Jump to content

Talk:Glenanne barracks bombing

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Proposed for deletion

[edit]

I propose this page for deletion because:

1. The information concerning the actual attack is contained within Attacks on the Ulster Defence Regiment (in particular) and Ulster Defence Regiment.

2. The information from the background section is largely cruft and is of little relevance to the actual attack itself.

3. There are too many separate articles on individual events during The Troubles.

4. Although relevant when created this article has outlived its usefulness and in the interests of a strong wiki needs to be deleted.

I suggest that anyone who may have objections should examine the Attacks on the Ulster Defence Regiment article and try to improve that. The experience for readers and researchers will be much improved by having ALL attacks available on one page only. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:05, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion withdrawn

[edit]

Redirect now in place keeping the original page which can be recovered later if necessary.

Discussion

[edit]

I don't think this article is needed anymore and would like to see a redirect in place. There are three possible locations I would suggest:

1. Ulster Defence Regiment - my least favourite choice even though this is the parent article. It's my least favourite choice because it's getting too busy and too long, although the attack is mentioned there in less detail.

2. List of attacks on the Ulster Defence Regiment - this article needs building up.

3. 2nd_Battalion,_Ulster_Defence_Regiment. The barracks belonged to this battalion and it's another page which needs more work, which I'm prepared to do.

When DagosNavy created this article it served a purpose but in my considered opinion, because of the development of the articles on the UDR since, it has become redundant because: the actual attack occupies only one paragraph and even with the background paragraph, which I honestly feel is just padding, the article is never going to be raised beyond a stub.

I initially proposed deletion but after discussion elsewhere and some consideration I now feel that would be wrong because it serves the purpose of being a target for search engines on the topic. Upon reflection I would suggest the 2 UDR article as the best place for the redirect - because they owned the base.

I'd really appreciate some feedback on this - thanks. SonofSetanta (talk) 09:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I have a blow-by-blow account of this incident which would greatly enhance the content. SonofSetanta (talk) 09:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, SonofSetanta. Since, as yourself has acknowledged, there is stuff "which would greatly enhance the content", this article could be expanded further. Therefore, as the goal of Wikipedia is "to compile the sum of all human knowledge" and there is a substantial info about the bombing, this incident deserves a page of its own, not a mere entry in a list or a side note among UDR-related articles (why not in another Troubles-related or IRA-related pages?). The infobox, coordinates and the fair-use pic would be also lost without justification.
The background section tell us a lot of info about the bombing itself; the fact that this was the only attack on the base during the conflict, the closing of the barracks after the bombing and its conexions with the tit-fo-tat killings in East Tyrone. Too much for being merged into a list or an unrelated article.
The article is not a stub at its current status, but a C class one (per WPMILHIST)--Darius (talk) 16:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In my view the information within this article would sit much better at 2nd_Battalion,_Ulster_Defence_Regiment. Which isn't a UDR related article - this one is! The substantial info you mention could easily be incorporated there along with other notable attacks on soldiers from Glenanne Barracks and other companies within 2 UDR - the battalion which took the most casualties during the troubles of any British Army unit. Potter alone devotes 4 pages to the bombing. The fair use pic wouldn't be lost and neither need the information on the infobox. My own opinion is that it wouldn't be worthwhile expanding this article as it has ceased to be useful and will be even less so when the 2 UDR page has been built up by me. why don't you muck in there? You've got a great working knowledge of the Troubles and I'd lay money on us creating a Class A. Go and have a look at Ulster Defence Regiment and see what I mean, and I'm not even halfway through there yet! SonofSetanta (talk) 16:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm packing in for the evening. There's no rush with this. Have a think and let me know your decision after consideration. If the worst comes to the worst and we still don't have concensus I'm sure you wouldn't mind putting in an RfC to MILHIST and seeing what opinions we get? SonofSetanta (talk) 17:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merger - The article is on about a specific attack, and there are many such articles on Wikipedia. It is highly notable for it's own article. Mabuska (talk) 10:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel it's any more notable than many others, for example, the Attack on the Deanery at Clogher belonging to 8UDR - found here Ulster_Defence_Regiment#Opposition_forces or the first recorded use of the Mk12 horizontal mortar which killed 2 soldiers from 2 UDR (the battalion who owned Glenanne base). SonofSetanta (talk) 14:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merger. I think any battle or action, in any conflict, is usually notable by itself, and not by the military units involved. The conexions with the Tyrone killings at the time, the fact of being the largest bomb to explode in NI until then, the closure of the base after the bombing (not unheard of in NI, but quite uncommon) and its impact in the press made this action enough notable not just for the UDR (as could be the case of individual killings of soldiers) but for the Troubles as a whole.--Darius (talk) 16:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There may well be something in what you say which is why I suggest a redirect rather than deleting the article. The upshot however is that this event will be included in Ulster Defence Regiment, 2nd_Battalion,_Ulster_Defence_Regiment and List of attacks on the Ulster Defence Regiment. All quite rightly so. My contention is that this article, in these circumstances, becomes surplus to requirement. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The mentions on those articles can link to this article. All those articles need is a synopsis of the event with this article providing further details on it. I do not see it as becoming surplus to requirements. Mabuska (talk) 11:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a sub article to all the others however and sub articles should only really be used in this fashion when there is no room in the parent article. That's my current viewpoint. SonofSetanta (talk) 11:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I insist, this attack was relevant not just to the UDR (and even less to one of its battalions), the bombing is relevant to the whole Troubles for the reasons I mentioned above.
I am from Argentina, and I remember a Reuters report published in Spanish in one of the main Buenos Aires newspaper (La Prensa) on 2 June 1991, a clear signal of the notability of the event by itself. Instead, the individual killings of UDR members were rarely cited by the non-English speaking press in the course of the Troubles.--Darius (talk) 23:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely agree that it's relevant. It's very notable however that it's only one of so many notable incidents concerning the UDR. It's certainly not the worst. I'm in two minds which is why I started the discussion. Having now started on the individual articles for each UDR Battalion (prematurely in my opinion - must be the heat) you can see how these notable incidents are part of the individual makeup of each. This incident sits very well in 2nd Battalion, Ulster Defence Regiment, which I see you've edited - thank you. 2 UDR was the most heavily engaged battalion of the entire regiment. They lost 65 men and women and found recruiting very difficult which is why their numbers fell to around 450. Why not do a redirect for the moment and concentrate our efforts on building up the 2 UDR article? If it starts to get too large then we take each notable incident, including this one, and make separate articles for each. There's also the issue of the "Attack on the Deanery, Clogher" a 6 UDR base and the largest attack ever mounted by the IRA in modern times. We have no article on that and only the barest information on the 6 UDR page.
If you have an interest, which I suspect you have, why not become my editing partner on these articles. I have the regimental and battalion histories at hand but I need someone with an interest to do what you do - read the copy and make sure I'm keeping the POV and Weight right.
Have you read the main Ulster Defence Regiment article lately? Have you any comments or edits there which might help? SonofSetanta (talk) 15:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the suggestion of a redirect. I agree with Darius' last comment. This attack is not only relevant to the UDR, it is also relevant to the PIRA and to the Troubles as a whole. Such attacks have their own articles and to basically claim it as being relevant to only the UDR is in my view is wrong. Mabuska (talk) 14:54, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion closed. Article to be kept by general concensus. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Glenanne barracks 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:50, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Glenanne_barracks_bombing&oldid=1255554755"