Talk:Omagh bombing/Archives/2009/5

RIRA Culpability

Why are we saying the RIRA perpetrated the Omagh bombing when there is no proof they did Spritos (talk) 22:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spritos (talk • contribs) 23:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

You're joking, right? The Squicks (talk) 00:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

No one's been convicted for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spritos (talk • contribs) 00:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

No one has been convicted of Bloody Sunday (1972). Thus, it was all a hoax and we should thank the British troops for valiently defending themselves against a mob of hooligans and terrorists. The Squicks (talk) 00:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I missed your point. Why are we saying the RIRA perpetrated the Omagh bombing when there's no proof they did. Shouldn't we be using the word allegedly when referring to the RIRA in this context?. The burden of proof is on us to provide support for assertions we make. Right now we are accusing people of a crime without substantiating our allegationsSpritos (talk) 22:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC).—Preceding unsigned comment added by Spritos (talk • contribs) 00:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

There's a universal consensus among everyone except for members of the RIRA of its splinters itself that they did it. The Squicks (talk) 00:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you think that I should rename Bloody Sunday to 'Alleged Bloody Sunday' in which British soliders allegedly shot Irish civilians who allegedly were harmed? The Squicks (talk) 00:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Universal consensus is proof of nothing. Your Bloody Sunday comparison doesn't hold. There is a mountain of evidence that it happened - that British soldiers fired on and wounded protesters.

There is on the other hand, as you know, no evidence that the RIRA had anything to do with Omagh. None.

Your writeup of Omagh appears incoherent, even contradictory. You say the RIRA perpetrated the bombing and then go on to provide nothing to substantiate your assertion, even mentioning the fact that no one's been convicted for itSpritos (talk) 22:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spritos (talk • contribs) 00:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Listen to me. Even the damned Provos admit that it was the RIRA that did it. Find me one single reliable source anywhere that says that they were framed, and I will consider adding it. But if you've got nothing to support yourself but hotair, than stop this nonsense. The Squicks (talk) 01:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Since when was the standard of evidence "hot air"?

I assume you believe in the standard of evidence, and that Wikipedia does too.

It shouldn't be too much trouble to provide some evidence in support of your assertion here if you are so sure the RIRA did it.

The Provos are irrelevant. Their word isn't evidence. It isn't proof. Why would you take the word of terrorists anyway?

I don't have to provide evidence of their being framed or any other scenario. Shifting the burden on to me is just a distraction. The standard of evidence applies regardless. Whether they were framed or not is irrelevant. We first have to establish their guilt or innocence.

You made an assertion. It only makes sense that you back it up. If we don't support our assertions, then Wikipedia is just a gossip page.

Universal consensus is proof of nothing. Your Bloody Sunday comparison doesn't hold. There is a mountain of evidence that it happened - that British soldiers fired on and wounded protesters Spritos (talk) 22:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC).

PROVE IT. Apply your logic on yourself. The Squicks (talk) 01:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't have to. The standard of evidence applies universally, without qualification .

THEN PROVE IT. Prove that the British hurt them. You have NO physical evidence. The Squicks (talk) 01:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Turning this around on me doesn't remove your responsibility to substantiate your claims. Nothing does.

I don't have to prove the British hurt them. The standard of evidence applies to Omagh regardless. We can discuss Bloody Sunday all day but that doesn't change the fact that the standard of evidence applies to Omagh.

In any case, there's a mountain of evidence - unlike Omagh - that the British hurt them e.g. witnesses and wounded Spritos (talk) 22:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC). (talk) 22:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC).

Look, I've had enough of your obvious trolling. Just stop posting. The Squicks (talk) 01:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Asking that Wikipedia observe the Standard Of Evidence is trolling? I'm somewhat taken aback that you don't embrace the concept Spritos (talk) 22:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC) Spritos (talk) 22:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC).

An admission of responsibility means this discussion is pointless. O Fenian (talk) 08:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

No it doesn't. A confession is of little value without evidence to support it. My accountant could say he did it. Confessions frequently are false, and false for a variety of reasons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_confession#Coercive_false_confessions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_confession#Voluntary_false_confessions http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/False-Confessions.php http://www.truthaboutfalseconfessions.com/

That's why we have a judicial system.

Again, I don't understand why this simple, obvious, requirement of evidence is meeting so much resistance here. It's a little surprising that the issue of integrity and Wikipedia's reputation itself isn't a concern of yours. If Wikipedia bandies about unsupported accusations and allegations then it's just a tabloid page Spritos (talk) 22:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC).

O Fenian, I appricate the sentiment, but don't feed the troll.

'Spits' here can deny the holocaust or deny bloody sunday or deny the Omagh bombing or deny the 9/11 attacks or deny whatever reality that they want. No proof will ever satisfy her. If people just ignore the troll, she will go away. The Squicks (talk) 22:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

You guys are in blatant violation of the Wikipedia talk guidelines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_guidelines

You should be ashamed of yourselves that you have resorted to childish personal attacks instead of civil exchange as the talk guidelines and common civility require Spritos (talk) 22:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spritos (talk • contribs) 22:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Please stop your vandalism. I will admit that I should have been more reasonable in my tone, but this is still simple vandalism by you. If you continue, you may be subject to sanctions such as blocking. The Squicks (talk) 22:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

How is this vandalism? A review of the Wikipedia Vandalism criteria quickly establishes that I am in no violation of Wikipedia Vandalism policy.

The Vandalism page makes clear that any good faith attempt, even a harmful attempt, to improve Wikipedia is not vandalism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism

All I'm doing is asking, in a civil fashion, for a simple measure that will insure article and by extension Wikipedia's integrity.

I have insulted no one and expressed concern only that Wikipedia adhere to a universally accepted standard that separates good reporting from bad Spritos (talk) 23:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC).

If you are really that familiar with Wikipedia policy, than you should know that when there is a universal consensus of editors against one person, then majority rules. And what you are doing is blatant vandalism. Going to the page 'Talk:The Holocaust' and commenting "Let's name it to the alleged holocaust since there is no physical proof, only statements from people that are forced confessions." would also be vandalism.

Stop posting. Stop commenting. The Squicks (talk) 23:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Nothing I'm doing here meets the criteria for vandalism as outlined on Wikipedia's vandalism page. I am making a good faith effort to improve Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spritos (talk • contribs) 00:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand that consensus rules. But, as the vandalism policy page states, consensus does not preclude (civil) discussion.

In addition it's not clear Wikipedia's vandalism policy applies here. I am not attempting to revise or edit an article. I am merely suggesting an improvement.

Instead of dragging this on and allowing the exchange to deteriorate into name calling, you should have just invoked the consensus/majority rules and ended the discussion.

Trying to associate me with holocaust deniers is dishonest and constitutes another personal attack on your part.

As for the evidence, there is a clear and universal requirement that anyone making an assertion provide substantiation for that assertion. In the case of the Omagh bombing we have no evidence, no leads, as to who the perpetrators are. I don't see why the lack of evidence can't be integrated into your article. Wikipedia risks its reputation by making an unsupported categorical statement of guilt. Wikipedia strives for accuracy and integrity. Failure to mention such an obvious simple fact can only hurt Wikipedia in the long term Spritos (talk) 23:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC).

The Squicks is right. The RIRA admitted responsibility. Lets leave it at that, lest you venture into the realm of OR which is not allowed at Wikipedia.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that we dont feed the troll they are either unable or unwilling to accept the facts RIRA have claimed and apologised for the bombing. BigDunc^Talk 09:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Improving the article

Hackney brought up some points, which need to be considered one by one. The Squicks (talk) 02:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Point One is an opinion which I regard as simply wrong.

You can regard it as wrong, but that doesn't make it so. The rationale is that it shows the reader where the car was. WP:NFCC#8 requires that the image "significantly" increase the understanding of the topic, I do not see how "the car was parked at the side of the road near shops" cannot be understood without that image, and how the image would significantly increase the understanding of that sentence. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Also I'm not against the use of a fair use image for the infobox, I'm against the use of that particular image as I really don't think it is useful. There are plenty of images that show the destruction caused by the bomb, one of those should be used instead. And on the subject of images, as there's at least one free image (there may be more, I only did a quick check on flickr so it's worth checking properly) of the memorial talked about in the article, it should be in the article. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Point Two is correct in that the lead describes information about the court case that is not mentioned later in the text. The lead needs to recap what is mentioned in the article e.g. the self-help group forming, the failed prosecutions, the ombudsman report, and the memorial foundation. I will fix that soon. The Squicks (talk) 03:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, the memorial and the self-help group are not particularly a big enough issue in the whole scheme of things to include in the lead. I think that it is fine now. The Squicks (talk) 03:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Point Three is correct in that "forced" is POV. As well, the wording was not really accurate- implying a cause and effect relationship. I changed it to which later apologised, a clear and neutral statement.The Squicks (talk) 03:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Point Four is false. The sources support the wording. In fact, the wording here is so close to what the CNN source says that it's close to being plagiarism.

This CNN source? "The Omagh bombing caused international outcry" versus "nature of the bombing created a strong international and local outcry against the RIRA". That source does not support the current wording, to suggest it does is wrong. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Point Five is correct. I fixed the link and I fixed the wording. The Squicks (talk) 03:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Point Six is correct. I fixed the problem. The Squicks (talk) 03:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Point Seven is correct. I removed the sentence.

Point Eight is correct. He is not notable as a person, so that section was heavily revised by me. The Squicks (talk) 04:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Point Nine is correct. That was a silly accidental mishmash of text done in editing. The section was revised.

Point 10 is, in my opinion, wrong. If someone was involved in an operation in that way, then they are an accessory to murder and have every reason to be included as 'perpetrators'.

No it's not wrong, read what I originally said. "that's quite a significant accusation not supported by the sources". So what do the sources say? Sky say "The car, which had been stolen in County Monaghan a week before, had its Republic of Ireland number plates replaced with Northern Ireland plates before it was parked outside a clothes shop on Omagh's Market Street." BBC say "The bomb car's southern Irish plates had been replaced with northern ones so police checks wouldn't have

shown it was stolen." Neither source attributes any responsibility, they just state the bare facts which were that the plates were changed. Your claim that they are perpetrators and an accessory to murder is your opinion which doesn't belong in the article. Your opinion isn't backed up by existing prosecutions either, for example Colm Murphy was not charged with being an accessory to murder or conspiracy to murder, he was only charged with conspiring to cause the explosion (and with IRA membership). 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Point 11 I don't understand. I completely disagree, one time is British time and the other is international time.

They are both British time, they mean the same thing. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

On second thought (or third thought, or fourth, whatever the f-ing level I am at now), it would be best to use the 15:10 number for consistency. The Squicks (talk) 01:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Point 12 is correct. I changed the wording to Three phone calls were placed warning of an attack in Omagh.

• I will get to the other points later ( I have a life too, you know :-) ).The Squicks (talk) 18:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• No rush. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

As Jimmy says, Wikipedia has no deadline. The Squicks (talk) 01:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)