Talk:Birmingham pub bombings

List of victims

I propose to remove this as unencyclopedic. Is there any good reason within Wikipedia's mission for keeping it? --John (talk) 17:36, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes. I view it as properly encyclopedic, especially given WP:NOTPAPER. However, if you wish to remove it, feel free to do so, in the spirit of Vintagekits, ONiH, Domer, et all, once you've removed this list. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:18, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Well said, Bastun The list on both articles should be kept. There is no WP to justify its removal, and a proposed removal of the list on this article was thoroughly discussed around this time last year at the Teahouse. (Conclusion was WP:NOT refers to articles per se, not lists or names within an article as I say.) In what way is this "unencyclopedic" beyond apparent personal taste? There is no shortage of articles of this nature with lists like this (see La Mon restaurant bombing or even the Charlie Hebdo shooting Wiki. pages). John, if you want references added to that section, I will be more than happy to add them. The best one would be the book "Lost Lives: The Stories of the Men, Women and Children who Died as a Result of the Northern Ireland Troubles". That chronologically lists each and every life lost on both sides in the Troubles, by date...--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:32, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

One Wikipedia article does not dictate the content of another, as you well know. That list is well-referenced. Can this one be? --John (talk) 20:26, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:21, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Great. If you can find detailed high-quality sources on all the victims, that will be an asset to the article. Will 48 hours be enough? --John (talk) 21:36, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

No, I'm busy through to next week. What's your hurry, in any case? They've been in the article for months. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:22, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll do it myself - 24 hours maximum. Fact, 1 encompassing reference from the book I mentioned will suffice. Cheers.--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:32, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

"1 encompassing reference from the book" probably won't do. I specified "detailed high-quality sources on all the victims" and the WP:ONUS is on anybody who wants this material kept. --John (talk) 07:33, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

What part of WP:V prevents one encompassing published reference from being sufficient, John? First time I've ever seen such a claim. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:10, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

My father and stepmother were amongst the many staff at the Birmingham Accident Hospital called in to help with casualties. However WP:MEMORIAL appears to me to prohibit the listing of names of non-notable victims. Regards JRPG (talk) 09:49, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

• Failing any consensus here that the list is necessary, and the lack of any detailed high quality sources, I have removed the list. Can I note here that I am not against such lists per se, but that any such list would (like anything else) have to be included for an encyclopedic reason. Wikipedia is not a memorial. If such sourcing was found or appeared, this material would be better added as a prose list than a bullet-pointed one. --John (talk) 00:25, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Also, John. Where is the "failed consensus" to keep this in the above talk? (Or the lack of a "high quality source"?) IF you want be to add another half dozen to an already verifiable, reputable one, I'm game.--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:34, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I posted more than two days ago:

I propose to remove this as unencyclopedic. Is there any good reason within Wikipedia's mission for keeping it?

• User:Bastun cited WP:NOTPAPER and another (far better referenced) list at another article, but said he was too busy to add sources.
• You gave no justification in policy but said you wanted to add it back anyway. You provided, as you put it, "1 encompassing reference from the book", which is presumably a list of names.
• User:JRPG said they were against including it, citing NOTMEMORIAL.

I don't find this relatively short list particularly a problem, but it adds little to the article and WP:NOTMEMORIAL reflects an existing community wide consensus to remove it so no further discussion is needed. However in the interest of peace, I note other articles have pictures of memorials or links etc. & I have no problem with that. JRPG (talk) 09:07, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

That's what "no consensus to include" looks like.

Per WP:ONUS, the onus is on those wishing to include material to justify and demonstrate consensus that it is essential to improve the article. As that has not been done, I removed the list again. You reverted me again. I think I have explained my actions thoroughly. Maybe you could think about what you are doing and why you are doing it. I don't want the list because to me the list of non-notable people's names is listcruft and has a sniff of NOTMEMORIAL about it. Why is it important to you to include this material? Do you need more time to find significant coverage in good sources of the individual people who died? --John (talk) 00:49, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

• • John, I respect your time and dedication (and I am not trying to flatter you there - just stating a fact). Here's my reply: I initially replied well within 24 hours. User JRPG cycles me back to the original discussion at the Teahouse last year which you (all genuine respect intended) seem resistant to acknowledge, so I shall repeat: WP:NOT refers to articles per se, not lists or names within an article. How is it unuseful as per notpaper? All he/she did was repeat a flawed opinion. User Bastun seems in agreement with myself as opposed to you. NOTPAPER does not specifically state prohibiting content like this. I shall add AMPLE sources in addition to the verifiable and accessible one I initially added, should you wish. If you want to change the format of inclusion I don't mind, personally. Don't know about other contributors' opinions. Like I once said to you, consensus governs.--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:04, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Oh one last thing. As for the segment of your reply re: "good sources of the individual people who died" Please access the link placed alongside the name of Michael Beasley - it is an online book (which I named above) which you can navigate, page by page and which lists ALL the names and ages of the deceased. Click upon it to verify. I suppose it's "insufficient"?

I said I was busy through to next week, and I am. As Kieron points out, NOT refers to subjects of articles, not lists within articles. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 07:27, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

• Remove as per NOT, and remove ask such lists from similar articles I'd desired as per NLIST. _Muffled ^Pocketed 09:45, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The victims should obviously be named in the article. The victims of murders are normally named in articles relating to the crimes. Exceptions arise in mass-casualty events like Lockerbie where the effect would be an undifferentiated and unreadable wall of names serving no purpose. Birmingham was on a similar though somewhat larger scale to Bloody Sunday, where the victims are all named. Therefore the victims should be named. Of course everyone knows that Wikipedia articles on the Troubles are manipulated by IRA sympathisers who seek to eliminate the memory of anyone murdered by the IRA. In reality the IRA's victims were as follows:-- Stephen John Walley, 21. Anne Heyes, 15. Charles Harper Grey, 44. John Clifford Jones, 51. James Frederick Caddick, 40. Neil Robert Marsh, 20. Eugene Thomas Reilly, 23. James Goodlett Craig, 34. Paul Anthony Davis, 27. John Rowlands, 46. Maxine Hambleton, 18. Lynn Jane Bennett, 18. Marilyn Paula Nash, 22. Maureen Anne Roberts, 20. Michael William Beasley, 30. Pamela Joan Palmer, 19. Trevor George Thrupp, 33. Stanley James Bodman, 47. Thomas Frederick Chaytor, 28. Desmond William Reilly, 20. Jane Elizabeth Davis, 17. http://www.itv.com/news/central/2017-07-27/families-of-pub-bombing-victims-pull-out-of-inquest/ The fact that terrorist groupies want to minimise the crimes of their terrorist heroes and erase the memory of those killed by terrorists... Well, no decent person has any right to go along with that. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:29, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Old discussion, and even though I stand by my and Bastun's observations, another user (I think John but MAY BE WRONG in that recollection), personally thought otherwise....--Kieronoldham (talk) 02:31, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with John and question how it is a memorial to fall foul of NOTMEMORIAL? Indeed if they feel so strongly they should have went to the WikiProjects and discussd the overall issue considering quite a lot of Troubles articles have such lists - though due to republican editors many articles on attacks by republicans don't have one for obvious bias reasons. I'd support the return of the list. Mabuska ^(talk) 09:32, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that there is absolutely no consistency on WP on the actual meaning and interpretation of NOTMEMORIAL. By the way - excluding about the bit about dead Wikipedians - this is the entirety of our WP:NOTMEMORIAL policy:

"Memorials. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements."

So, a standalone list of victims of an incident is therefore definitely not allowed. Clearly. And typing "List of victims" into the search box definitely wouldn't return any articles that aren't just redirects. *cough*

A list of victims in a particular bombing incident in the Troubles will be removed, even where the list of names isn't a standalone article, but is included as part of a main article (such as this one). Because it "isn't encyclopedic" and because of NOTMEMORIAL, even though the latter applies only to the subjects of articles.

A list of victims of Bloody Sunday will be included because a chronology makes it encyclopedic, even though some of the material added seems irrelevant to the chronology. "Three witnesses said they saw a soldier take deliberate aim at the youth as he ran... Like Saville, Widgery also concluded that Duddy was unarmed... His nephew is boxer John Duddy." (We're told that it's been found that each victim was unarmed. Not like anyone's making a point, though).

But elsewhere, where chronologies are known or not, lists of victims can be, and are, included within articles. E.g., Charlie Hebdo, Orlando, and Dunblane. (There seems to be an effort to exclude lists of victims from British incidents not related to the Troubles, presumably so they don't get cited as examples...)

I would suggest, therefore, that rather than dicussing the inclusion of a list of victims here, a central discussion is held somewhere like WP:NOT's talk page, or the Village Pump. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:00, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

The La Mon restaurant bombing and Omagh bombing articles still correctly list those killed. It's grimly amusing, in a way, that certain people want to erase the very names of Birmingham's dead -- see what happened to my previous comment listing them -- but this really, seriously is not a good article. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:14, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

The names of all those killed in the 1920 Croke Park incident in Dublin, and in the Derry massacre of 1972 (both events being known as 'Bloody Sunday') are also listed in the relevant articles. The erasure of the very names of Birmingham's dead, not only in the article but on this talk page, is frankly sinister. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:13, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Including the names adds value and illustrates the indiscriminate nature of the attack. It's only because the bombing was IRA that it's contested. Flexdream (talk) 15:46, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Responsibility

The article is not clear that this was an IRA bombing. Shouldn't it be clear? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-29936619 https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/birmingham-pub-bombings-ex-ira-chief-8252395 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-47670167 https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/apr/05/birmingham-pub-bombings-the-victims https://www.irishnews.com/news/northernirelandnews/2019/03/22/news/fatal-birmingham-pub-bombings-accidental-says-ex-ira-chief-1579667/ Flexdream (talk) 20:49, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Have you read the article? It's perfectly clear that the IRA was responsible. Down to referenced statements that the IRA Army Council, the Birmingham Six, and senior members of the British establishment know the identities of the perpetrators; that two of them are dead; that two more have immunity from prosecution; and that one has no such immunity (apparently). Also, inclusion in the infobox and the fact it's mentioned in the lead that a member confessed. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:01, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Bastun, the inclusion in the infobox of the perpetrator is recent, and may yet be removed. In the lead the IRA denial is prominent. I also think that describing the IRA's 'involvement'in the murders is muted. I suppose Putin is 'involved' in the invasion of the Ukraine according to some? The second sentence of the second paragraph is pure pleading and greenwash. Flexdream (talk) 19:06, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Balanced?

This article is about the bombings which killed and wounded so many. The Birmingham 6 already have a separate article of over 2000 words. So why is the breakdown of this bombings article;

Lead
Bombing - 28%
IRA denials & defence - 33%
Birmingham 6 - 39%

Main
Background - 4%
Bombing - 24%
Birmingham 6 - 43%
Investigation - 12%
Aftermath - 11%
Etc - 6%

Is this what propaganda looks like? Flexdream (talk) 09:30, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

It appears to be, my edit to the infobox moments ago correctly formatting the information in line with other infoboxes on similar events was instantly reverted as "disruptive", because apparently the denials of a group pretty much universally considered guilty are of more weight than every other source on the planet. 89.240.240.15 (talk) 12:44, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Ban-evasion by WP:Sockpuppet investigations/TheCurrencyGuy 74.73.224.126 (talk) 04:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

When your edit includes hidden commentary - When there is substantial evidence of guilt and no credible independent sources that doubt guilt, denials by the suspects are no reason not to include - that promotes guilt by supposition and assertion? No, that's disruptive editing. You are no doubt familiar with WP:V and WP:RS. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:21, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I'd say recentism is a more likely culprit than propaganda, though the incident is probably better known today for the miscarriage of justice than the atrocity itself. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Isn't that a circular argument? Like saying it's better described because it's better known because it's better described...

Why do you think it's better known for the Birmingham 6?

Propose: Remove most references to the Birmingham 6 as there's a link to the separate article. Flexdream (talk) 04:36, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this proposal. The Birmingham Six already have an article that can be linked. 92.30.3.21 (talk) 13:32, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Ban-evasion by WP:Sockpuppet investigations/TheCurrencyGuy 74.73.224.126 (talk) 04:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. There is already an anchor in the article to the Birmingham Six. The events of the night in question and the miscarriages of justice to ensue are intertwined. Everything is perfectly explained chronologically in the article. If many think of the bombing, they think of the Birmingham Six/miscarriage of justice and vice versa.--Kieronoldham (talk) 22:42, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Having this article be a mere mirror of an already existing article is entirely inappropriate. The article on John Christie does not primarily concern itself with Timothy Evans because he has his own article. This article ought to be about the facts of the specific case, namely an unsolved mass murder, and not about a related miscarriage of justice that is already adequately covered elsewhere. The Birmingham 6 should be mentioned but should not be the main focus of the article. 92.30.3.21 (talk) 00:42, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Ban-evasion by WP:Sockpuppet investigations/TheCurrencyGuy 74.73.224.126 (talk) 04:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Kieronoldham I am not proposing to remove the link to the Birmingham 6. But given it already has its own article it's bizarre that the article on the bombings has more on the Birmingham 6 than the bombings. Would you prefer that the article on the Birmingham 6 be deleted? Flexdream (talk) 18:54, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Personally speaking, I don't think the Birmingham Six article needs to exist, as everything pertinent, pruned sufficiently, exists on this article, Flexdream. It is just my sole opinion, of course, but the two articles should exist as one. I understand the weight issue mentioned, but again, the two events are indelibly linked and overlap, and progress chronologically together.--Kieronoldham (talk) 20:27, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Maybe then the proposal should be to merge the articles? I agree they are linked, and merging them would help searchers and make maintenance easier. Flexdream (talk) 10:13, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

This article isn't a "mere mirror" (if anything the content here is more detailed and referenced than the B6, one could argue). The Christie article focuses on the life and chronological crimes of an individual; the Evans case is a separate issue which was given second thought/reconsideration three years later. They are separate individuals convicted separately but linked through framing and/or manipulation. The chronology of the Birmingham pub bombings evolves to the Birmingham Six; they are indelibly linked, in my opinion. Authors write about the bombings and the Birmingham Six simultaneously. Other atrocities such as 1972's Bloody Sunday reference the Widgery Inquiry in detail.

Come to think of it, I believe a Wiki. search for the Birmingham Six should redirect to this article. Obviously, this is just my opinion.--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTFORUM, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. This is not the place to discuss who might or might not have been responsible for the Birmingham bombings.

Are there any WP:RS at all suggesting the complete innocence of the Provisional IRA and that some other group was responsible? Many organizations and individuals refuse to admit responsibility for things reliable sources generally agree they have done. The Turkish government still officially denies the Armenian genocide, Russia have never accepted responsibility for the poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko, and Sirhan Sirhan denies he assassinated Robert F. Kennedy. In all of those cases the individuals or group responsible are named as perpetrators by the relevant articles because the overwhelming mass of reliable sources agree on guilt. 92.30.3.21 (talk) 14:04, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Ban-evasion by WP:Sockpuppet investigations/TheCurrencyGuy 74.73.224.126 (talk) 04:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC) Well then why not move the superior content here to the Birmingham 6 article? This entire comment reads like an WP:ASSERT. 92.30.3.21 (talk) 13:00, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Ban-evasion by WP:Sockpuppet investigations/TheCurrencyGuy 74.73.224.126 (talk) 04:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC) Note: Tried to fix the indentation here to follow who is replying to who... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose proposal. The content is reliably sourced and absolutely WP:DUE for inclusion in this article. If you feel the Birmingham Six take up too much of the article, expand other parts. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:52, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to expand this article to name the bombing victims, would you support that? Flexdream (talk) 18:57, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

The victims' names were included until roughly eight years ago, Flexdream. A policy (I think WP:NOTMEMORIAL) was cited as the reason for their removal. It's in the talk page history.--Kieronoldham (talk) 20:31, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I think the names should appear, and that WP:NOTMEMORIAL has been weaponised. I think they illustrate the indiscriminate and cruel nature of the bombing. Flexdream (talk) 10:10, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Support proposal. Article gives WP:UNDUE weight to a consequence of the atrocity rather than the atrocity itself. Appears to be an attempt at negationism or whataboutery. The investigation was badly handled leading to wrongful convictions, however this does not mean the wrongness of the convictions outweighs the wrongness of the attack and turning it into a footnote in the article supposedly about it. It would be rather like if the article on the September 11 attacks focused mainly on the false allegations of Saddam Hussein possessing weapons of mass destruction. 92.21.253.235 (talk) 23:45, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Ban-evasion by WP:Sockpuppet investigations/TheCurrencyGuy 74.73.224.126 (talk) 04:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Note The above I.P.'s (92.21.253.235) argument ("It would be like...") is identical to that of the other I.P. (92.30.3.21). Neither IP has contributed to any other Wikipedia page. Ever. Both I.P.s are registered to the same ISP. Quack. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:30, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Entirely coincidentally, no doubt - that's also the same IP as 89.240.240.15, above. Are there remarkably few ISPs in the UK, or something :-) ? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:34, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

• How do the scholarly books on the Troubles (of which there are many but my collection mostly focuses on the British military) cover the incident itself vs the Birmingham Six? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:51, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
  • If you Google a search of books you will see that authors typically focus on the events of 21 November 74 in Birmingham and the miscarriage of justice to ensue within three hours for the Birmingham Six together (yes there may be a little weight focusing on Griess testing etc. but generally they write about the cases together). For sixteen years, the Birmingham Six were the Birmingham pub bombers because of framing, until their convictions were rightly overturned. Their case, and the atrocity itself, are fused together. Because of the fact those responsible were not brought to account.

Matter of fact, Paddy Hill has assisted the families in their ongoing quest. No pun intended, but it is like a book with no ending. Authors like Chris Mullin (referenced in the article) and Dawson write about the cases in unison. They are intertwined. The Birmingham Six would not have existed if not for the BPB incidents; the congealing of the two is the miscarriage of justice c/o British justice (sadly), and their appeals linked to the case. Had the true perpetrators been arrested it would all flow to a resolution in the article itself. Sadly, "justice" is the injustice to follow against these men, and the injustice to those bereaved by the bombings.--Kieronoldham (talk) 21:23, 30 March 2023 (UTC)