Talk:Edward O'Brien (Irish republican)

message: I remember this Volunteer from reading An Phoblacht. I remember there was quite a bit of coverage in both the British and Irish media. I am surprised this article was nominated so quickly, having hardly got off the ground. I thought it might have been an automated response, but apparently not?   --Domer48 18:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable  

message: This cat implies that it was suicide as at the time of his death he was an IRA Vol, so how could he have been killed by the IRA. BigDunc 11:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why does it imply suicide? I don't see any real difference between him being categorised as having being killed by the IRA and any other civilian that was killed by an IRA bomb (such as Tim Parry or Jonathon Ball). All three were, if you believe the IRA line, accidental casualties but all were still killed by an IRA action. The word kill does not imply intent. Rockpocket 19:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Based on Rockpocket logic, any British soldier killed in the north of Ireland was killed by the British Army. They did send them to Ireland! It is a silly Cat to apply to this article. --Domer48 20:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If the pilot was negligent, then yes. If a plane crashes the passengers are are killed by the pilot. I would be an example of negligent homicide or perhaps of manslaughter. You misinterpret my logic, because sending troops to Northern Ireland is not the criminally negligent act that led to a death. In contrast carrying a primed bomb is. That is the difference.  Rockpocket 21:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Are they not carrying loaded weapons? BigDunc 21:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The question is a non-sequitur. The basic facts of the death of O'Brien do not differ from, for example, Gordon Hamilton-Fairley: both were killed by an IRA bomb intended for someone else. If you wish to argue intent is required for inclusion then people like Hamilton-Fairley shouldn't be included either. The IRA most certainly didn't intend to blow him up, just as they certainly didn't intend to blow up O'Brien. If you want to limit inclusion in this cat then you should make clear in the cat what is and is not to be included. Rockpocket 23:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Rockpocket please stop being ridiculous. --Domer48 00:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Address the point rather than cast aspersions on the person, please, Domer. My concern is a serious one: cats should either be inclusive based on their title, or what is intended should be elucidated. I'm not bothered which it is, but we should be consistent. Rockpocket 00:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I have no idea what his motivation was for wanting to detonate a bomb in London. Unless otherwise stated, there is nothing in the cat that suggests motivation is a factor for inclusion. The germane question is, was O’Brien killed by an IRA made bomb? I think the answer to that is yes which is why I think the cat is relevant. If it is not relevant then it should be made clear, in the cat, that motivation is a factor for inclusion (i.e. accidental deaths during IRA actions should not be included). That is all I am arguing. Oh, and if you think the cat is ridiculous then you should nominate it at CfD. Rockpocket 18:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hopefully this resolves the debate. Rockpocket 18:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I cant speak for Domer but I think he was calling your argument ridiculous not you so please WP:AGF BigDunc 13:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can't speak for Domer either, but I think he was suggesting I am being ridiculous, which, by definition, is a state of being and hence a comment on a person. But thanks for your insight. Rockpocket 18:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Could you explain to me how you feel link you gave Rockpocket is some resolution to this. -- BigDunc (talk) 19:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Er, yes, there was an unfortunate typo in that edit. It has been corrected by ONiH. Now, I hope, it is clear. Rockpocket 20:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text: As crystal. BigDunc (talk) 21:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed cat 

message: Should the article describe O'Brien as a suicide bomber? Irvine22 (talk) 23:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know. GoodDay (talk) 23:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to me that O'Brien did exactly what Hasib Husain did some nine years later. Irvine22 (talk) 00:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Premature detonation is an accident, not the act of a suicide bomber.  I see the old editing pattern is back again Irvine; find a hobby horse and ride it across several articles regardless of context, facts or anything much else for that matter.   Please try and reform ....  --Snowded TALK  00:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: How do we know that premature detonation was the case here? I suspect immature detonation, myself. Irvine22 (talk) 03:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: QED on your editorial intent--Snowded TALK  11:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, you can't say how we know the detonation was premature, rather than the intentional act of a suicide bomber? Irvine22 (talk) 18:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What does it matter? O'Brien is history. GoodDay (talk) 19:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

text: I'll not be feeding this at all. But it is getting a bit tiresome. --Domer48'fenian' 12:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

text: Irvine22's question is irrelevant. GoodDay (talk) 19:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean "O'Brien is history"? BigDunc 19:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: O'Brien is dead. GoodDay (talk) 19:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but was his death a suicide, is the question? Irvine22 (talk) 01:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: He didn't plan to kill himself. GoodDay (talk) 01:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you know that? Irvine22 (talk) 01:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: People make mistakes. GoodDay (talk) 01:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And sometimes they also carry out evil intentions. Irvine22 (talk) 01:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

text: Dunc serious, don't keep feeding. --Domer48'fenian' 20:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're referring to the corresponding AfD? I've struck-out my 'vote'. GoodDay (talk) 20:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Right Irvine, O'Brien did not detonate the bomb so it was not a suicide please cut this bull shit you give the air of intelligence will you try and show some instead of trying to stick rubbish into articles that you know are controversial. BigDunc 12:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Did Hasib Husain detonate his bomb? Irvine22 (talk) 19:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes. BigDunc 19:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you sure? And how did O'Brien's bomb go off, if he didn't detonate it? Irvine22 (talk) 22:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Try not be silly Irvine.  Normally your disruption at least shows the odd spark of creativity, but this is tedious.  --Snowded TALK  22:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suicide bomber? 

message: Now that the Edward O'Brien AFD has ended with a Keep result, I'd like to point attention to the additional O'Brien sources I've found and brought up at that AFD discussion. I plan to eventually incorporate this info in the article at some point, but if anyone else would like to go ahead and do it first, be my guest! :) — Hunter Kahn (c) 21:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The description of O'Brien's move to UK "on active service" is a euphemism and an uninformative way to describe someone whose intent was to set off bombs. Also the article implies that his death was some kind of tragic accident - I very much doubt that the bystanders and those injured would see it that way, which is why I have tagged this article. These are real concerns--AssegaiAli (talk) 21:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have sources then fix it, otherwise don't bother tagging the article to suggest the inclusion of points of view that aren't documented in reliable sources. 2 lines of K303 13:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

text: This article violates WP:UNDUE--79.66.149.164 (talk) 20:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't have an opinion on the template, but I have altered the unqualified use of the term "on active service" which is jargon that only seems to be used by Republican sources. It has an unclear meaning to anyone not already familiar with the subject, so lets just explain what it actually means in as neutral terms as possible. Rockpocket 21:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the heading "Active service" to "Paramilitary activity" in the interests of NPOV, but O Fenian reverted. Surely it is POV to use the term "active service" which, as noted above, is a term used by republican (and loyalist) paramilitary groupings to denote legitimacy to their activities. Mooretwin (talk) 01:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Active service is not only military jargon, its also a very non-descriptive term that can cover a wide range of unspecified activities. I wouldn't recommend its use in the biography of a member of a professional military force, and it is especially problematic in one about a member of a proscribed paramilitary force where it also carries a number of POV implications. Can we be more specific about what this "active service" consisted of (prior to the bus bombing obviously)?--Jackyd101 (talk) 12:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

text: I support using the term paramilitary activity--AssegaiAli (talk) 13:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  More sources 

message: I see this article is under attack by one, and possibly more (although I doubt there is more than one), editor. Firstly the primary sources tag is inappropriate, since the "non-primary" source footnotes outnumber the "primary" source footnotes. This, plus attempts to add youtube links regarding "own goals" and the removal of sourced information claiming it wasn't sourced means I'm not prepared to assume good faith with this editor. 2 lines of K303 10:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Disruption by IP editor