Talk:McGurk's Bar bombing

message: Some of the info is pretty far out and with the exception of a non neutral source, are completely unvertifible.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.152.21.16 (talk) 21:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Conspiracy theory]]?

message: This article has now been revised and is no longer a stub class article - the stub status should be removed. Because the above commentator is unsigned and "unvertifiable", and made no attempt to revise or correct the article, he/she should have been ignored. Ardfern (talk) 22:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Article overhauled to remove errors, unreferenced speculation and irrelevant material.Billsmith60 (talk) 22:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Article revised

message: "IRA volunteers" would be better worded as "IRA members" would it not?  --Eamonnca1 TALK 16:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would. We either need IRA volunteers and UVF volunteers or IRA members and UVF members. We can't have an article that calls one group of paramilitaries their preferred titles but the others not. JonChappleTalk 17:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be "members' in both cases. "Volunteers" is too loaded, it's a small step away from calling them "patriots" or "heroes". --Eamonnca1 TALK 17:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. It's all over Wikipedia though; you've got your work cut out. JonChappleTalk 17:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You can agree, but you need consensus to change the current use. This is well discussed, and has its own article.--Domer48'fenian' 18:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you'd like to discuss here instead, seeing as your talk page is strictly off-limits. Why is it OK to you to describe IRA members as volunteers but not those of the UVF (Ulster Volunteer Force)? JonChappleTalk 18:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Per links provided above.--Domer48'fenian' 18:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Read 'em. JonChappleTalk 18:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. It's either "members" for both groupings or "volunteers" for both. "Members" is my preference, of course. Mooretwin (talk) 19:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The earlier consensus referred to above is here:"In the main text of an article the word, volunteer, is free to be used, but this has to be judged in each particular instance to achieve maximum sense and good style. It should not be used rigidly and other terms such as "IRA member" can also be used or any other appropriate reference. Different terms can be interspersed, and may vary from article to article." So both can be used. Same applies to loyalist groups judging by the discussions on the volunteer page. Agree that we should be consistent. Valenciano (talk) 19:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The matter is now being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland. --Eamonnca1 TALK 00:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

text: Links still don't work over here. JonChappleTalk 17:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The language about "two IRA volunteers" having been killed is sourced to the Ombudsman's Report, p. 37, which deals with anonymous letters mailed to the police in the aftermath of the bombing. If you read the relevant pages of the report, you will find no reference to "volunteers". It refers simply to IRA "members", while the letters in question seem to have used the term "Provos". Therefore, whatever the merits of the debate about the use of "volunteer" in a broader context, it is simply not supported by the source cited in this particular case. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 00:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Very interesting, thanks Ivor. So if we end up going down the route of "call them what the sources call them" with regards to volunteer, in this case, at least, it wouldn't be appropriate. JonChappleTalk 06:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: In this case it would clearly be inappropriate, as we would be saying something that the cited source just doesn't say. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 14:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  What guideline or policy mandates that we have to use verbatim language from the source and not an appropriate reword? Mo ainm~Talk 15:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There appears to be a dispute over whether what you term the "reword" of the source is in fact appropriate. Why depart from the indisputably NPOV language - "member" - in the source, when the alternative language is unsourced and disputed? Ivor Stoughton (talk) 16:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The is a long held consensus on the use of the term volunteer, a term which is considered NPOV. If it is your opinion that the term volunteer is not, I'd suggest you get sources to back it up.--Domer48'fenian' 17:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I have no problem with the use of the term volunteer in cases where the sources support it. However in this particular case we are attributing its use to a source (the Ombudsman's report) that does not in point of fact use it. We must be absolutely scrupulous in our use of sources, don't you agree?Ivor Stoughton (talk) 18:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

text: The letters are not being quoted, if for example it said "two IRA volunteers were killed" in quotation marks, well then you would have a point, because we would be misquoting what the source says. Since we are not quoting verbatim there is no problem.--Domer48'fenian' 18:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Direct quotation or not - and the use of quotation markes around "in transit" seems to suggest an element of direct quotation - we are still representing what the letters say. Best to do it more accurately than not, surely? Ivor Stoughton (talk) 18:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: So for example if I were to follow your suggestion as I did here were it is a direct quote, it would be ok and that this here would be wrong. This is just an example.--Domer48'fenian' 18:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I don't see the relevance of those diffs. Policy is clear that article content must be directly supported by the cited source. In this case, "member" is directly supported by the source; "volunteer" is not. Or, if you prefer, we could also go the route of direct quotation from the letters and say "Provos". So that would be:
"Three other unsigned letters were sent to the RUC. They suggested that it was an IRA bomb "in transit" and that two "Provos" were killed." Ivor Stoughton (talk) 19:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

text: If the source said that the letters said "IRA Freedom Fighter", and we were concerned to represent what the letters said, then we would say "freedom fighter". As things actually stand, we should say "member" or "Provo" as that is what the source in fact says. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 19:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Volunteers / members 

message: See discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland on whether to refer to "soldiers" or "British soldiers". --Eamonnca1 TALK 18:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soldiers / British soldiers 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on McGurk's Bar 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/20090906090414/http://www.thenewlodge.com/history/mcgurksbar.html to http://www.thenewlodge.com/history/mcgurksbar.html
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) 18:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: It would be nice if there was a more specific location given in the infobox.  Was the bar at the northeast or southeast corner or some other corner of those two streets?  Also, it appears from the old photo that Great George Street was not an elevated highway (the A12) at the time?  It's all a bit confusing to place since the article mentions in the last section that the memorial is near where the pub was, but I don't even know if that means it's even on the same corner. --Criticalthinker (talk) 10:42, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location