Talk:Warrington bombings

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

Terrorism[edit]

This was an act of terrorism as defined in law by section 14 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 and listed as such in the Hansard debate linked in the article [1]. Tim! 13:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Totally disagree, 1. civilians "non-combatants" were not target the target of this attack, 2. Who's definition of terrorist/terrorism are we to use? - there are 100's of definitions, 3. It is completely POV and therefore not in keeping with WP:NPOV, 4. also see Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Terrorist, terrorism.--Vintagekits 13:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since when has Boots the Chemist become a legitimate military target? Planting bombs in shopping centres is clearly terrorism, as is bombing Gas tanks in a town centre. Astrotrain 14:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since when is Boots the Chemist a civilian--Vintagekits 14:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it is POV, please give a source which doesn't say this was a terrorist incident. As for "words to avoid", it says "The words terrorism and terrorist may be cited where there is a verifiable and cited indication of who is calling a person or group terrorist" and as I say above UK law clearly defines this as a terrorist act. Tim! 14:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki doesnt go by UK law alone - In UK law the city of Derry is actually Londonderry but it is not called Londonderry on wiki. Terrorist attack is POV in this occasion and other where the target was not civilians.--Vintagekits 15:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NPOV policy is not about not stating views, it is about balancing opposing views, and who does not view this act as terrorism? The distinction between civilian and non-civilian is also a POV. Tim!
Exactly its based on POV and therefore should be removed.--Vintagekits 15:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, your not even answering the question now... Tim! 15:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, here is a Britsh website and no reference to a terrorist attack - its called a bomb attack--Vintagekits 15:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, this does not explicity states that this was not terrorism. That article neither says it was or was not terrorism. Also if you read the article they did not know at the time of writing that the act had been perpertrated by the IRA. Tim! 16:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, if it doesnt not state it is a terrorist attack then that is obviously implicit. I can add a lot more references if you issue, I can also add one where it states that it was carried out by "freedom fighters" - do you think that should be added also? It's called balance--Vintagekits 17:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find a reliable source which says this was an act of freedom fighters you can add it to balance out what you seem to perceive as bias. Tim! 18:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is not the way wiki works! I am going to call it a "Jelly and Icecream attack" unless you can provide a reliable source which says this was not a "Jelly and Icecream attack" then it should be added! Obviously that is nonsense but just shows that your suggestion is equally not the way forward.--Vintagekits 19:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're the one removing the categories despite sources which sconcur. Don't create absurd strawmen. Tim! 19:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a strawman, terrorist is POV as is freedom fighter,--Vintagekits 21:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I try not to rise to nonsense but if you can provide a link that specifically states that the target of the Warrington bomb was shoppers then I would only be more than happy to put it in the article.--Vintagekits 20:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As you are an Irish Republican I can understand why this would be a sensitive issue for you but (1) you'll see from the above link that all Brits (no modifier saying "armed" or "military" Brits) were an acceptable IRA targets and Coogan is a reliable source (2) the bomb was placed in a busy shopping centre at midday on a Saturday and (3) the warning sent the emergency services to a totally unrelated town 15 miles away I think certainly can't describe my edit as "nonsense" or indeed POV.82.27.185.89 20:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1. sign your posts, 2. the link you provided doesnt say anything about Warrington 3. Get something that relates directly to Warrington and we can talk. 4. I wont be posting again until you provide information specifially about Warrington and not in relation to the Falls Curfew.--Vintagekits 20:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think your points 2,3 and 4 are essentially saying the same thing. The link I refered to above related to the strategic reaction of the IRA to the Falls Curfew, not the event itself. As I have quoted a source setting out strategy it is, I think, acceptable to suggest that an event was in furtherance of that strategy which was, as explicitly set out in the Green Book, to kill Brits. I really don't see the problem here. Nonetheless I will defer to your experience and obvious sensitivity over such matters 82.27.185.89 21:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC) 82.27.185.89[reply]
The fact that a coded warning (however appalling botched) was given suggests to me that the intention was that shoppers should have been cleared from the area before the explosions occured. If that is the case, i think it more reasonable to assume that the target was property rather than people. Guy Hatton 22:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have to disagree. The poster above has shown that it was IRA strategy to target all British people. All the sources I have seen say the bombs were in the street rather than the shops. If property were the target then the litter bins they were placed in were the obvious casualty. Maybe we should say the target was the bins or the street itself - the if the IRA wanted to damage a shop they tended to put the bomb IN the shop (Shankhill, Harrods etc.) 80.169.129.163 09:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, the above poster is arguably misusing the source, which refers to a particular time period, to particular events unrelated to the Warrington bombing, and which talks about who 'the people' saw as legitimate targets in those circumstances, at that time, not necessarily who the IRA viewed as such. The poster is making a generalisation which is not justified by the source, which is quoted in a highly selective manner. From Coogan, here is the full passage:
Tactics are dictated by the existing conditions. Here again the logic is quite simple. Without support Volunteers, Dumps, Weapons, Finance, etc., we cannot mount an operation, much less a campaign. In September 1969 the existing conditions dictated that Brits were not to be shot, but after the Falls curfew all Brits were to the people acceptable targets. The existing conditions had been changed.
Likewise at present, for example, although the leadership of the S.D.L.P. has proved itself to be collaborationist and thus an enemy of the people. At various stages since 1974 we could have employed the tactic of making them subjects of ridicule by tarring and feathering them when for instance they were members of an Executive which tortured and interned Irishmen, which penalised rent and rates strikers, etc., or when they recently declared at Westminster in a debate on H Block that 'Life should mean Life and there should be no Political Status'. The defensive precaution in the latter example being of course that the people be made aware beforehand that they actually did make such an utterance.
The rule of thumb for all our actions can therefore be clearly seen to be that we must explain by whatever means we have at our disposal why we bomb, why we punish criminals, why we execute informers etc. Guy Hatton 13:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but I still don't think we can "assume" the shops were the tarket as you put it. The coded warning only mentioned Boots (and that one in Liverpool) and that the bomb was "outside". The intended target was therefore further into the street - so the targets could be the shops, thestreet itself, the litter bins, the people surrounding the litter bins or nothing (just inducing panic). Based on the location of the bombs some distance from the shops I think it would be POV (insofar as it implicitly accepts that the IRA NEVER targetted civilians and only "economic" targets in these circumstances - many would disagree as we see above) to suggest that the target was the shops. I think identifying the street/bins as the target would be neutral and leave the reader to draw their own conclusions. 80.169.129.163 13:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree entirely that the article should not speculate as to the intended target - I made the suggestion above with the simple intention of demonstrating that there might be more than one way of interpreting what happened. I've amended the info box to give the 'target' as Bridge Street (generally) instead of anything more specific: I think this is probably the least problematic approach. Guy Hatton 13:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Common sense dictates that the target was the location of the explosion and anything likely to be in that are at the time. No warning of the attack was given, since the call made warned of a completely separate action that didn't exist. It was an attack designed to kill civilians. Gomez2002 13:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's been 15 years now since that day when I found myself much too close for comfort to these two bombs. As for the target; being of Irish stock, I can't see any reason why Warrington in particular was targeted (as the town itself has a sizeable Irish-catholic population which has always lived peaceably in the town), but also I really can't understand why the British don't seem to grasp that the target of the IRA always was the British people as a whole. The IRA knew that it could never take on Britain militarily. The reason for the bombs was to (over time) make the British population so damned sick and tired of 'the Irish Question' that they would vote for any political party which dared to break ranks and make withdrawal from Ireland and 'dumping' the problem part of its manifesto. That is why all political parties in Britain formed an 'alliance of wills' against even discussing the idea. So the target was random - whoever happened to be standing near the bombs at the time. ChrisRed (talk) 08:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the intended target for the second bombing from businesses to shoppers; since when has a rubbish bin in a public street been classed as a business? If it were intended to affect businesses then the bomb would have been located inside Boots. As it was, the intended target was clearly civilian despite the IRA's cowardly claims afterwards. 130.159.204.33 (talk) 12:41, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice bit of original research there IP. Mo ainm~Talk 13:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article title[edit]

I propose we change the title to "Warrington bombings". It's a simpler name and would match the titles of similar articles. Thoughts? ~Asarlaí 15:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warrington was bombed in WWII [2] Kernel Saunters (talk) 15:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In that case should the title not be "1993 Warrington bombings" instead? ~Asarlaí 16:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quite possibly Kernel Saunters (talk) 16:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shall I go ahead and move it then? ~Asarlaí 16:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No we have had no response from the editor who reverted your previous un-discussed move. BigDunc 16:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a gas works[edit]

This article describes the facility as a gas-works. It was not a gas-works but a district-pressure storage facility. No one object if I change it? Mtaylor848 (talk) 17:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Time of warning, time of explosions[edit]

The article says that the telephone warning was sent at 11:58 and the bombs exploded at 12:12 (14 mins later). The source used for those times is here. However, those times are contradicted by the following news articles:

I've also come across books that say the warning was sent about 30 mins before. Martin Dillon's The Enemy Within (p.218) is more specific: "A police radio alert was circulated throughout the region, including Warrington in Cheshire. Thirty-four minutes after the IRA message, a bomb exploded without warning in Bridge Street in Warrington".

So, which are the correct times? ~Asarlaí 00:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that the BBC is probably the most reliable source, so let's keep it at 12.12 until we find definite proof that it exploded at another time.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the BBC is usually a reliable source, but in this case it's five sources against one. Surely The Independent and Cheshire's assistant chief constable can be deemed reliable sources too? Also, I'm not sure if it makes a difference, but the BBC article was written many years after the event while the rest (bar The Enemy Within were written only days after. What a kerfuffle. ~Asarlaí 13:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about live news reports on YouTube? Surely they've got some clips.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. I was only able to find one news clip (here). It says that the warning was sent "just before midday" and the bombs exploded "just before 12:30". ~Asarlaí 16:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of sources gave a time lapse of around 30 mins between the warning and the explosion, thus we should reflect this in the article per WP policies. I agree with Jeanne that BBC is generally taken for granted as reliable, but Martin Dillon and Associated Press ('The Record Journal' original source) are quite reliable as well. IMHO the article should only mention the 30-minute lapse and the time of explosion (12:25).--Darius (talk) 16:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The sources overwhelmingly favour the 12.25 time, so the article should be changed.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. ~Asarlaí 20:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Worth noting that a single report from someone like Reuters will be recycled into 50 outlets, it doesn't make it any more reliable, you need to track down the primary source of the information. Unfortunately all media, including the BBC, will rely on press releases and the news wires. Reuters/AP/etc may be more reliable, but will probably get the timings from a single source (the police in this case). A plurality of news stories does not necessarily mean it's reliable. 132.185.160.96 (talk) 03:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Johnathan Ball[edit]

"Three-year-old Johnathan Ball died at the scene, while his babysitter survived. They had been shopping for a Mother's Day card" - the second half of this quote reads very WP:TROJAN to me, I don't see how it benefits the article, only that it appeals to people's sympathies, so I will remove it. If anyone believes this information is relevant, please respond here before reverting. BulbaThor (talk) 23:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's factual, it describes the purpose for which they were at the scene and is therefore relevant. The first section of this article refers to the prupose of these atacks being to harm the British economy - it is perfectly relevant for readers to see how this was to be, in effect, achieved: by targeting young children shopping for gifts for their parents. FOARP (talk) 11:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Were charges ever brought...[edit]

Were charges ever brought against anyone for the Warrington bomb attacks? Best Regards. DynamoDegsy (talk) 18:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. SandJ-on-WP (talk) 12:27, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The case is still open, see here: https://www.cheshire.police.uk/media/1165/historical-and-unsolved-murders.doc FOARP (talk) 12:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Crime/murder[edit]

FOARP, the article doesn't describe the bombing as either crime or murder. The second is the most dubious; there's no indication the bombers intended to kill the children. Gob Lofa (talk) 12:10, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Although the bombers cannot have been specifically targeting the children that were killed, the bombs were planted 100 yards apart and timed to go off one after the other, meaning people evacuating away from the first would be gathered near the other. The warning given was for another nearby city thereby ensuring emergency services were distracted and moving away from Warrington as well as generally causing confusion. The timing was for mid-day on a Saturday in a shopping high street. The bombs were put into heavy cast-iron bins which would guarantee shrapnel. I think there is a very strong indication the intent was murder. This is assuming the bombers did not know it was the day before Mothering Sunday and so the town centre would have contained more children than usual. SandJ-on-WP (talk) 12:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The attack was a crime under English law - to dispute the fact that it was a crime is simply facile. As for it being a an act of homicide, it was investigated as such by Cheshire Police and can still be found on their list of unsolved murders: https://www.cheshire.police.uk/media/1165/historical-and-unsolved-murders.doc . Consensus here is that both tags are correct, so I'm reverting. FOARP (talk) 12:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SandJ, you make some good points, but I'm still not so sure. One could make similar arguments about the tactics of certain British troops in Ireland, that some behaved in such a way as to make civilian deaths almost inevitable. Would you describe that as murder also? FOARP, firstly, your revert puts you in breach of the one-revert-rule for Troubles-related articles. Secondly, I've been reverted for attempting to describe IRA actions in the UK as crime, because they're also considered military engagements. Thirdly, Cheshire police are hardly a neutral source. Gob Lofa (talk) 12:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cheshire Police are a verifiable, authoritative, reliable source on crimes that have occurred within their county and what the nature of those crimes is (homicide). If you are not going to accept the views of all English authorities on what constitutes a crime under English law simply because the source is English you will be left with no sources. The fact that the IRA did not regard its acts as crimes is neither here nor there - if you wish to add the article to a list of IRA "military actions" you are free to do so - they are still crimes under English law regardless of what the view of the people who committed them are. Are you really saying that no crime was committed under English law? Finally, there is a clear consensus here for the original description before your reversion. FOARP (talk) 13:19, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I rather think Cheshire Police may have a slight bias when it comes to the IRA, or perhaps that's just me. I'm not talking about how the IRA viewed its actions at all, so that's a red herring. I'm telling you that describing IRA actions as crimes is controversial with some editors on Wikipedia, as I've found myself. You're still in breach of 1RR, by the way. Gob Lofa (talk) 16:04, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, you could always go ahead and list this page under "military actions" (indeed, the article is already very clear about how the IRA saw the attack and the page is already listed under PIRA actions in the UK) if you wanted to reflect the IRA's POV. Cheshire Police are the only authoritative publicly available source on this so I don't see why they shouldn't be relied on here. The consensus above here is clearly for keeping it as is. Are you really saying I should revert and then revert again 24 hours from now? It's not likely that consensus will change. I'll do it if it makes any difference (I'll have to delete the tags due to intervening edits), but it's a silly thing to have to do FOARP (talk) 16:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have no intention of allowing the reflection of either IRA or British POV. You write "Cheshire Police are the only authoritative publicly available source on this" - on what? On your preferred description of the deaths? My problem is that when I list IRA actions in Ireland as crime, I'm reverted and told they're military and that use of words like 'crime' is POV. I'm not happy that there's a double standard for the same kinds of activity. As regards reverting, you can do what you like, but right now any admin who chooses could apply discretionary sanctions to you. Gob Lofa (talk) 16:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you take that up with the people who revert you on those pages. There is presently a consensus on this page that it is appropriate to describe a bombing in England as a crime in England.
Let's unpack this a bit - if we took another unsolved case like the Whitechapel murders no-one would question that the assessment of the police in that case (i.e., that they were criminal acts) because even though they hadn't actually caught anyone, they had still authoritatively characterised what the acts actually were. If the murderer were part of some armed group which wished to describe its acts another way that wouldn't change the validity of it being assessed as crime under English law by the police, that would merely require that they way that armed group described their acts also be described. The September 11 Attacks are characterised as mass murder, so it seems there's a question to be answered in general on this. FOARP (talk) 16:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And they will suggest I take it up with you. OK, so when the Paratroopers set the schoolhouse on fire with grenades during the Battle of Goose Green, were they guilty of arson? Arson's a crime under Falklands law. Ought we describe those paratroopers as criminals? Gob Lofa (talk) 17:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can you find a verifiable, authoritative source that calls it so? If you can then please go ahead and add it to the Goose Green article and see how you get on there.FOARP (talk) 09:03, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Where are your sources for describing this attack as "crime" and "murder"? Remember, the police aren't neutral. Gob Lofa (talk) 17:31, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My source is Cheshire Police. Saying that "the police aren't neutral" is just an assertion for which you provide no evidence. Refusing to acknowledge that English legal authorities define what is a crime in England leaves you with no authoritative sources. Go check out the articles on the 9/11 attacks and 7/7 bombings to see how this is done. FOARP (talk) 10:37, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Balderdash. Please find a NPOV source for your claims. Gob Lofa (talk) 19:28, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Found - Cheshire Police. BTW - NPOV is a requirement of article content not article sources - sources inevitably have a POV that's what makes them sources. There is no such thing as the view from nowhere. As the Wiki article on NPOV points out: "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective" - the only real requirement is that they are reliable, verifiable. FOARP (talk) 19:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
True, but you're insisting on a POV translation (murder) of the CP's POV 'homicide'. Gob Lofa (talk) 10:08, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gob Lofa, you can't make policy by trying to remove terrorism as a word from multiple articles, or by slow edit wars. If you think strongly take it to a policy forum and see how your approach is received. ----Snowded TALK 11:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's not making policy, it's applying consistency. I'm not standing for a double standard; insisting IRA attacks in England be described a different way from those in Ireland reeks of nationalist POV. Your slow edit warring leaves you in a poor position to caution others about it, I'm afraid, and you ought to try to catch up; 'terrorism' isn't the problem here. Gob Lofa (talk) 20:02, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only one slow edit warring is you, you remake contested changes something I have never done. If you have cases where the word is not used in Ireland then happy to look at those. Otherwise if you won;t take it to a forum then maybe the best place is to ask for a edit restriction on you on ANI for making these contested changes? ----Snowded TALK 20:08, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've been edit-warring for months now, restoring scores of contested changes, as your edit history will quickly show anyone who cares to peruse it. However, if you show me the forum you're referring to, I'll consider your proposal. Please don't ask foolish questions of me. If you want an example of a Provisional IRA action that is referred to as a military engagement rather than crime and murder, have a look at their first major action, the Battle of St Matthew's. Gob Lofa (talk) 20:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is not a single case where I have initiated a change and then restored it. In all cases where I have reverted it has been a change you made in the first place. You could start with the Irish article forum, or go straight to ANI and see how you get on. If there are inconsistencies then make the case and the community can look at it. Sniping over multiple articles hoping no one will notice is really not getting you anywhere. ----Snowded TALK 20:50, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"hoping no-one will notice"? Wise up; I'm the one initiating these debates. You're the one making controversial edits to poorly-patrolled pages that you're afraid of replicating on more popular ones. Gob Lofa (talk) 10:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you have removed 'terrorism' on a more popular page please tell me and I will take a look. ----Snowded TALK 11:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with User:Snowded, we are not creating a double standard if, based on authoritative, verifiable sources, and in accordance with a consensus on the discussion page, we label this a crime. It doesn't matter whether other decisions have been made on other pages. Look at the page on [[9/11], should this not be called a crime merely because the US authorities might be thought to be biased by someone sympathetic to Al-Qaeda? FOARP (talk) 15:14, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that decisions made elsewhere ought have no effect here; we have policies. Anyways, we've gone away from the more important part of the discussion; I don't believe there was a deliberate attempt to kill the boys, so I don't see how it can be described as murder, whatever the CP says. Gob Lofa (talk) 18:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You don't think the decisions taken about the 9/11 page and the 7/7 page have some bearing? Are you still opposing calling it a crime? FOARP (talk) 19:29, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They do have some bearing yes, as do the pages detailing the British firebombing of German civilians. I'm not necessarily supporting calling it a crime by saying calling it murder is worse. I understand your position; setting off bombs in the UK is against British law and I don't dispute that. However, many people believe describing violent acts committed for political reasons as crimes is to demean them, rob them of their import and categorise their perpetrators (e.g. Nelson Mandela) as criminals, and that this description has political ramifications if not always intent. Thus, if you characterise Mandela as a criminal, the converse is that you're indirectly characterising his opponents as on the side of law and order. Gob Lofa (talk) 19:40, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Obfuscation - crime or no crime was the question. FOARP (talk) 20:44, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That was one question; murder's yet another. Your characterisation of my argument as obfuscation is another entirely; what exactly is unclear or ambiguous about what I said? Gob Lofa (talk) 21:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You need to stop this edit warring over this and the word 'terrorism' over multiple articles when you know full well you should take the issue to the wider community for resolution. ----Snowded TALK 07:05, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Talk of edit warring is pretty rich coming from such a determined practitioner as yourself. Gob Lofa (talk) 15:01, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snowded's edits aren't under discussion here. FOARP (talk) 22:45, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be getting nowhere. Arguing the toss over the rights and wrongs of third party actions elsewhere does not help resolve what is right for this page, one which is monitored by people in Warrington who were affected by this bombing including friends and colleagues of the families of the victims. So which is the process that now needs following to settle whether crime and/or murder and/or something else is appropriate? Is it the Dispute resolution noticeboard, the Edit warring noticeboard, a 'third' opinion, a request for comment or something else? SandJ-on-WP (talk) 23:42, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gob Lofa has been told several times (this is not the only article where he is trying to get rid of 'terrorism' to take the matter to a forum for general resolution or to ANI for that matter. But s/he prefers to take part in minor edit wards over multiple articles. As far as I can see no editor agrees with him and any editor who reverts him is accused of edit warring. So I doubt further arguments need to be made here. From my experience Gob Lofa will wait some weeks and then try the change again to see if people are still monitoring the page. ----Snowded TALK 05:44, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's already a consensus here - what's to discuss on dispute resolution boards?FOARP (talk) 09:37, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing from my perspective; but Gob Lofa is making similar changes over multiple articles so the comment is to him. If he thinks he is right then he needs to take it to a community forum for resolution rather than edit warring over multiple articles ----Snowded TALK 09:47, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction[edit]

The intro to this article needs a bit of work - rather than introducing the topic it goes straight into various reasons given by the IRA for carrying out the bombings. I think the best way would be to re-write it to be closer to some of the better written articles on terrorist attacks, such as the article on the September 11 attacks or the 7 July 2005 London bombings. FOARP (talk) 17:27, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested Renaming[edit]

I suggest renaming this article to 1993 Warrington bombings. Prairie Astronomer Talk 17:09, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why? that seems over precise to me. Eddie891 Talk Work 17:44, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorism (again)[edit]

We once again have a drive by editor pushing the POV that Irish republicanism didn’t commit terrorist acts. This has been long established and the article contains numerous citations to terrorism. The label stays. GimliDotNet (talk) 06:36, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's at all accurate to say I'm pushing the POV that "Irish republicanism didn’t commit terrorist acts". I've never asserted that nor have I made edits that indicate or express such a thing. The only POV being pushed would be yours here, I would be advocating for a NPOV for this article.
I would refer you to WP:LABEL, which states "Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution"
Furthermore, when you say things like "the label stays" you seem to be exhibiting WP:OWNERSHIP tendencies which I would ask you to refrain from. These new edits be introduced by the IP editor would require a WP:CONSENSUS for inclusion. StairySky (talk) 09:44, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is consensus. And WP:LABEl is satisfied by the sources in the article. The fact the changes we put back in by an IP is irrelevant. GimliDotNet (talk) 10:34, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could you point me to the consensus for the recent insertions you are edit warring over? StairySky (talk) 12:51, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are on the talk page. It’s there. GimliDotNet (talk) 13:02, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's pretty tenuous to refer to a discussion about different edits from 16 years ago that came to no clear consensus as a consensus for these recent edits. StairySky (talk) 13:11, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The arguments and facts haven’t changed. The fact Irish republicans occasionally turn up and try to claim targeting civilians with bombs isn’t terrorism is by- the-by. GimliDotNet (talk) 13:25, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My point was that this is not how WP:CONSENSUS works, especially given it doesn't appear a consensus arose about of that discussion. StairySky (talk) 19:40, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bizarre mental gymnastics[edit]

A certain politically motivated sector of the userbase seem intent on attempting to abuse concepts such as NPOV to attempt to negate or downplay the responsibility of a violent non-state actor for violent acts they admit they perpetrated.

The IRA's victim-blaming statement claiming the warning was "precise and accurate" was presented uncritically. These are the WP:ABOUTSELF words of an underground organization whose internal and external behaviours are not subject to third party scrutiny and who are known to have released untrue statements to the press. No third-party sources agree with their claim; all state they did not even cite the correct town.

A user, who shall remain nameless unless they wish to contribute here, claims it is "POV" to state that the attack was against civilians and that the warning was meaningless; the only people who dispute these two statements are the perpetrators themselves.

Politically motivated negationism intended to minimize the responsibility of a group for its own behaviour is not acceptable in an encyclopaedia. 82.16.150.34 (talk) 06:17, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding your own commentary to Wikipedia articles. Kathleen's bike (talk) 08:14, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and as for claims such as "The IRA's victim-blaming statement claiming the warning was "precise and accurate" was presented uncritically", did you even read the quote right underneath criticising it? Or are you just upset because your own criticism was removed? Kathleen's bike (talk) 09:47, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have no sources beyond the public statements of an organization which has no transparency and which has been proven to lie when it suits them. Your interest seems to be in whitewashing and not in documenting fact. Given this page has been a hotbed of s**t-slinging for almost 20 years I doubt it will stop any time soon. Judging by your edits you are an Irish republican, and thus consider this to be an ideological struggle to whitewash groups you like. No third-party source agrees with the IRA press release and therefore it must be considered political propaganda with questionable veracity.
You even removed the word "violent" from the article on the IRA's so-called "Army Council", which I think says it all. You do not care about the subject except as a vehicle for propaganda. 82.16.150.34 (talk) 16:25, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not so-called, I suggest reading the many "third-party sources" you claim to have read about the IRA. Kathleen's bike (talk) 17:14, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that would bait you.
It appears you are confirming your biases, which are that you advocate for a violent non-state actor which claims to be a government; a claim nobody but their already convinced supporters believe. I can see it is of no utility arguing with you because you are already of a certain mindset, one that is unfalsifiable and automatically rejects any argument against it.
So far you have provided nothing beyond convincing me that you are first and foremost an ideologue, your interest is in obfuscating and minimizing the bad deeds of a group you like in the hope casual readers do not automatically consider the group to be negative. There is nothing remotely unique or special about the IRA and its acts that demands it must be treated differently on Wikipedia to any other violent non-state actor. 82.16.150.34 (talk) 18:32, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "deliberately intended to produce"
  • ""refusing to accept the moral responsibility for the consequences of its actions and refusing to admit its warning was inadequate"
Please stop adding your own commentary to Wikipedia articles. Kathleen's bike (talk) 08:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So placing an explosive device in a cast-iron litterbin was not intended to produce shrapnel? That sounds like they are either extremely low IQ individuals with no understanding of the laws of physics, or did in fact intend to produce anti-personnel shrapnel, which do you think is more likely?
Nobody but the IRA themselves have said the warning was "adequate", this was transparently an attempt to shift blame to mitigate a public relations disaster. The IRA statement is clearly a refusal to accept responsibility for the consequences of its actions, are you really so ideologically blinded that you cannot see that this is not commentary but objective fact? 82.16.150.34 (talk) 01:30, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also since no publication of the IRA is even cited, I am at a complete loss to how you think ABOUTSELF applies. It does not prevent imformation published in reliable, secondary sources from being included. Kathleen's bike (talk) 08:08, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The IRA statement is ABOUTSELF material; material you appear to think is of equal or greater weight than all other sources. 82.16.150.34 (talk) 01:32, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette is not an IRA publication. As for the rest of your comments, you are still creating your own arguments rather than reflecting what reliable sources say. Kathleen's bike (talk) 17:17, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have since learned that parts of the article were lifted wholesale from Professional Security Management: A Strategic Guide[3] and Terrorism and Human Rights[4], both describe the warning as inadequate, however that part was omitted from the copy-n'-paste for some mysterious reason. 82.16.150.34 (talk) 03:09, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • University of Ulster CAIN Archive[5][6] entries for Johnathan Ball and Timothy Parry both state "Inadequate warning given".
  • A History of Policing in England and Wales from 1974: A Turbulent Journey[7] states "a telephone warning had been received but indicated that the centre of Liverpool was the location of the attack".
  • Inside the IRA: Dissident Republicans and the War for Legitimacy[8] states "Although 'a warning was given half-an-hour before', it failed to mention where the bomb was planted"
  • Torn Apart: Fifty Years of the Troubles, 1969-2019[9] states "Their response was defensive as well as callous; they had no excuses; their warnings had been vague and inaccurate at best, and maliciously misleading at worst. No one was convinced by the IRA's claims, with the very probably exception of the diehard Irish American support and the British left.... The commanders of the IRA's England team were very aware that there would be deaths as well as terrible injuries; the positioning and the timing of the two bombs were planned to create the perfect 'killing zone'."
  • Granada Television[10] states "The Samaritans received a coded warning about a bomb outside a Boots chemist shop in Liverpool, 16 miles from Warrington".
  • The Irish Times[11] called it "a vague IRA warning to police".
Besides a press release made by the perpetrators, an underground organization which lacks transparency, has there ever been any evidence whatsoever that the warning was "precise"?
All of the actual sources state the warning was inadequate, to claim it wasn't is a violation of Wikipedia's policy toward WP:FRINGE theories. FRINGE states "Wikipedia aims to summarize significant opinions with representation in proportion to their prominence, a Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is. Statements about the truth of a theory must be based upon independent reliable sources". The fact the IRA made the statement is verifiable, that much is true, but the truth of the statement is suspect given that the perpetrators themselves are the only source stating it. 82.16.150.34 (talk) 07:15, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since we are supposed to be discussing your proposed additions of "deliberately intended to produce" and "refusing to accept the moral responsibility for the consequences of its actions and refusing to admit its warning was inadequate", I don't see what relevance this off-topic text is. Kathleen's bike (talk) 08:12, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are now simply ignoring the most crucial aspect of what I was intending; that being that the warning was meaningless and the press release was a clumsy attempt at damage control attempting to deflect blame from the organization.
  • The Irish Independent[12] says "The incendiaries had been placed inside cast iron bins, so as to inflict extensive shrapnel damage."
I don't believe you are acting in good faith. It is entirely self-evident that placing an IED in a metal container will produce shrapnel, to think this was not the intention and was somehow incidental is an absurdity of such an astounding degree that no sensible person could possibly believe it. 82.16.150.34 (talk) 03:44, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources about a song aren't reliable for pretty much anything except the song, see WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. What, exactly, changes are you proposing are made to the article? Kathleen's bike (talk) 07:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see little point continuing this argument since you appear to be a "hatchling", a person who feigns ignorance in an attempt to wear down one's opponent.
So far you have provided absolutely nothing to shore up your case beyond mouthing platitudes and appealing to authority while I've been finding actual credible sources.
If you seriously believe the shrapnel was a mere innocent by-product and not an intention then I have nothing more to say to you since you seem to be operating on the same low understanding of the laws of physics as the Flat Earthers and the Perpetual Motion Machine inventors. 82.16.150.34 (talk) 20:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should have followed my advice here about Warrington, rather than relying on arricles from the entertainmennt section of a newspaper have said, since they are hilariously wrong. The IRA have made extensive use of indendiary devices, generally speaking they were placed in shops or similar and designed to ignite a flammable liquid causing a wider fire. They don't cause shrapnel, and placing one in a litter bin would set fire to the contents of the bin and maybe anything close by, but not much else. The Warrington bomb wasn't an incendiary but apparently Semtex. I still recommend reading Dillon and/or Oppenheimer say about Warrington, you really should learn about the IRA's motivations before attributing any intent to them. FDW777 (talk) 11:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Irish Independent article was an afterthought of mine in an attempt to address KB's aggressive pursuit demanding clarification of a minor point. I have no inherent interest in the Independent article as a source.
My original point remains; detonating semtex placed inside a metal container in a built-up area at a time of day when ordinary citizens will be milling around going about their lawful business is self-evidently an act of profound disregard for human life.
I have given Oppenheimer's A History of Deadly Ingenuity a quick read-through, I have noticed some glaring indisputable errors.
Individual authors cannot be held up as the one true gospel imparting truth; one must do their utmost to compare and contrast different works by different authors and balance their verifiability by how closely they slot into indisputable fact. 82.16.150.34 (talk) 15:43, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will leave this here for any future readers to help make up their own minds. https://cain.ulster.ac.uk/proni/1993/proni_CENT-1-22-6A_1993-03-20.pdf
An internal government document, which was classified at the time, which entirely supports the statements of Cheshire Police viz the attack; that the warning was meaningless, and moreover mentions that an individual called the Samaritans in Manchester earlier on the same day with a hoax bomb threat, and that the caller(s?) did not use a known PIRA codeword in either of the telephone calls.
The document also confirms no mention of Warrington was made. 82.16.150.34 (talk) 14:51, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The utter intransigence and refusal to engage is nothing short of staggering. If the above participants genuinely believe detonating semtex in a metal container in a shopping street during opening hours is not an act of profound disregard for human life then I have nothing more to say. The article as it stands has been framed as if conspiracy theories spun by underground organizations have any merit. This website is supposed to be an encyclopaedia based upon verifiable fact, not a place for publicizing fringe theory. I had hoped to spur discussion over what the article should say, but apparently there can be no place for that when the tender feelings of the narrow-minded ideologues might be hurt. 82.16.150.34 (talk) 09:50, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should you detail proposed changes complete with proper sources that actually support those changes, then there is something to discuss. Until that happens, there isn't anything to discuss. Kathleen's bike (talk) 19:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your bar for what constitutes a "proper source" appears to be unreasonably high. Most of the actual sources already used already say the warning was inadequate. You appear to be politicking and do not appear to actually care about objectivity. 82.16.150.34 (talk) 14:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When you add, or continue to the advocate for the addition, of unsourced text saying "refusing to accept the moral responsibility for the consequences of its actions and refusing to admit its warning was inadequate", you are hardly in a position to complain if people ask for sources. Kathleen's bike (talk) 11:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You don't appear to be interested in anything beyond attempting to salvage the reputation of a violent underground group which does not release its internal documentation and whose actions are not subject to independent review. I am not at all convinced the press release ought to be quoted at all since its contents are not supported by anything; the only part which is in any way encyclopaedic is that they admitted they did it, since this is supported by independent material.
The IRA's statement claiming "precise" warnings were ignored are of a far lesser value than Cheshire Police's statement that the warning was meaningless gibberish. Cheshire Police and Merseyside Police are separate organizations and a conspiracy between them to conceal the truth or otherwise of the IRA's press release would be one of a magnitude which would be difficult to conceal.
Thus far in the 31 years since there has been no evidence that the IRA's claim is true, and quoting it is clearly giving far too much credibility. So far you've provided absolutely nothing beyond platitudes and contrarianism. 82.16.150.34 (talk) 16:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Warrington_bombings&oldid=1213949584"