The
contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to
the Troubles, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in
limited circumstances)
Neutrality: All editors on Troubles-related articles are directed to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as
outside opinions.
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or
poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see
this noticeboard.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belfast, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the City of
Belfast,
Northern Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the
project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
discussion.BelfastWikipedia:WikiProject BelfastTemplate:WikiProject BelfastBelfast-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Explosives, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Explosives on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ExplosivesWikipedia:WikiProject ExplosivesTemplate:WikiProject ExplosivesExplosives articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Irish Republicanism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Irish republicanism and
Irish nationalism related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Irish RepublicanismWikipedia:WikiProject Irish RepublicanismTemplate:WikiProject Irish RepublicanismIrish Republicanism articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Northern Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Northern Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Northern IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject Northern IrelandTemplate:WikiProject Northern IrelandNorthern Ireland-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on
terrorism, individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the
discussion and see a list of open tasks.TerrorismWikipedia:WikiProject TerrorismTemplate:WikiProject TerrorismTerrorism articles
This article is within the scope of
WikiProject Unionism in Ireland, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Unionism in IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject Unionism in IrelandTemplate:WikiProject Unionism in IrelandUnionism in Ireland articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
You may be right on the second point, I'll conceed that. However, in this instance, the term
terrorism is not POV. This was a deliberate attack on a civilian target, fact that the target was intended to be empty of civilians at the time of the attack is irrelevent. Nine civilians WERE killed. This alone makes it a terrorist attack, regardless of any of a dozen other arguments for the term--
Jackyd10121:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)reply
There you raise firstly the issue of whether the UDA were civilians or not, their organisation was not recognised as a military one by any official body. However this is irrelevant, because even if the target was military (which is debatable), the victims of the attack weren't. See your own talk page for a definition of terrorism which clearly includes this incident. Nine civilians died in the attack, even if they were not the direct targets of the weapon they were still the victims of it, therefore this was a terrorist attack and should be labelled as such.--
Jackyd10122:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Not really interested in this argument, but if you plant a bomb in a chip shop with (at the most) an 11 second warning, I don't think you can argue that civilians were not targeted.
Stu’Bout ye!09:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)reply
So are you denying the well documented fact that the target was the UDA leadership and are you also suggesting that it was a sucide bombing mission?--
Vintagekits09:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)reply
God forbid that any PIRA volunteer would ever do the decent thing! Of course he isn't!
If you wish to remove it then be my guest, I have no wish to enter into an edit war with you over this but I'd like to point out that the links you have provided totally fail to prove your point. As you would know if you actually read the text of this link, [
[3]] does not apply in this case as this is not a tribute page to "departed friends and relatives" and neither is it the "subject" of the article. Thus that rule is inappropriate in this context. Furthermore, the short and sharp discussion you gave as you second link [
[4]] failed to demonstrate any guidelines on the policy regarding this and was concluded by an editor since banned indefinately for edit warring and incivility. This frankly makes me doubt it's conclusions and suspect that the removal of these lists of names has a sectarian motive rather than an editorial one (not making a personal comment about you, simply commenting on a trend). For example, recently
Featured ArticleÉcole Polytechnique massacre quite happily contains a similar list, as does
Dunblane massacre and
Monash University shooting to name just two others. Only in the Northern Ireland context are such lists removed, and with very poor justification. --
Jackyd10111:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)reply
The oldanarchist has been edit warring today using an edit summary which implies that a consensus has been reached that in our encyclopaedia we should blur and muddy the distinctions between the various flavours of terrorist groups laying claim to the title of IRA. Unless someone can propose very good reasons I propose that our article errs on the side of clarity. This is an encyclopaedia not Provisional Wikipedia...Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) talk •
14:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Have you actually read the reference? Many senior Irish politicians condemn Adams precisely for his coffin-carrying. In any case, four more references added, and tag removed.
BastunBaStun not BaTsun13:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)reply
I did read it thanks. However in case I've missed the text in question, I suggest you post it here: The current problems with the sources for this alleged "widespread criticism" are in reference order:
"It seems strange that somebody should carry the coffin of a person who planted the bomb and yet say they want to be part of the peace process" - not cricitism, that's interpretation on your part
"Mr. Adams's action tonight in carrying that coffin is not a peace signal to the Unionist community." - not criticism, that's interpretation on your part
Criticism from someone called "Mr Baird", well that's one piece of criticism.
"In part Gerry Adams maintained his position by taking a step forward only when he was sure he had the support of the vast majority of the movement. That was one reason why he carried the coffin of Thomas Begley, an IRA member who killed himself along with nine bystanders when the bomb he was planting in a Shankill Road fish shop exploded prematurely, in October 1993: non-Republicans asked how he could possibly do this if he was interested in peace." - not cricitism, that's interpretation on your part
"When Mr Adams shouldered the coffin of IRA man Thomas Begley, who was killed in the Shankill bomb, both governments moved to distance themselves from John Hume." - not criticism, that's interpretation on your part
iraatrocities.com may be partisan, but no moreso than Tírghrá and An Phoblacht, which are accepted as
WP:RS around here. As for interpretation on my part? Um, no, they're criticisms, and not from me.
BastunBaStun not BaTsun23:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Not true, T and AnP are both attributable and verifiable. iraa is just some guy with a website, not back by a known or recognised organisation. It fails
WP:RS due to
WP:V.--
Vintagekits23:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Ditto. In addition you are interpreting a primary source and drawing your own conclusions, that is original research. You are also synthesising various different sources to try and draw the conclusion that Adams was "widely criticised", again that is original research. I will not re-add the tag at this moment due to a possible violation of 3RR, but it will be added back and if you continue to engage in original research I will seek further help.
Brixton Busters23:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)reply
I think I actually added the criticism ditty into the article - he was criticised - widely might be a strecth - but he was criticised - but also praised.--
Vintagekits23:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Seems to me that BaStun is engaging in original reasearch here and making conclusions from an unverifiable website. I am sure I can find a source from someone who praised his actions but not sure they will meet WP criteria for references.--
BigDunc09:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Can (certain) members of
WP:IRA please try to bear in mind
WP:NPOV - we are (supposed to be) trying to write an encyclopedia. That means facts should be reported, however unpalatable they might be to one's PoV, rather than jumped on and excised. If Vintagekits is saying Adams was criticised, well, that pretty much clinches it. I've added another reference supporting the fact of the criticism - and I've also added a sentence saying his attendance was understandable, with two supporting references. Both views included, both referenced. That better?
BastunBaStun not BaTsun10:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Excuse me, but you're in the wrong here. You breached policy, so do not attempt to blame other editors.
Here you claimed my request for a citation was "pointy", when the reference provided had no criticism of Gerry Adams. So exactly who was in the wrong? That would be you. You then
added back text I removed after you refused to source it, and the reference still did not support the text of "widely criticised", and in fact you were
interpreting a primary source. You then added further sources, which were generally unreliable or did not support the text. How is "When Mr Adams shouldered the coffin of IRA man Thomas Begley, who was killed in the Shankill bomb, both governments moved to distance themselves from John Hume" a criticism of Gerry Adams? Nobody has denied there was criticism of Gerry Adams, all that was asked was that you source it according to Wikipedia policy. You repeatedly failed to do so, even going so far as to say
I remember it, which is a total breach of policy. If you continue to disrupt Irish patriot related articles with your policy breaches I will seek intervention.
Brixton Busters10:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)reply
*sigh*. I moved the first reference to indicate it was referring to the funeral only. I supplied five more references (then removed one because it wasn't liked). You've selectively quoted parts of one reference. The pertinent sections, in context, are most certainly critical of Adams:
"Mr. Gerry Adams, the leader of Sinn Féin has disgraced himself most of all in recent days. He disgraced and contradicted himself today by taking part in a peace process while condoning and supporting the people carrying out the atrocities. Such action must be condemned."
"Indeed one could not say this evening that there is much difference between Sinn Féin and the IRA when one witnessed the closeness of Gerry Adams today to the man who helped carry out the atrocity that occurred on the Shankill Road on Saturday last. Gerry Adams must clearly and immediately indicate his total rejection of violence in a clearer manner than he did this day if he is to retain any credibility in talks."
"It is not enough for somebody merely to say they want to be part of the peace process and refuse to condemn violence. That seems a fundamental contradiction in the thinking of Mr. Adams. It seems strange that somebody should carry the coffin of a person who planted the bomb and yet say they want to be part of the peace process. People keep telling us [184] things are different in Northern Ireland, but some things are the same."
"The hypocritical statements of regret on the part of the IRA leadership and the phoney expressions of concern on the part of Gerry Adams will be treated with the contempt they deserve by the majority of decent people on this island, particularly as his real loyalty was demonstrated by his active presence this morning at the funeral of one of the bombers."
"Nobody has denied there was criticism of Gerry Adams". Then why did you remove that from the text? "All that was asked was that you source it according to Wikipedia policy". Done. I do not disrupt articles, period, whether they are on Irish patriots or Irish terrorists. I try to be as NPOV as possible. I may not always succeed - but at least I try. I just wish others would aswell.
BastunBaStun not BaTsun11:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)reply
I did not selectively quote from that source. The text is lengthy, and searches for "Adams" produced dozens of results. Searching for "coffin" brought up the ones I quoted above. I
specifically asked if there were any I had missed and suggested you post them here. Did you do so? No, so please do not blame me for selectively quoting when I asked you to post the relevant quotes here and you failed to do so. Why did I remove the text? I asked for a citation, and you removed the citation request without sourcing it. Verifiability not truth, as the saying goes.
Brixton Busters20:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Category addition
There are objections (noted by reverts with cursory edit comments) to the addition of this article to a category regarding massacres. As no discussion has taken place, I would like to request comments on the issue. --
86.12.24.209 (
talk)
15:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Let's centralize this discussion here, rather than having multiple discussions on every one of these talk pages. This is rather ridiculous. But, to the matter, as Hack has said, it is up to you, anon. user, to indicate why the category is appropriate, not the other way 'round. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive'15:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Proposed rewording of introduction
The current introduction (most of which I wrote myself) reads:
The Shankill Road bombing or Shankill bomb was one of the most notorious incidents of the Troubles in Northern Ireland. It occurred on 23 October 1993 in Belfast. The Provisional IRA's intended target was a meeting of loyalist paramilitary leaders, which was to take place above a fish shop. Unbeknownst to the IRA, the meeting had been rescheduled. Shortly after entering the shop, the bomb exploded prematurely, killing the IRA operative and nine civilians.
My proposed rewording is:
The Shankill Road bombing or Shankill bomb was one of the most notorious incidents of "the Troubles" in Northern Ireland. It occurred on 23 October 1993 in Belfast. Using a time bomb, the Provisional IRA planned to assassinate a group of loyalist paramilitary leaders. The leaders were to meet in a room above a fish shop, but – unbeknownst to the IRA – this meeting had been rescheduled. Shortly after entering the shop, the bomb exploded prematurely, killing the IRA operative and nine civilians.
For the infobox, I also plan on adding "premature explosion of time bomb" rather than simply "time bomb", since the latter is misleading. Thoughts?
~Asarlaí15:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)reply
I don't have a major problem with it; just that it doesn't mention the use of a time bomb ("...the bomb exploded" seems to come out of the blue) or that the meeting was to take place in a room. I'll add "premature explosion" back to the infobox.
~Asarlaí15:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)reply
The article says it went off in the late afternoon, but I have read on a memorial site that it detonated at 13.03; this would make it early afternoon by any reckoning. Does anyone have a RS which can confirm the time of the explosion?--
Jeanne Boleyn (
talk)
15:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)reply
I have just modified one external link on
Shankill Road 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.
I have just modified one external link on
Shankill Road 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.