Talk:The Troubles in Omagh

2011?

I added the 2011 death of Ronan Kerr. Do you consider it to be appropriate in this article? (You may prefer to consider that the Troubles ended by 2005, and that subsequent events are a new phase of conflict that Wikipedia might choose to document separately.)

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it's appropriate here. After all the Good Friday Agreement allegedly ended the Troubles, yet four months later the Omagh bombing occurred.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't belong here. The intro says "Incidents in Omagh during the Troubles resulting in two or more fatalities". If the killing of Ronan Kerr is included then we'll have to include every Troubles-related death in Omagh since 1969. ~Asarlaí 20:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

OK Asarlaí, I removed the text I wrote. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 08:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why these articles are limited to such a criteria. The dissident republican articles were (maybe still are) crammed with almost every single action they've committed. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm gessing it's becaus of the number of attacks that happend—if we wer to include everything then the articles would be huge. Also, I think the paramilitary timelines (example: Timeline of Real Irish Republican Army actions and Timeline of Ulster Volunteer Force actions) should be as thoro as possible. It's not just the dissident republican timelines that include "almost every single action". ~Asarlaí 21:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Every single action to either make certain groups look bad or more grandeur by any chance? If we are to include all terrorist action which resulted in most of the deaths in the Troubles, then surely those single deaths should be stated and declared. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

You wrote "If we are to include all terrorist action ..." but that is not decided. This is probably not the best place to discuss such a change, unless we want to make this article an exception among "The Troubles in ..." series, perhaps on the grounds of its brevity. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The timelines from all the warring parties should indeed be as thorough as possible. (Are there timeslines from the B-Specials and Army/SAS?) For cities I would limit the atrocities to those with more then 5 dead or more then 10 wounded. Eddylandzaat (talk) 19:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. The Miami Showband massacre left five dead and two wounded, yet it was one of the most notable and indeed atrocious attacks during the Troubles. The Scottish soldiers killed in 1971 numbered three, yet is also one of the more notable events. One cannot place a precise number on the dead and wounded to determine whether an attack is notable or not. I suppose the Canary Wharf bombing in 1996 shouldn't be listed as it left two dead. Nor the 1993 Warrington bombing for that matter. Numbers should not be a factor here.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand me

In the timelines of the different warring parties every event should be noted.

In articles about cities, towns and so on I would limit it to atrocities that meet certain conditions like notability on his own right or the number of victims.

I hope this makes is more clear what I mean. Eddylandzaat (talk) 03:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)