Talk:Massereene Barracks shooting

Name

Shouldn't this be at 2009 Massereene Barracks shooting? It seems absurd to have the name of an entire country in the title (we wouldn't have "2009 United States shooting", etc). Bradley0110 (talk) 12:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Too Many Quotations?

I would suggest that the quotes to include here would be those from the UK Prime Minister, the Republic Of Ireland Taoiseach and from Northern Ireland's First Minister and Deputy First Minister. If a statement is made by the organisation responsible that would also be relevant. That makes a total of five. Is this still too many by Wikipedia standards? 80.176.88.21 (talk) 18:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there are too many quotations. To present a truly NPOV, the article has to include the quoted statements from diverse groups and people not just heads of state.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Machine Gun?

Albeit I recognise that there is a citation to an AFP article which quotes someone as referring to the attackers having "Machine Guns". I've found that this is typically a misnomer. I may be entirely wrong but the likelihood of the attackers using what would classify as a Machine_gun, is very low. It's more likely that they used an automatic assault rifle. [1] Once again I may be wrong, this is just a hunch, as most machine guns are very bulky and difficult to transport. Paolorausch (talk) 19:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

From machine gun: "machine gun is a term of art for any fully-automatic firearm" - so an automatic rifle is a type of machine gun. Nothing had stated "automatic rifle" at the time and I just used what Yahoo! said. I have now replaced it with the more specific and recent information. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The BBC reports that they used "semi-automatic rifles" EconomicsGuy (talk) 19:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

That BBC page was last update around 2pm. This BBC article states "automatic rifles", and is more recent (~6pm). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know who wrote that they were shot with G3A3 rifles. They were shot with Romanian AKM rifles with the forward wooded grip, and 7.62x39mm casings were recovered from the scene, therefore could not have been a G3. Someone with a log-in please correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.75.84 (talk) 07:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Soldiers' names

DO U HAVE THEM?

They aren't being released yet, likely out of respect to the victims' families. Please be respectful yourself. FlyingToaster 21:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Even when available I'm not sure it would be necessary to include the names of the victims here. Doesn't Wikipedia have a policy on this? 80.176.88.21 (talk) 21:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

There's no policy against including them, per Wikipedia is not censored, but I don't see any necessity to add them to this article except in the very unlikely case that one already had a Wikipedia entry. FlyingToaster 21:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/7933990.stm) is reporting Cengiz Azimkar's first name as Patrick. The name Cengiz is Turkish (or at least in origin), and so is the surname, so I think Patrick must be an English nickname. But it does pose the question as to what his real name is. Maybe we should change it to Cengiz "Patrick" Azimkar. Given my experience, not knowing the guy, it's more likely than not that most people knew him as Patrick. Although we shouldn't assume anything. --Luccent (talk) 08:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Already changed. The official MoD statement was updated and now only refers to 'Patrick Azimkar'. 80.176.88.21 (talk) 08:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

21:40

Happened at 21:40? It couldn't have happened then because UTC is 21:14. That means it happened in the future. Ciaran1534 21:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Silly me. It happened yesterday. Ciaran1534 21:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Bias

It's quite obvious that this newly-created article has a bias leaning toward support for Britain. Will an admin please purge the article of said bias so as to create a balanced account of what happened/what's happening?

Thanks, Matt =)

Hey Matt. Anyone can edit Wikipedia, not just admins, but I have to ask where you see bias? I've read the article through and it seems pretty factual, though it could use some expansion. Can you say specifically what you think is a problem? FlyingToaster 23:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Why has Matt not been blocked? He clearly has a history of troublemaking and vandalism.

Back to the point of the article itself, why is the leader of Republican Sinn Fein quoted? He is not a mainstream or elected politician in Northern Ireland, can we please only have prominent people quoted?

Ruairí Ó Brádaigh is included for relevance regarding his past positions in the IRA and Sinn Féin and currently Republican Sinn Féin. His history with the IRA and Troubles is why his quote is relevant. FlyingToaster 00:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Then why not Martin Mcguinness? The man is the Deputy First minister and he isn't even mentioned. But we quote a person that used to be of some prominence but has been denounced by all sides and is an irrelevence in that he has no support from virtually anybody on either side in northern ireland.92.8.199.158 (talk) 01:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I think a relevant quote from Martin McGuinness would be appropriate. FlyingToaster 01:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Then why don't you add one? He is quoted on almost every news source, Ruairí Ó Brádaigh on the other hand is quoted nowhere, except for this article. His quote comes from his own press release on a crappy website. Wikipedia does not exist to generate publicity.

A unionist should be quoted: First Minister of Northern Ireland Peter Robinson A Nationalist should be quoted: Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland Martin McGuinness The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Gordon Brown should be quoted and finally the Taoiseach (Prime Minster) of the Republic of Ireland Briain Cowen should be quoted.

Wikipedia isn't a collection of quotes - it's really pushing it to have that many. If you want to replace one quote for another, or add one, feel free and we'll take a look - but we're not trying to get a quote from everyone that could be possibly relevant here. FlyingToaster 01:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

If you agree then why are we arguing? The current number is far too many, there should only be 4, the 4 above that I just listed.92.8.199.158 (talk) 01:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we are arguing, I've said please go ahead and change it if you like. FlyingToaster 01:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I edited the quotes. There is now 1 each for the respective prime ministers, 1 for the first minister, and one for sinn fein leader gerry adams. I thought it was probably better to have gerry adams because he is the president of sinn fein whereas mcguinness is only vice president.92.8.199.158 (talk) 01:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

This means there are now two quotes from the Sinn Fein leadership. I would like to see one of these removed and replaced with something that represents the views of those that perpetrated the attack. Does the Real IRA have a political wing? If not, then the Republican SF quote is probably the closest I've seen so far. At the moment we have five quotes all from people opposed to this action. 80.176.88.21 (talk) 07:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

"At the moment we have five quotes all from people opposed to this action" - please keep in mind that you are describing terrorist activity. No, the RIRA does not have a representative in the Assembly ready to tell us they are glad two people are dead. Please give a little more thought to what you post here, as I'm sure you can guess that most would find the idea of seeking out an official statement from someone that endorses these murders as incredibly offensive. FlyingToaster 08:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Please remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a forum for opinion or a place where editors should worry too much about giving 'offence'. Clearly some people still support terrorist activity in Ireland or this event would not have happened. If an encyclopedia is to include any quotes, responses or views on an event like this, it should also include quotes from supporters of the action (...and presumably any rational reader will be shocked by those views). The quote from Republican Sinn Fein (Ruairí Ó Brádaigh?) was a good one to include as it illustrates the mindset of these sick psychopaths/brave freedom fighters (delete as applicable). 80.176.88.21 (talk) 19:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I think there should be a quote from Republican Sinn fein or the 32 County Sovreignity movement or someone. If the 9-11 article can have quotes from Osama bin Laden on, I don't see how doing similar here should cause a problem.Steve3742 (talk) 11:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the Sinn Fein reaction to this attack, in particular Gerry Adams joining in calls to work with the police is an important demonstration og how they've moved and should be retained. If there have been any statements from the gunmen justifying their actions then include that as well. --Nickpheas (talk) 12:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Two pizza men wounded

One of them Polish [2], [3]. It's not typical, that Poles are wounded in IRA attacks.Xx236 (talk) 09:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I have changed the article to reflect that one delivery driver was Polish and one was Northern Irish. I know this by personal means (knowing the delivery driver). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.219.87.179 (talk) 11:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

1. Sectarian violence is no longer "typical" in Northern Ireland 2. the Troubles took place well before Poland joined the EU in 2004. I reverted your edit because out of all the details we might learn about six people, we can't just throw in the fact that one is Polish... it's a bit of a bizarre emphasis. I'd only mention ethnicity if we are mentioning everyone's ethnicity, and to be honest I don't see any need to go into detail about the victims' particulars, as I mentioned above. FlyingToaster 15:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Surprizingly citizenship of local people is typically local, UK. When a dog bits a man, it's not any news.15:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)Xx236 (talk)

Unfortunate pagemove could be ahead

There's been a second shooting in Northern Ireland today [4]. No one has claimed responsibility for it, but if we find this to be another attack by the RIRA, we should probably consider bringing information about it under this article and renaming to something like the 2009 Real IRA attacks in Northern Ireland. Thoughts? FlyingToaster 01:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Such a move would not be consistent with the way RIRA activity has been documented on Wikipedia to date. The Massereene barracks shooting is (probably) significant enough to have its own article. I think other actions, such as attacks on PSNI officers, can continue to be detailed in the Real IRA article as they have been for the past couple of years. There's no reason to assume that 2009 is a year in which RIRA will maintain a higher level of activity than in other recent years. 80.176.88.21 (talk) 07:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

This news item reports that another dissident Republican group claimed responsibility for the Craigavon shooting. Autarch (talk) 10:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

This report however, does suggest that the two incidents are related, that there's been some cooperation between Real IRA and Continuity IRA. 139.222.233.79 (talk) 11:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but a line like "There is believed to be cross-over and co-operation between the Continuity IRA and the larger Real IRA" provides no evidence whatsoever that such cooperation exists.--Damac (talk) 12:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It does, however, imply that investigation is underway into any connection: a point that is worth bearing in mind for the near future, rather than any immediate addition to the article. -- 139.222.233.79 (talk) 12:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

two unarmed British soldiers

The article contridicts the opening paragraph which says "...two unarmed British soldiers from 38 Engineer Regiment were shot dead...", the article lated states this "...Two of the soldiers, Sappers Mark Quinsey from Birmingham and Cengiz Azimkar from London, were killed..."

Consider fixing the inconsistancy so it sounds correct?

--ACoolName (talk) 15:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

ACoolName - where's the inconsistency? FlyingToaster 15:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It opens by saying 2 unnamed soldiers but they are no longer unnamed.

--ACoolName (talk) 07:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

No, it says they were unarmed, not unnamed. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 07:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I've edited this. There's no need to sensationalise an encyclopedia entry by use of emotive terms. We don't have a reference that says whether or not the victims were armed... and anyway, how is it relevant? It has been reported that the guards on the gate were armed but were unable to return fire without risking hitting people other than the attackers. 80.176.88.21 (talk) 08:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted your edit. Leave the facts in and your opinions out. Let the facts speak for themselves. --Rockybiggs (talk) 09:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC) P.S i have added the source--Rockybiggs (talk) 09:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Why is it relevant whether or not the victims were armed? The soldiers were also young, male and wearing desert fatigues... why not also include these facts? Placing the emphasis on the fact that the victims were unarmed implies that if the soldiers had been carrying weapons the attack would have somehow have been more justified and/or less cowardly. Please try and think like the editior of an encyclopedia and not like a tabloid journalist. 80.176.88.21 (talk) 18:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it is relevant that they were unarmed. An encyclopaedic article should cover all the significant and relevant facts. Stating that the victims soldiers were unarmed is not commenting on whether the attack was justified or not. I believe the vast majority of people would consider it was unjustified even if they were armed. However whether they were armed or not does help explain how the attack unfolded, which should be the purpose of the article. For example we are told that guards didn't fire back at the terrorists to avoid risking hitting the soldiers and pizza delivery men. Koekemakranka (talk) 00:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Republican Sinn Féin

Why is Republican Sinn Féin included? They are not only not a mainstream political party (they hold no seats), they are not really a political party at all. I think it would be best to remove them from the Responses section. Superm401 - Talk 19:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Despite being proscribed as a terrorist organisation by the US government, Republican Sinn Féin is a political party and has fielded candidates in elections. The RSF statement was included as they are probably the only organisation that reflects the political views of those that perpetrated this attack. 80.176.88.21 (talk) 21:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Yet, what we face on Wikipedia is a tendency to censor those views we find uncomfortable. This is a reflection of the media and public in general; they wanted to believe that these political Neanderthals had disappeared. Only those who read the "in brief" columns of papers knew that these groups were still active. Now they've hit the scene bigtime and we've people here who still want to believe they don't exist.

Explaining is NOT apologising. I couldn't give two sh*ts for RSF or the CIRA, but by pretending they don't exist is just wishful thinking.--Damac (talk) 23:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried reading the Wiki atricle on Sinn Féin? Preformances 2000s, they won quite a number of seats in 2005, so yeah, I'd say they are both a real party and a mainstream party in Northen Irland. --ACoolName (talk) 07:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

We not talking about Sinn Féin, but Republican Sinn Féin. Have you tried reading up on the difference between the two?--Damac (talk) 07:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Advertising - Unneccesary?

Domino's Pizza was linked to its page. I don't think this is necessary as we are not trying to advertise companies. This should go for all links to companies etc. GT - Eire (talk) 20:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Linking to a company's Wikipedia article is not advertising, it is building the encyclopedia. If the link was externally linked to the company's website, that could be considered advertising, but internally linking to its Wikipedia article definitely isn't. In fact opposite to what you suggest, most of the time a company should be linked if it has an article, since most companies are probably not very well known to most people and they may be curious to learn more about the company. LonelyMarble (talk) 17:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Police Fatalities

This sentence: "This was the first police fatality in Northern Ireland since 1998." is clearly inaccurate. I believe four PSNI officers were killed in a traffic accident recently. A lot of news sources are reporting it as 'the first fatality' when obviously what they mean is that it is the first deliberate killing by paramilitary groups. Does anyone have any suggestions for how we could rephrase it to make this a bit more clear? --78.86.244.182 (talk) 08:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest just cutting a lot of this information out as it should be covered elsewhere (such as in the CIRA article). The shooting of Constable Carroll may not be directly linked to the Massereene Barracks attack... other than a case of two terrorist organisations competing with each other. 80.176.88.21 (talk) 08:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Should the shooting of the policman have it's own page too? I havn't seen any links to it on this page and given the timing of the two attacks it is likely they are linked somehow. Philman132 (talk) 13:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Should this page be retitled to allow details of both incidents be covered in full, given the likelihood of their relation and the proximity in time?Trustcited (talk) 16:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

IMO no. Mainly because the RIRA claimed responsibility for this one, and the CIRA claimed responsibility for the other one. If a connection is established then yes, but whilst two different parties are claiming responsibility for each attack I think it should be regarded as an unfortunate coincidence and kept seperate. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Media sources are starting to suggest the opposite. For instance, front page of the Times today was someting along the lines of "co-ordinated attacks by Irish republicans". -- 139.222.232.235 (talk) 22:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

For the time being, I have changed the sentence I identified above to read 'the first murder of a police officer'. It's probably not the best way of expressing it, and I agree more discussion may be needed as to whether this event is linked, but my alteration does at least make the statement accurate. It is also much closer to what is said in the BBC article that is linked as reference 18 as the source for this statement. --87.86.242.99 (talk) 11:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Political wing of IRA

Someone is insisting that Sinn Fein are the political wing of the provisional IRA. Please state where this "fact" comes from otherwise it will continue to be deleted. BBC news a legitimate source, and in this BBC news article, it states "Sinn Fein used to be widely regarded as the political wing of the IRA, but today the party insists that the two organisations are completely separate." http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/northern_ireland/understanding/parties_paramilitaries/sinn_fein.stm Therefore the comment that they are the current political wing of the IRA is invalid and completely false. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.251.229.240 (talk) 01:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

'Completely false' just because Sinn Fein says so? Not even the slighttest chance that SF politicians might be lying about the links between their party and a terrorist organisation? Martin McGuinness was an IRA Chief of Staff and Gerry Adams almost certainly was too. However, I would say that the quality of this article is getting worse as some editors seem to be pushing their own personal POV. 80.176.88.21 (talk) 07:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Definitions

Shouldn't this be classified as murder, or at least as an act of terrorism? Or does the Wikipedia standard mealymouthed attitude towards terrorism in Ireland still apply to avoid upsetting anyone on any side of the divide or the Atlantic?Jscb (talk) 11:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

As currently written the article describes this as an 'attack' in which two soldiers were 'shot dead'. This seems to meet the Wikipedia standard which is to have a 'neutral point of view'. 80.176.88.21 (talk) 18:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Taoiseach (Prime Minister)?

This has always irked me, why are is the term Prime Minister written in brackets after Taoiseach? If someone doesn't know what the title Taoiseach means they can follow the link to read the article that explains it. KMcD (talk) 18:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, why not just leave the link for people to click, rather than right one or two words in brackets (That aren't always strictly true.(82.3.44.167 (talk) 19:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC))

Why is Taoiseach used at all in an English-language article? Mooretwin (talk) 09:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Because that is the title of the office that Cowen holds it is not Prime Minister. BigDunc^Talk 12:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Presumably the titles of the offices held by the French and Russian prime ministers are not "prime minister", yet English Wikipedia refers to them as prime ministers. Why should it be different for ROI? Mooretwin (talk) 12:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

It's common (at least in the ROI) for the term Taoiseach to be used without translating it, likewise for Tánaiste (though not for President). WP:IMOS doesn't specifically address the issue of titles but says under Other articles that when the Irish version of a name is more common and recognised by English speakers, prefer the Irish name for the article name, which might be extended to titles - I'm not sure what the procedure for that is. I appreciate that this is complicated by the context of the original article being about an event in the North, but as the article on Taoiseach explains the role in its second paragraph, it's probably easiest to leave it that way. Autarch (talk) 09:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it reasonable to apply the rationale for article name also to particular words. If "Taoiseach" is considered by English speakers to be the more common and recognised term than "prime minister" for this particular office, then Taoiseach seems fine. Mooretwin (talk) 09:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Related info

Hi. I am wondering where this info is relevant on Wikipedia. I played football with one of the Sappers a few years ago as a kid. Patrick was very good at the game. Anyway, he said his grandad Ferguson was in Colditz during WW2 and got his mates out by certifying them insane. He was a joker so I didn't take him seriously. But looking at your pages on the matter it looks like Patrick wasn't the only one with audacious moves [5]. Could you tell me where this sort of UK army related info may be relevant? Humbertello (talk) 03:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2009 Massereene Barracks shooting. 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/20090313035104/http://www.army.mod.uk/news/12929.aspx to http://www.army.mod.uk/news/12929.aspx
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/army-base-savings-lsquoshould-be-used-to-fight-dissidentsrsquo-14424898.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 12:33, 18 June 2017 (UTC)