Talk:1970 Crossmaglen bombing

Terrorist cat

You are edit warring and have no consensus for your insertion. Please follow WP:BRD. This attack is no more a terrorist attack than other attacks on security services like the American Revolution or the Easter Rising. Apollo The Logician (talk) 20:33, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I think that given your use of the term "west brits" you have effectively disqualified yourself from editing Troubles-related articles. Quis separabit? 20:51, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Why is that?Apollo The Logician (talk) 20:54, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:UNSOURCED reads:The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. I think the category should be removed if no specific citation about this and other incidents is found.--Darius (talk) 21:52, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Can you tell me when was the last time you saw a reference next to a category? Categories do not need to be independently referenced, the article content justifies their inclusion. Apollo The Logician, you do not get to decide the rules of engagement for a conflict or what is and isn't a terrorist attack - reliable sources do. Regardless, a booby-trap car bomb is not in any way a targetted attack. I am adding additional sources that describe these killings as terrorist. DagosNavy, I invite you self-revert. In any case, as per the Arbcom guideline above, I've listed this at AN/I so we get wider input. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:31, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:LABEL the use of the term must be widespread. Your link does not go to the ANI btw.Apollo The Logician (talk) 09:37, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. WP:LABEL is a guideline (not a policy) that refers to article content, not categories. I have never, ever seen a requirement for a reference to support inclusion of a category. If you can show me a single article where a category has a reference next to it, I'll be very surprised. @BrownHairedGirl: is something of an expert on categories, perhaps she can enlighten us? The contention that the IRA's campaign was not terrorist in nature is a minority view and their attacks are widely described in multiple RS as terrorist attacks. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:56, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:LABEL applies to labels and terrorist is a label. Nobody is saying there should be a reference next to a category just that it should be proven that the label is widespread before it's inclusion.Apollo The Logician (talk) 09:59, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

It is. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:07, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Only some of the results say the IRA are terorists and only one or two are reliable sources.Apollo The Logician (talk) 10:16, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

You're fierce quick, reading 38,500 articles in 17 minutes. Only one or two of those 38,500 articles are RS? The BBC, PBS, The Irish News, The Guardian, The Independent, the Telegraph, CNN, University of Ulster and History Ireland are on the first 3 pages of results. But sure, "only one or two are reliable"... I think we'll leave it here, so, and wait for others to weigh in... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I only read the first page. You can cherry pick all you want. Listing some reliable sources that support your view is not proof of the label being "widespread". Apollo The Logician (talk) 10:57, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I can cherry pick articles as well look.1 2 3 4 4 Here they are refered to as paramilitary groups and their campaign refered to as an armed campaign or a violent campaign but not terrorist.Apollo The Logician (talk) 11:08, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

You asked for proof that the term was widespread. I provided it. You may not agree with use of the term to describe the IRA's actions, and that's your right. But the huge number of sources describing the IRA's campaign as terrorist would leave you in a small minority. Anyway - let's hear from some other people. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:19, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Obviously it is not proof considering I just gave almost as many examples of terrorist not being used.Apollo The Logician (talk) 11:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Lol, what? You've listed four articles where the term "terrorist" isn't used, versus 38,500 where it is? That proves... what, exactly? You're not seriously suggesting every article mentioning the IRA must include the term for them to be so designated? "Logician", indeed! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:06, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

The IRA being a terrorist organization is widespread usage. Most major governments in the world label them as such. Attacks carried out by them, be they against civilian or security forces are quite acceptibly classified as terrorist attacks plain and simple by almost all reliable sources. We're not here to try and downplay the actions of these organizations from what they really are, murder and terroristm, that's putting a spin on it. Wikipedia isn't making up these associations, they're clearly labelled by many reliable sources. Canterbury Tail talk 12:01, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• Responding to ping. Why this determination to apply pejorative labels? Applying the label "terrorist" is clearly a POV judgement (see WP:TERRORIST).
  It should be sufficient to describe the incident as a bombing, note the significant points of view ... and then leave it to the reader to decide whether they view it as an act of war, a crime, a terrorist incident, a fictional tale propagated by aliens, or whatever. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:20, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Wikipedia should not make ethical judgements.Apollo The Logician (talk) 12:42, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Still arguing about terror categories Apollo even when previously told (to which you seemed to accepted) that if they are generally regarded as terrorist incidents then the category is justified. Haven't seen you try to remove the category from loyalist terrorist incidents yet... or does only one side's actions count as terrorism? Mabuska ^(talk) 14:50, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Also I agree that the catgory should be kept. Also: This attack is no more a terrorist attack than other attacks on security services like the American Revolution or the Easter Rising. Did either involve the explicit use of guerilla warfare as the IRA's campaign did? No. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:52, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@Mabuska: I don't edit loyalist articles, I tend to stay away from them.You can claim they are widely called terrorist until the moon explodes but until actual proof is brought forward that claim will remain a claim. Yes actually, guerrilla warfare was used quite a lot during the American Revolution. Anyway guerrilla warfare has nothing to do with terrorism.Apollo The Logician (talk) 15:59, 3 July 2017 (UTC) Apollo The Logician (talk) 15:59, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Discounting the now-blocked sockpuppet, there would appear to be a 5-2 majority in favour of including the terrorist category. The killings are sourced to 3 reliable sources describing them as terrorist. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:47, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Responding to Canterbury Tail I'm pretty sure only a minority of governments in the world consider the Provisional IRA or the previous original IRA as a terrorist organization. User:Tdv123 (talk) 20:47, 16 February 2018 (UTC)