Jump to content

Talk:McGurk's Bar bombing

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

Victims

[edit]

The list of names of those killed in this incident was removed in accordance with Wikipedia policy, but the list can still be seen by those interested at: Previous version including list of names

Conspiracy theory?

[edit]

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)[reply]

Article revised

[edit]

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)[reply]

Article overhauled to remove errors, unreferenced speculation and irrelevant material.Billsmith60 (talk) 22:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteers / members

[edit]

"IRA volunteers" would be better worded as "IRA members" would it not? --Eamonnca1 TALK 16:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Agreed. It's all over Wikipedia though; you've got your work cut out. JonChappleTalk 17:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Per links provided above.--Domer48'fenian' 18:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Read 'em. JonChappleTalk 18:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The matter is now being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland. --Eamonnca1 TALK 00:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Matter is not been discussed there. Your conducting an ill informed straw poll based on the unsupported opinion of editors. This issue was well discussed [1] Mediation Case, detailed discussion and consensus on the Article [2] talk page and supported by a referenced and sourced article on Volunteer Article[3]. While consensus can change, this straw poll conducted by and editor oblivious to these previous discussions is not going to do it.--Domer48'fenian' 17:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Links still don't work over here. JonChappleTalk 17:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Here's the sentence in question that is currently in the article:

"Three other unsigned letters were sent to the RUC. They suggested that it was an IRA bomb "in transit" and that two IRA volunteers were killed."

This is presently sourced to page 37 of the Ombudsman's report. So we are in effect representing that the report says that the letters say that two IRA "volunteers" were killed. In fact the report uses the term "members", while (according to the report) the letters seem to use the term "Provos". So what's the sourcing for the claim that the letters referred to "volunteers" in this case?. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 18:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

I cited those diff's as examples only and they are very relevant to the point you are trying to make. The article content is supported by the source cited. It is not inaccurate, misleading or distorting anything. If for example the source said IRA Freedom Fighter, would we be having this discussion? The most important information in that sentence is: They suggested that it was an IRA bomb "in transit". After all, this whole discussion is based on the fact that two editors hadn't a clue that this had been discussed to death and a consensus had already been reached.--Domer48'fenian' 19:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Soldiers / British soldiers

[edit]

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

BA violence

[edit]

It's misleading to write "launched armed campaigns" as if they came out of the blue. The Provos were almost all from places that had been on the receiving end from both the RUC and (for less time, but no less deadly) the BA. See Falls Curfew etc. 12:59, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

That's a poor reason to give. Also it's misleading to state "NPOV - RUC killings of Catholic civilians long predated attacks on police" when the change you made also affects the mention of the army and Northern Ireland government. Republicans targeted the army first so how could they be retaliating against them? Also how does it sound like they came out of the blue? You can plan armed campaigns for years before actually launching them so that doesn't hold water. Events like the Falls Curfew happened after the IRA had started attacking the army so how can that be used as a reason for "retaliated" in the context of the wording in the article? Heck if you want we can into even further detail the IRA's Border Campaign of the 1950s which didn't help Catholics very much. Your edit also ignores the other factors in the IRA's reasons for action against the security forces and state, most notably the fact they wanted to establish an united Irish republic. The IRA used and abused the mistreatment of Catholics for its own ends and your edit only seeks to imply that that was the only reason for it. Mabuska (talk) 19:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's an excellent reason, and my edit summary wasn't misleading; all of these institutions had initiated aggression against Catholic neighbourhoods long before any IRA retaliation. While the BA had been doing so for the least time, it still had form. "Republicans targeted the army first" - that's just flat out wrong - the BA put it up to republicans first, starting with forcing through Orange marches with violence in March 1970. After the '69 riots, the IRA had been concentrating on defence; I don't know of any attacks on the BA until the Falls Curfew in August 1970. I don't know of any others until February '71 when the BA again came into Catholic areas and got Gunner Curtis killed. I don't see the relevance of the Border Campaign at all; how did you meander in that direction? "The IRA used and abused the mistreatment of Catholics for its own ends" - excellent, at last a pearl of fact, but you mess it up with the rest of the sentence, which I don't understand; what do you believe my edit implies? Gob Lofa (talk) 21:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mabuska. Since I educated you about the beginnings of BA/republican violence, have you any other objections to my edit? Gob Lofa (talk) 12:28, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do find it funny how you think your a Troubles expert because you read a few websites and think you understand the whole situation considering you didn't even know why the Shankill is considered loyalist and East Belfast not. Mabuska (talk) 14:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have done no educating, simply POV pushing with your OR, removing accurately (something you can't do) cited information. You have no consensus for your edit. Open a RfC or invite views from the relevant Wikiprojects to see what other editors think. You seem to have a hard time understanding many things on this site and other editors comments. Is English even your first language? Mabuska (talk) 14:17, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Which part of my reply above do you take issue with? Gob Lofa (talk) 17:02, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you can verifiably and accurate source it with academic sources, then its OR and personal opinion and Wikipedia does not do that. Also you do not address your constant removal of the UVF declaration. What has that got to do with the RUC/BA? Mabuska (talk) 21:05, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An explanation to a colleague temporarily under the wrong impression about a timeline of events isn't for inclusion in the article, so the question of OR doesn't arise here; it's to help you. If you're dubious about any part of it, by all means let me know and I'll bring some links, or you could have fun investigating yourself. As for the cited UVF declaration, I don't see its relevance. Gob Lofa (talk) 23:00, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Any retort? Gob Lofa (talk) 20:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have failed to answer my request... provide academic sourcing and not OR and personal opinion. And when I say academic, I mean academic and by reliable scholars who are respected for their knowledge of The Troubles not some half-interest/knowledge that you can poke holes at. Mabuska (talk) 14:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A good read of Jonathan Bardon's critically acclaimed "A History of Ulster" seems like a good retort for your claims above, and makes it clear the PIRA's intention well before those events you "describe". The reasons why they couldn't launch any attacks on the army was a desperate shortage of members and weapons and opinion of the BA amongst Catholics still being highly favourable at the time.

For lack of arms and members read page 675: "In Belfast fewer than sixty men regarded themselves as IRA members and most of these 'drop-outs after the border campaign"... "No arms training had taken place in years and in May 1969 the IRA's total arsenal in the city was a machine gun, a pistol, and some ammunication. A few more firearms were unearthed on the night of 14 August and IRA did fire shots into...". Can't launch or "retaliate" with an armed campaign without a good supply of members and weapons.

This bit I also find revealing especially in regards to your argument and views on the period:

Page 677: "During the first months of 1970 the Provisionals operated with caution, knowing that the great majority of Catholics still welcomed the presense of British troops and openly fraternised with them. If anything, the army encountered more difficulty with Protestants"... "Troops were equally tough when confronted by Catholic mobs. On Easter Tuesday, 31 March 1970, the Junior Orangemen had permission to march in Belfast. On their way out they marched along the Springfield Road without incident, but on their return that evening Catholic youths began to throw bottles at the bands and when about seventy soldiers of the Royal Scots Regiment arrived they were attacked with stones and petrol bombs.

According to you: "the BA put it up to republicans first, starting with forcing through Orange marches with violence in March 1970". That's not what the above by a respected historian says, are you sure? Though the real crux of the matter for what we are on about is whether to state "retaliated" (obviously a poor choice considering the PIRA were intending to launch an armed campaign anyways) or "launched"...

Page 678: "That summer the Provisionals launched a bombing campaign. Targets in July and August included the Elsinore Hotel in Belfast, the homes of the Lord Justice Curran and the Reverend Martin Smyth MP, a customs station in Armagh, the Newcastle telephone exchange, the Newry bus depot, several electricity substations over the region, and a number of public houses. There had been a hundred explosions by mid-September but these were on a small scale, merely a foretaste of what was to come."

No mention of attacks on the army, and except for the Lord Justice and a single MP, no real attacks on the NI government, or even the RUC. So is that how you retaliate against them, by attacking pubs and other non-state places?

It is only one source, but at least its a reliable and academic one. Mabuska (talk) 15:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Thomas Bartlett - Ireland A History", page 511: "It would, however, be a mistake to see the Provisional IRA as simply a product of the August "pogrom" of 1969. Very many of those involved in the new military structure had significant 'previous' as IRA veterans, having been involved, like Joe Cahill, in the organisation since before the Second World War, or like Sean MacStiofan and Daithi O Conaill, having taken part in arms raids in England or in attacks along the border with Northern Ireland in the 1950s. Others, like Gerry Adams, came from a strongly republican family, with a tradition of IRA activism on both his father's and mother's side going back at least to the War of Independence. Such men constituted a sort of officer class among the first Provos: for their part, the earliest foot-soldiers recruited to their ranks had been almost entirely radicalised by the events of August 1969 and had little prior history of republican activism."
"Initially, relations between the British army and local defence committees, usually Provisional IRA dominated, were quite good, with many examples of cooperation. Undoubtedly, old-time republicans resented the British army presence on 'their' streets, but they well knew that, given the state of their training and weaponry, they could do very little about it; and in any case, ordinary Catholics in the affected areas genuinely regarded the army as their protectors... Such apparent harmony, however, was not to last, and over the next two to three years there was a total breakdown of relations between the British army and the Catholic population of working-class districts of Derry and Belfast. The reasons for this collapse have been much canvassed. Some have argued that as the Provos grew stronger they embarked on a deliberate strategy of tension and actively sought to engineer confrontations with the army, confident massive over-reaction and further alienation would result. Others have detected the malign hand of Unionist politicians behind the escalating violence... Yet again, others have pointed to a noticeably tougher military policy on the ground with the coming of the Tories into office in Britain, and with the appointment of Edward Heath as prime minister in June 1970."
...
"During 1971 the Provisonal IRA began to move on to the offensive. In February 1971 the first soldier to die was shot dead under cover of a riot. (The previous August the first members of the RUC had been killed when two were blown up in an explosion near Crossmaglen, county Armagh.)"
Back to Bardon's book, page 678, in regards to Ballymurphy riots that took place after that Junior Orange parade: "The Provisionals, who had actually tried to restrain the youths at first, steadily gained recruits after these riots and recognised the value of deliberately provoking confronation with the army."
It is clear from these two books, that whilst the IRA did claim to be the "defenders" of the Catholic community despite the "I Ran Away" jibes from that same community in 1969, which gives a form of justification for attacking the British Army and RUC if they were intruding, it doesn't give justification to claim that they launched an armed campaign as retaliation. Their is a stark difference between defense and offense, and I've yet to see "retaliation" mentioned as the reason for the launch of armed campaigns, with the impression heavily given that the PIRA were simply waiting and engineering an opportunity to strike and not as retaliation but as offense for their ultimate aim, a united Ireland.
Mabuska (talk) 17:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Seamus Mac Annaidh, Irish History, page 184: "British brutality, summary searches and arbitrary policing turned the wider Catholic population against British security forces and government. The IRA found it easy to convert this into patriotic support for their cause, leaving the Civil Rights Movement and its socialist-radical leadership foundering. From here it was simple for the IRA to start organising the rioting by directing attacks on security forces and providing arms like grenades to supplement the home-made petrol bombs."
Doesn't sound like retaliation to me, but of the IRA using and abusing a situation for its own ends, obvsiously being a united Ireland hence the "patriotic". Mabuska (talk) 17:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good work, Mabuska. Gob Lofa (talk) 18:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"As for the cited UVF declaration, I don't see its relevance." - the article makes it clearly relevant. As the statement says, they declared war on the IRA, yet had did nothing of any note. Then this attack happens, which the article lede states was the worst in Belfast during the Troubles and is described by Bardon (page 686) "the most horrific single incident of the year", as well as the fact it killed civilians instead of IRA members and the claims of collusion, makes it very relevant. Mabuska (talk) 20:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

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:

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) 18:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Location

[edit]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:McGurk%27s_Bar_bombing&oldid=1252292375"