefore POV. 
Here is are two articles on the BBC News website, which seems to back up my thinking that there is dispute over the "shoot-to-kill" policy, whilst also giving information on accusations and a European court ruling.
IRA deaths: The four shootings:
Ten IRA men shot dead by British soldiers and the Royal Ulster Constabulary in Northern Ireland had their human rights violated, a European court has ruled. Judges at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg considered four separate incidents between 1982 and 1992 which led to accusations of a "shoot-to-kill" policy. 
Full article at 
Also 
UK condemned over IRA deaths:
Some of the incidents prompted claims that a shoot-to-kill policy was being operated by the security forces. In a judgement on Friday, the court ruled that eight IRA men shot dead by soldiers of an undercover SAS unit at Loughgall, County Armagh, in 1987, and two IRA men killed by RUC officers, had their human rights violated. It said this had arisen because of the failure of the state authorities to conduct a proper investigation into the circumstances of the deaths…… Secretary of State John Reid said he welcomed the fact that the court had "not made any finding that these deaths amounted to unlawful killing". "The criticisms are of procedures, the investigations, not the deaths themselves," he said. "We will want to study those criticisms seriously."  
Full article 
The above refers to accusations/claims of a "shoot-to-kill" policy not a ruling or admission on the "shoot-to-kill" policy. This article leads me to believe that there is a dispute over this alledged policy. If this is not the case clear-cut evidnece should be referenced to back this up E.g European court, with accustions, British Governments version and verdict. Has there been a case were "shoot-to-kill" policy was proven as an official policy?
If this article is to be NPOV then I feel that these discrepancies need to be cleared up. In no way is this a personal attack on the author/authors and is meant only to improve this article to NPOV.
Steve Brown- 17:18- 9 Aug 2005--Strangelyb 01:26, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV dispute 

message: Recent edits are reverting back to POV. This was why I changed them back to previous less POV version.
If the recent editor would have the courtesy of explaining their edits it would be appreciated. However they appear POV and so from my understanding of the rules of Wikepedia not appropriate.
POV contributors repeatedly have asserted that a verdict on the "Shoot-to-kill" policy has been made in the European courts. That being it has been proven as an official policy and therefore any statements to that fact are not POV. Or that is what I assume they mean as no discussion off edits was provided. It is my understanding that this is not the case, as per my previous discussion NPOV dispute. The European court did not rule on the alleged "Shoot-to-kill" policy, but rather that the men's human rights  were violated by a lack of a proper investigation afterwards. Therefore "Shoot-to-kill" policy is in dispute and if proposed as fact is POV. 
Along with the other edits recently made e.g. Previous I think NPOV version- "Some nationalists also claim that police brutality and intimidation is a common occurrence in the town, with the PSNI having little support in Strabane. With the ongoing reforms of the Police Service and the creation of the Strabane District Policing Partnership this may change over time."
Recent POV version- "Police brutality and intimidation is a common occurrence in the town, with the PSNI having little or no support in Strabane. With the ongoing reforms of the Police Service and the creation of the Strabane District Policing Partnership this may change over time but has not to date." - This in my opinion has changed NPOV text to POV. Does the whole town back up the claim? What about the at least 4 Nationalist members of the Strabane District Policing Partnership? Do they agree? If so has a credible survey been carried backing up this assertion? Or is this a biased claim from perhaps a Republican perspective? The only part that may be applicable is "but has not to date", however this, depending on your viewpoint could be considered POV. Surely the fact that there are at least 4 Nationalist members of the Strabane District Policing Partnership, is an indicator that attitudes are changing although arguably slowly, however I do not have enough information to back this up so I will omit. Therefore for the sake of NPOV I would leave "but has not to date" out.
For the sake of NPOV if any edits are being made prior discussion would be sensible so a NPOV consensus can prevail. I may be incorrect in some of my arguments, but I would be willing to amdmit this if presented with credible evidence. I may be wrong on the "Shoot-to-kill" policy. However from my limited research I don't think so. If I am please provide relevant evidence and then a NPOV consensus can be made by all.
--Strangelyb 00:24, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent POV Edits 

message: After searching for information on SAS killing of Charles Breslin, Michael Devine and David Devine in 1985. I have only been able to find information relating to compensation claims brought by their families which were settled in the Belfast High Court in May 2002. There does not appear to be any European Court of Human Rights ruling for this particular incident. From limited information I have been able to find from News archives and not POV analysis it does not appear to have been a ruling on the alledged "Shoot-to-Kill" policy, but undisclosed compensation to the families. As the families at the time were seeking to get an inquest opened one can perhaps presume that the larger issue of "Shoot-to-Kill" or even admission of unlawful killing was not addressed by this case. I would think that if the Belfast High Court or any other had made a ruling confirming an official policy of "Shoot-to-Kill" there would be substantial archival news articles available. The lack of this makes me suspect that as off yet no ruling exists thus leaving this issue in dispute and open to POV.
Shot IRA men's families pledge on legal battle
By Sarah Brett
08 May 2002
Belfast Telegraph
THE families of three IRA men shot dead by the SAS in Strabane in 1985 today said they will continue their battle to bring the soldiers to court.
Substantial damages were awarded to the families by the Ministry of Defence yesterday as part of a High Court settlement.
But a spokeswoman for the families today said their fight had "only just begun".
Michael Devine (22) and his brother David (16) were killed alongside Charles Breslin (20) in a field at the back of Fountain Street in the town 17 years ago.
All three men were masked and armed with loaded rifles when they were shot by the SAS.
In 1988 a court was told that a holdall found beside the bodies contained two homemade projectiles with launchers and a loaded rifle.
The judge found that the men were armed terrorists on a mission to cause violence.
But their families have consistently claimed the three were shot without warning and were not a threat to the soldiers.
Charles Breslin's sister Carina said that 17 years on, her family's battle was just starting.
"The compensation claim was about making the MoD and the RUC accountable and responsible," she said.
"For us that meant getting the soldiers on the stand to give evidence but the MoD were not prepared to produce these soldiers."
The families are taking steps to reopen the inquest into the deaths of the three men in the coming months.
Families of IRA men shot by SAS compensated
By Staff Reporter
07 May 2002
Belfast Telegraph
SEVENTEEN years after three IRA men were shot dead by the SAS in Strabane, the compensation claims brought by their families were settled in the High Court in Belfast today.
The terms were not disclosed but it is understood that the Ministry of Defence agreed to pay substantial damages. 
Charles Breslin (20) and brothers Michael (22) and David Devine (16), from Strabane, were killed in February, 1985, in a field at the back of Fountain Street. 
The compensation claims were brought by Joseph Breslin, father of Charles, and Teresa Devine, mother of Michael and David.
In court papers they claimed their sons were shot without warning when they presented no risk to the soldiers. 
But at another High Court hearing in 1988 the then Mr Justice Carswell - now Lord Chief Justice Sir Robert Carswell - said the men were masked and each was carrying a loaded rifle when they were shot.
He said a hold-all found beside the bodies contained two home-made projectiles, two improvised launchers, a loaded rifle magazine, two cartridge cases, two masks and two pairs of rubber gloves.
"It is clear beyond argument that the men were armed terrorists on a mission involving violence," added the judge in refusing an application for a fresh inquest. 
The original lasted 17 days and the jury returned a verdict that the three men met their deaths as a result of gunshot wounds.
Also an article relating to support for the Strabane Discrict Policing Partnership. This does not back up a claim that there is no support for the DPP in Strabane as others have claimed. If 34 per cent of Roman Catholics in Strabane support the DPP then the claim that the PSNI have no support in Strabane is unreliable. In fact it could be argued that the text relating to PSNI support should be changed to the following.
"Some nationalists also claim that police brutality and intimidation is a common occurance in the town, with the PSNI having mixed support in Strabane. With the ongoing reforms of the Police Service and the creation of the Strabane District Policing Partnership this may change over time with recent surveys indicating that a minority of Roman Catholics (34%)confident that the DPP is proving to be an effective forum for addressing local policing issues."
Although this is from the Belfast Newletter a Unionist Perpective paper. If you go to the Strabane DPP's own site and look at their surveys it back's it up. Now the DPP could be accused of being biased in their own favour, but it at least means that the claim that the DPP and PSNI have no support in Strabane is in dispute thus POV.
More Catholic Support For Strabane DPP
Wednesday 3rd November 2004
Belfast Newsletter
More Roman Catholics than Protestants have confidence in Strabane Distrist Partnership, a survey has revealed.
The survey found that 34 per cent of Roman Catholics were confident that the DPP is proving to be an effective forum for addressing local policing issues - compared to 31 per cent of Protestants.
The figures, published in the 2003/2004 Annual Report and Strategic Plan, are in stark contrast to previous years, when the Protestant community had the most faith in the ability of the DPP to deliver on policing.
Chief Inspector Nicky Thompson, deputy district commander, said: "I very much welcome the figures, which show an increase in the number of Catholics with confidence in the DPP and police service here.
"Everyone knows we endeavour to carry out our work in a transparent and impartial manner.
"As for local police, we are not really interested in the background figures, we work to provide a service for the whole community. Everyone is our customer and we, as a force, strive to deliver a top-class service for everyone and will continue to do so."
However I don't want to change this myself and would prefer if someone else double-checked the information in case I am wrong.
As hopefully anyone can see my edits are not designed to be petty or biased, but hopefully have improved the quality of this article to NPOV.
--Strangelyb 02:22, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Background info 

message: I have tagged thissection as in NPOV dispute as someone keeps changing text to what is in my opinion POV. They have not given a detailed explanation and from my research their infomation is incorrect and diputed by the relevant parties involved. The text in dispute is as follows.
"The most notable incident occurred in 1985 when three unarmed local IRA members, Charlie Breslin (23), David Devine (16) and Michael Devine (18), were killed by a SAS unit as they returned to an arms dump. The SAS firing over 150 rounds at the three men when operating their "shoot-to-kill" policy. This has been confirmed at the European Court of Human Rights when compensation was awarded to the bereaved families."
I have previously detailed why I think this is POV and provided substantial evidence to back this up. I may be wrong and am not interested in pushing the Unionist/British perspective on this, but just indicating that the circumstances are disputed. From my research their has been no European court ruling on this specific case and the case I presume metioned does not rule on the alledged "Shoot-to-Kill" policy. Even the ascertion that the men were unarmed is in dispute from the records I can find. The MOD did pay undisclosed compensation settlement recorded by the Belfast High Court, but the details are limited. After this the families were still pushing fo an inquest and we may presume that the settlement did not include an admission of "Shoot-to-kill". The lack of archival news evidence detailing a ruling on "Shoot-to-kill" would also make me suspect that no ruling has taken place. Therefore any ruling associated are for other reasons and only POV analysis interperates them as "Shoot-to-kill".
I hope others can assist in confiming or rejecting my interpretation.
--Strangelyb 01:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  History Section NPOV dispute tag 

message: Enclosed is a link to European Court of Human Rights Gibraltar Ruling in September 1995 and some sections I think relevant. 
The ruling appears to be on the issue that there was a lack of appropriate care in the control and organisation of the arrest operation. That they should have arrested the suspects prior to entering Gibraltar or attempted to wound the suspects. Insufficient training was given to the soldiers in respect to wounding rather than kiling. It does explicitly state that there was no premeditated policy in regards to this. Therefore I can only conclude that this does not amount to a ruling on a alledged "Shoot-to-Kill" policy, but on operational inadequecies.
I quote.
180. In the light of its own examination of the material before it, the Court does not find it established that there was an execution plot at the highest level of command in the Ministry of Defence or in the Government, or that Soldiers A, B, C and D had been so encouraged or instructed by the superior officers who had briefed them prior to the operation, or indeed that they had decided on their own initiative to kill the suspects irrespective of the existence of any justification for the use of lethal force and in disobedience to the arrest instructions they had received. Nor is there evidence that there was an implicit encouragement by the authorities or hints and innuendoes to execute the three suspects.
and
184. The Court therefore rejects as unsubstantiated the applicants’ allegations that the killing of the three suspects were premeditated or the product of a tacit agreement amongst those involved in the operation.
From my analysis this doesn't amount to a specific ruling confiming an official policy of "Shoot-to-Kill". I am unable to find any alternative corborating ruling and therefore conclude POV analysis has led editors to assume this.
--Strangelyb 06:54, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  European Court of Human Rights Gibraltatar Ruling 

message: I have removed the History section NPOV Dispute tag. I hope everybody will agree that recent edits, not just by myself are not blatantly POV and generally been made in a positive manner.
I did edit some things to what I consider less POV.
E.g.
"The families, the local community and many people across Ireland believed these and other deaths were part of a wider British government "shoot-to-kill" policy in Northern Ireland,"
to
"The families, many in the local community and across Ireland believed these and other deaths were part of a wider British government "shoot-to-kill" policy in Northern Ireland,"
This was the way it was earlier and I believe the recent edits gave it a slight bias. We don't know whether the whole local community believed this do we? Therefore previous was less POV. Nick picking I know, but why not be consistent.
I also corrected the religious background from 95% to 93% as this is what the Census figures are (well 93.33% to be accurate).
Also I had a look at the civilian deaths in Strabane to see whether their were no civilian deaths attributed to paramilitaries aside from those caught up in attacks.
The following are some examples irrespective of the circumstances, which include alleged informers killed by the paramilitaries.
Pollock, Heather 27 December 1980 (53) Protestant
Status: Civilian (Civ), Killed by: Irish Republican Army (IRA)
Died three weeks after being shot in her home during sniper attack on Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) mobile patrol, Strabane, County Tyrone.
McDevitt, Eamon 18 August 1971 (24) Catholic
Status: Civilian (Civ), Killed by: British Army (BA)
Deaf and dumb man, shot during street disturbances, Fountain Street, Strabane, County Tyrone.
McCrory, Damien 07 October 1985 (20) Catholic
Status: Civilian (Civ), Killed by: Irish Republican Army (IRA)
Found shot, by the side of road, Drumrallagh, Strabane, County Tyrone. Alleged informer.
Mallon, Daniel 22 August 1985 (65) Catholic
Status: Civilian (Civ), Killed by: Irish Republican Army (IRA)
Shot while in Railway Bar, Strabane, County Tyrone. Mistaken for contractor to British Army (BA) / Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC).
Jack, Alan 19 July 1972 (0) Protestant
Status: Civilian (Civ), Killed by: Irish Republican Army (IRA)
Killed in car bomb explosion, Canal Street, off Abercorn Square, Strabane, County Tyrone. Inadequate warning given.
Harkin, Daniel 20 July 1974 (48) Catholic
Status: Civilian (Civ), Killed by: Irish Republican Army (IRA)
Shot at his home, Meenashesk Place, Strabane, County Tyrone.
Doherty, Mary 13 April 1980 (53) Catholic
Status: Civilian (Civ), Killed by: British Army (BA)
Shot while travelling in car approaching British Army (BA) Vehicle Check Point (VCP), Strabane, County Tyrone.
Devine, Hugh 22 June 1974 (30) Catholic
Status: Civilian (Civ), Killed by: British Army (BA)
Shot during altercation with British Army (BA) foot patrol, Olympic Drive, Ballycolman, Strabane, County Tyrone.
Carr, Bridget 24 November 1971 (24) Catholic
Status: Civilian (Civ), Killed by: Irish Republican Army (IRA)
Shot during gun battle outside British Army (BA) base, Lifford Road, Strabane, County Tyrone.
Barnhill, John 12 December 1971 (65) Protestant
Status: Civilian Political Activist (CivPA), Killed by: Official Irish Republican Army (OIRA)
Ulster Unionist Stormont Senator. Shot during bomb attack on his home, Brickfield House, near Strabane, County Tyrone.
I have therefore changed the article to indicate that some civilians were killed deliberately by the paramilitaries. Upon assessing this new research I feel the article read as if it was only the British army that had killed civilians apart from when caught up in attacks. And that this did not accurately reflect civilians the paramilitaries had killed.
I used the CAIN site for my research.
Hopefully this is agreed as NPOV.
--Strangelyb 03:53, 30 August 2005 (UTC
We could leave controversial out alltogether, but this was there to reflect nationalist etc's concerns over army killings. If we go back to earlier revisions you will see that this replaced "Many innocent civilians were killed during the Troubles in Strabane, some deliberately by the British Army and others when caught up in IRA attacks". This was POV and from the records I can find the paramilitaries deliberately killed civilians and there appears less controversy over them. I am sure in some of the cases they admitted responsibility, but I don't have the info so I wouldn't assert this.
Therefore the issue was that the article read like only the British army deliberately killed civilians and that the one notable incident was the British Army killing three civilians, who were IRA members. It read anti the British army, which is POV, no matter what I or anybody else really thinks, and only focused on their killings therfore being biased.
The controversy over the Army killings is that the Security Forces dispute that they deliberately killed civilians, therefore controversial. I have been unable to find the same information realting to controversy over civilians killed by the paramilitaries, but would be interested to see any that can be provided so the article is balanced. Did the IRA mean to arrest those they killed. 
E.g. "The Official IRA's arrest operation didn't go as planned and they accidently killed Protestant Civilian Political Activist John Barnhill (65), on the 12 December 1971, who was shot during a bomb attack on his home".
One sure thing is that the Paramilitaries operated a "Shoot-to-Kill" policy.
I do believe the article is still sympathetic in tone to the Nationlist/Republican viewpoint off Strabane and certainly all the pictures in the history section are off the "British Occupation". But really to think the following is not biased is wrong
"Northern Ireland (known to most in the town as the 6 Counties)"- Has a survey been done off this? My girlfirend, her parents and all their many relations in Strabane don't call it this. Maybe the "North of Ireland", but mostly Northern Ireland. As discussed eslewhere "the 6 Counties" is term used by those from a republican perspective and is heavily loaded. It is only really appropriate in a limited context. E.g. Sinn Fein describe Northern Ireland as the 6 Counties.
"Many innocent civilians were killed during the Troubles in Strabane, some deliberately by the British Army and others when caught up in IRA attacks"- As above POV did the IRA not deliverately kill the following.
McCrory, Damien 07 October 1985 (20) Catholic Status: Civilian (Civ), Killed by: Irish Republican Army (IRA) Found shot, by the side of road, Drumrallagh, Strabane, County Tyrone. Alleged informer.
Mallon, Daniel 22 August 1985 (65) Catholic Status: Civilian (Civ), Killed by: Irish Republican Army (IRA) Shot while in Railway Bar, Strabane, County Tyrone. Mistaken for contractor to British Army (BA) / Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC).
Harkin, Daniel 20 July 1974 (48) Catholic Status: Civilian (Civ), Killed by: Irish Republican Army (IRA) Shot at his home, Meenashesk Place, Strabane, County Tyrone.
Barnhill, John 12 December 1971 (65) Protestant Status: Civilian Political Activist (CivPA), Killed by: Official Irish Republican Army (OIRA) Ulster Unionist Stormont Senator. Shot during bomb attack on his home, Brickfield House, near Strabane, County Tyrone.
"The most notable incident occurred in 1985 when three unarmed local IRA volunteers, Charlie Breslin (23), David Devine (16) and Michael Devine (18), were assassinated by a SAS unit as they returned to an arms dump. The SAS employed their "shoot-to-kill" policy, firing over 150 rounds at the three insurgents"
The last one is heavily disputed on the following points.
unarmed- All state records indicate they were armed so disputed.
assassinated- The security forces dispute they assasinated them.
firing over 150 rounds- I haven't been able to find records of the number of rounds. This doesn't mean I am arguing that 150 rounds weren't fired, but I can't find any corroborating records.
employed their "shoot-to-kill" policy- This is disputed and as of yet no court ruling anywhere has proved this was an official policy.
The amendments are not changing the article to a British/Unionist POV so I am not being difficult just NPOV. It is anonymous IP(s) that are being difficult and not understanding NPOV.
--Strangelyb 00:11, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Edits and Civilian Deaths Info  

message: Yes I would still dispute the one sentence. Not that I think that in it's current form it is POV, but that it is now too simplistic and that it needs expanding. I think that as the sentence previously read was better and created more context for the next paragraph.
"Many civilians were killed during the Troubles in Strabane, some controversially by the British Army, others by Republican Paramilitaries or when caught up in attacks on the security forces."
Historically the article was very POV and as previously stated indicating that everybody killed civilians means that along with the intially disputed next paragraph we don't have an anti british feel to the history section. To be truthful it is still very sympathetic to the majority view, but I am not arguing against that.
The anonymous author/editor is arguing that all civilian deaths are controversial. I have only been able to find controversy over the British Army killings.
The anonymous author/editor has not provided any evidence supporting his POV that their are controversial circumstances surrounding paramilitary deaths. Therefore it is untrue to state all deahts are controversial.
Anyway the reason I am being so pedantic is to get them to follow the rules and also that without agreement if one thing is changed then gradually more is changed to the point it becomes very POV again. I do not want to let edits slip by without understanding them, especially when they seem make the article worse. If the author hadn't written an artical that was full of republican propaganda to start off with there would have been no problem. That does not mean I am advocating Unionist propaganda. But reverting what were balanced contributions without dicussing them is against the rules from my understanding. And then to attack people and swear at them with a "It's my article" attitude is childish. If no-one contributes to anybody else's articles how rubbish would Wikepedia be. I suppose maybe we could change the Article to Strabane from a Republican POV, but that would be a bad as Strabane from a Unionist POV.
:It's pretty clear at this stage that our anonymous friend is more interested in sectarian name-calling and user-page vandalism than following Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Time to get an admin to protect the page? Demiurge 08:13, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already made a page protection request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Request_to_protect_Strabane. Waiting for an admin to handle it... Demiurge 08:52, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality of one sentence is disputed solely by me 

message: "and undoubtedly one of the best full-forwards in Ireland" is not the usual Wikipedia style. --Henrygb 01:45, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor NPOV

message: Please read WP:NPOV, WP:CITE and WP:CIVIL. You are in breach of all of these policies. The information you have given needs to be cited in line with Wikipedia's style guidelines. The ranking does not appear to have been "disregarded" by Strabane's citizen's at all -- otherwise why would they be writing in their local newspaper about it? Finally, your derogatory edit summaries are in breach of Wikipedia's WP:CIVIL policy. Demiurge 23:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: So now you think that I am a sock puppet and that by trying to make the Strabane article adhere to NPOV is a Loyalist conspiracy. What planet do you live on. Oh yes the one that has ruined Ireland for so long. Try and have a proper look at what you are spreading. Incorrect, unsupported POV information, which you won't even have the courage to join the Wikipedia community properly sign up with a user name and add posts on the talk page explaining your point of view. I on the other hand am willing to admit I am wrong if presented with credible evidence. Where is it? Because you live in Strabane does not mean that you are not biased and aserting that something is disputed, which I can back-up (see previous Belfast Telgraph articles) is not the same as spreading loyalist propaganda. Don't paint others with your own bigotry. The loyalist paramilitaries are as hideous as the republican ones. Defenders of their communites nonsense organised criminals more like.
--Strangelyb 17:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC
Please stop leaving abusive messages on my talk page like the one as follows! Oh and of course I'm a sock puppet. Look at my button eyes and felt mouth. As if grow up woooooo loyalist conspiracy again. Yes and the only reason why you don't register is so you and hide behind non static IP addresses and then say prove that was me pathetic. However I do agree it is only good Wikipedia etiquette so keep hiding if you like. You do however break multiple other rules so stop it!
"Possible Sock puppet
Is this true? I think you ought to be exposed. 02:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sock Puppet Nonsense 

message: As an outsider (and the admin who has just blocked the anon), I'll make a brief appearance in an attempt to promote discussion and maybe peace. I know little about this, so forgive me if this looks naive, but the edits being reverted (e.g. ) look comparatively minor. To me. I can see that Many civilians died during the course of the Troubles, some killed controversially (and unarmed) by the British army is badly written and probably provocative; would Many unarmed civilians died during the course of the Troubles, some killed controversially by the British army be acceptable? Would changing when three IRA members, Charlie Breslin (20), David Devine (16) and Michael Devine (22), were killed by a SAS unit as they returned to an arms dump in a field at the back of Fountain Street. All were unarmed. to when three unarmed IRA members, Charlie Breslin (20), David Devine (16) and Michael Devine (22), were killed by a SAS unit as they returned to an arms dump in a field at the back of Fountain Street. I'm assuming that the problem is the jarring and POV-looking insertion of unarmed, and hoping that a more natural placing might be OK. Obviously if the point at issue is whether they were armed or not, then this doesn't help. And and the creation of the Strabane District Policing Partnership this may change, but it will take time. to and the creation of the Strabane District Policing Partnership this may change in time.. And I've ducked the where Strabane was left bit for now... William M. Connolley 21:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  An attempt at peacemaking 

message: Alright this is what I think. No offence is meant and I understand your viewpoint on the "North West of the Island of Ireland". However this is a republican viewpoint the same as "British Ulster" is a loyalist POV. The neutral and internationaly recognised term is "Northern Ireland" no more is required and to state so is not sectarian just fair. To change the start of the article to insert this is pointless. Strabane is in Northern Ireland anything else in the opening line is pushing a POV agenda. As this edit came right after another POV edit I can only assume that we have the same anon IP vandals who have been involed in revert wars, vandalisng user pages and have been repeatively blocked from this page. If you beleive there is a genuine reason why this should be changed to "is a town in the north-west of the island of Ireland" instead of "in Northern Ireland" in the opening line I would be interested to hear. Otherwise it appears POV and pushing a republican agenda as ample information on the exact location was previously provided. After looking at how most other towns in the region are described in the opening line all use Northern Ireland. A compromise if geographical location was the intention would be this "Strabane (Irish, an Srath Bán, The Fair River Valley/White Strand) is a town in the north-west of Northern Ireland". So lets discuss OK?
--Strangelyb 19:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are forgetting that 'British Ulster' could of course refer to the parts of traditional Ulster that remain British today, i.e. Northern Ireland. Jonto 03:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text: * "Smear campaign"? Oh, please! The opinions of yourself or the residents of Strabane (or my opinion) matter naught. What matters is factual accuracy, that's all. Let's stick to the geography of the matter, rather than trying to score points by trying to place Strabane in the centre of the island of Ireland rather than the political entity of 'Northern Ireland'. It's like saying the city of Cork is in the north-west corner of Europe (oh, and it happens to be in the Republic of Ireland) - Ali-oops✍ 15:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: ** Once again, I repeat: "I never once suggested that the intro should be changed because of the political beliefs held by the people of the town. I merely pointed out that it was the case that the town was overwhelmingly nationalist.'" Last time I checked, Europe is a continent. Ireland is a much smaller geographical entity. Another flawed anology. Tír Eoghain abú 15:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: *** Exactly what is your point? Tír Eoghain abú 16:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  North West of the Island of Ireland vs Northern Ireland 

message: Any thoughts? It looks a little bit messy now, but I think that if the protection symbols were removed then it mightn't look as bad. Tír Eoghain abú 18:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I was looking at the Strabane coat of arms earlier, on the District Council site, and was going to suggest it should be added. Stayed away from it though as their may be Wikipedia copyright issues. Anyway now it's up I'm sure if there is an issue it will be flagged pretty sharpish. The two map thing may be overkill, but don't have an issue with it and will wait and see when the protection is lifted.
--Strangelyb 18:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think removal of the protection tag will only shift the text and images up.. so the page will look the same. Perhaps the other map could be made smaller and inserted into the infobox you have created Tir Eoghain abú? I would personally replace the map showing the county with the map showing the location of the town... the county map is maybe more relevant to the County Tyrone article. But I'll leave it up to you. For the meantime, perhaps move the map I added to below the infobox (right hand side). --Mal 20:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Something is up with the infobox Mal, can that be fixed? Tír Eoghain abú 14:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah man by all means create an NI town infobox. Definitely. But you just can't, in all seriousness, omit from the box a field that contains the town name in Irish. I think that the box as it stands is more than appropriate but if you come up with something more suitable, I'd be very happy to help you implement it in all towns within the 6 counties. Tír Eoghain abú 01:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Map and Info 

message: Just wondering where the total of "Dozens of British soldiers" came from. I was checking out the CAIN website at http://cain.ulst.ac.uk and its search lists 40 deaths in total in Strabane during the Troubles and not as many as the article suggests were soldiers. Does anyone have a copy of "Lost Lives"? Alastairward 16:59, 10 April 2006
Why don't you do some work for a fucking change and find the actual number of people that died instead of criticising the work of others? Why don't you go out and get the real facts? If that's too much for u and u cant back up your work, then u can go suck my balls. 172.209.210.43 18:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: List of deaths

message: This info has been inserted by a member of the extended family.
If you want to see comprehensice detail have a look at the item for Trevor Hamilton and her brother in law's site 
http://www.martinharran.com
*Just because the information has been included on their personal website does not mean that the family has given permission for such information to be used on Wikipedia. As for the Hamilton article, as true as the descriptions may be, they will soon be changed as they are blatantly POV. Tír Eoghain abú 13:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What was Hamilton's link with Strabane? --Guinnog 13:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: None, as far as I am aware. He lived outside Sion Mills on the road to Omagh. I think the late Mrs. Harron got into his car in Strabane, but that's about it. Tír Eoghain abú 17:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re:Attracta Harron 

message: Are there many serious incidents from the Troubles in Strabane missing from the linked list? Alastairward 16:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Some of" the most serious incidents in the Troubles

message: There seems to have been a bout of vandalism by anonymous editors. Would they mind putting reasons for their edits on the talk page and perhaps registering Alastairward 20:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent vandalism 

message: how is the fact that strabane has a television transmitor and was featured on a utv map years ago relevant information for this article??????????  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.52.54 (talk) 14:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  legfordum transmitor 

message: Is there any consensus on who should be included and who shouldn't on the list of people? At first it was a list of "Notable natives" and then changed to "People" and still people are popping on and off the list (George Sigerson has recently returned) Alastairward (talk) 12:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  People 

message: According to the Western Health & Social Services Board [www.whssb.n-i.nhs.uk/dept/Strabane.html] the population of Strabane in 2001 was 38248. The article states that in 2008 the population was estimated at 16000. That's a drop of over half in 7 years, quite something I'm sure you'd agree. If there's a proper cite for the up to date population figure, please provide it, else I'll go with the 2001 census report.Alastairward (talk) 07:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population 

message: Without wanting to start an edit war, I felt that user Alwynw's recent edits and his/her idea of a controversial killing were best left to one side. Therefore I reduced the paragraph describing the killings in the town during the Troubles to a simple, "civilians and soldiers" killed, with an opinion on whether they were "controversial" left up to the reader. They can find out enough about that in the article The Troubles in Strabane which is linked to at the top of the Troubles section, without adding selected deaths to the main article. Alastairward (talk) 20:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's reasonable. Happy with the edit. Mooretwin (talk) 23:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alwynw's recent edits 

message: The infobox gives Stràbane as the Ulster Scots version of Strabane. Have we any reliable sources to support this? ~Asarlaí 18:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The website for the district council has the name of the council in English, Irish, and Ulster Scots. Or at least I assume the third name listed in the top left of the screen is Ulster Scots; Stràbane Destrick Cooncil. Alastairward (talk) 20:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scots name? 

message: "Strabane Grammar School has a 100% achievement rate of grades A-C at GCSE level" - citation? Where did this come from? If you're going to post something like this, please provide a link to where you got your information.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.224.156 (talk) 14:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I cited it, but the reference dates back to 2005, so I amended the text to match. Which is a crude solution I'm happy to admit. Alastairward (talk) 21:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed figures 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Strabane. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121006132758/http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Pa8BwMozdvE to http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Pa8BwMozdvE
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:51, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The infobox names this place as "Strabae" multiple times. Intentional or a mistake?Hza a 9 (talk) 22:28, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strabae 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Straban and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 16#Straban until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  TartarTorte 03:21, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Straban" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]