Talk:1985 Newry mortar attack

There is a clear guideline on Wikipedia about the use of the word Terrorism. Please read it before editing.

Untitled

• Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Extremist, terrorist and freedom fighter

Victims' names

BigDunc: A list of the names of the nine killed in this attack does not constitute an honoring of departed friends etc as Wikipedia defines memorialising: 'Memorials. Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements.'

The mortar attack entry is anyway short and the names are provided in a few lines. I would be interested to know just who died and that several were women officers. It will go back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.65.72 (talk) 22:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

BigDunc: I checked your input and discover you have created a number of Wikipedia entries for minor deceased IRA members including a London bomber so why are you so censorious here? Leave it be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.63.131 (talk) 22:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

A list of names is exactly what you would expect to find on a memorial, and the list had no encyclopedic or educational value and the only possible purpose is a memorial. O Fenian (talk) 00:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

It is not a question of 'honouring' these nine dead people, as BigDunc (an arch memorialiser of the less than notable) alleges is contrary to Wikipedia's opposition to memorialising, but of providing a factual detail as to who died. The whole entry exists because so many RUC officers were murdered on the one day so why is it so dreadful to name them? The Bloody Friday, Loughinisland, and Bloody Sunday entries name the dead. Strip them out too if you are so oppposed to such lists and want to be consistent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.161.69 (talk) 10:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I see you have not provided any reason as to why they should be included, such as the enyclopedic value of doing so. O Fenian (talk) 11:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

O Fenian - contrary to your statement above a number of reasons have been provided to date. The names of the nine dead are relevant facts which is what Wikipedia is about. It is consistent with other Troubles entries where numbers of people were killed, so why do you insist on not allowing them in? I am not too sure what you mean by 'encyclopaedic value' but again if OK elswhere why do you object here? If encyclopaedic means extensive and educational, the names are certainly permissible. This entry exists because it was the highest numbr of RUC casualties in one incident so it would be absurd to prohibit giving it the added veracity of the nine names. You also aver on your last revert that with two editors objecting your case trumps mine. However BigDunc has dropped out as he was proven to be a memorialiser (his objection). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.55.20 (talk) 14:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I see you have still not advanced a coherent argument for inclusion. O Fenian (talk) 23:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

That is not seeking consensus, O Fenian, simply dismissive. You answer none of the above points.

You dismissed BigDunc's points. I still you have still not provided any cogent arguments. O Fenian (talk) 15:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

You still don't make the slightest attempt to answer my points of 5 and 8 February. BigDunc openly memorialises with whole articles on minor dead republicans. All I am trying to do is add the names of the 9 dead to remind people who they were and that they were a varied bunch of human beings. Leave it alone unless you have a good reason to delete it, such as inaccuracy. It is only a a few lines.81.156.244.32 (talk) 22:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

See my point from 15:39, 8 March 2009. Your comment of "add the names of the 9 dead to remind people who they were and that they were a varied bunch of human beings" has no relevant to encyclopedic content, very few people reading the article would give a toss what they were called. O Fenian (talk) 22:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

You say I should seek consensus O Fenian. Could you explain how that is done? I am not well enough versed in Wikipedianism to detect the way.

Meantime I think you don't grasp what 'encyclopaedic content' means. One dictionary I consulted says 'broad in scope or content' which means the names are perfectly acceptable.

Of course many as you say won't 'give a toss' about the dead people'e names. But many will want to know that sort of detail, not least persons from the area or Northern Ireland in general. It is what Wikipedia is about - facts. The host of minor dead republicans meriting brief articles indicates that readers may be interested in such people. In your opinion however most should be wiped out. Like to start and leave nine little police names alone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.244.32 (talk) 15:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Kernel - If tone is wrong please explain how so. I could change it to add that the attack was most notable because it was the largest number of RUC officers killed on one occasion. Otherwise why have the article or why not have one for each of the the 300 murdered police?Fynire (talk) 08:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Infobox

I see there have been a series of attempts to add misleading information to the infobox. Considering I wrote the article, possess all the sources and know what they say, an attempt to add misleading information "according to the sources" just won't fly. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

What I added to the infobox was that:

-All those killed/injured were RUC personnel - supported by the sources

-The weapon used was a Mark 10 mortar - supported by the sources

So it would seem you've just called your own sources "misleading". ~Asarlaí 16:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Which source uses the phrase "RUC personnel"? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Image is needed

We should have an image for the infobox.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)