Talk:Guildford pub bombings

message: The word "overturned" in reference to the sentences of the "Guildford Four" is a bit tame. No mention of the story of Conlon and the atrocities that occurred. [Comment added by 68.9.195.151 02:19, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What extra material would you expect to find here? Conlon's story is covered in Guildford Four Why repeat it here? --Theo  (Talk) 00:00, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Guildford Four

message: I'm a little confused as to why there are two values for the number of injured. The number given in the BBC News on this day article (In Context section) linked from this article contradicts the number given for "BBC News" but agrees with the other given by the Telegraph. I'll correct this shortly unless there's any other comment.--Sully 22:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number injured 

message: Should be Guildford Pub Bombings.86.16.117.32 07:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. Correct the way it is per WP:MOS.GiollaUidir 18:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move & redirect 

message: It's not a perjorative term, it's the name of the group, unlike the practially made-up name being used. One Night In Hackney303 22:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Gang

message: While I don't much care either way, why is it that a list of the victims here is not allowed, it being viewed as a memorial, but the list of victims is displayed very prominently in Bloody Sunday (1972)? Is there a large underlying difference I'm missing, or is it inconsistent? -R. fiend (talk) 20:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "Memorial"

message: QS, I don't see this being a problem anywhere else. What gives? Gob Lofa (talk) 23:57, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it is problematic, and the use of AP as a source has been the subject of contention and debate. I doubt there is anything of encyclopedic value in AP that cannot be found in reliable sources not operated and/or edited by the 'RA's Army Council. Yours, Quis separabit? 00:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Balderdash. Gob Lofa (talk) 07:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Only somewhat of an outsider here...but..given the government censorship in the years of context (both British and Irish) can one claim, say, that BBC was reliable on this issue? Juan Riley (talk) 21:36, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  @Juan Riley: And An Poblacht was not self-censoring? Did AN/RP ever interview a non-SF politician or the family of a non-republican/nationalist victim? There are more than enough sources to garner reliable information from digitally than there were in 1995 or 2000. By the way, I get the reference to the San Patricio from Clifden. Quis separabit? 21:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You didn't answer Juan's question, QS. Gob Lofa (talk) 22:00, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I was only noting that there are no innocents here. (Well that and my first confusion when I thought you were talking about Associated Press as AP.) Does it matter where the censorship came from? Can one point a finger at An Phoblacht for being unbalanced in what they did report (perhaps from self-censorship), and then not fairly point a finger at BBC for being unbalanced given what they did not report (perhaps coz of Maggie et al)? A shame on both their houses. But don't wave a yellow flag of journalism at only one. Juan Riley  (talk) 22:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: QS? Gob Lofa (talk) 13:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: An Phoblacht

message: The Balcombe Street Gang were not convicted of crimes this article accused them off. See Talk:Balcombe Street Gang#Significant BLP issues with this article, Time Bomb: Irish Bombers , English Justice and the Guildford Four by Grant McKee and Ros Franey page 371 . FDW777 (talk) 21:09, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Violation of [[WP:BLP]] removed