Talk:Omagh bombing/Archives/2010/8

Warning

Yet again I have removed the attempt to add "IRA Oglanahan", since anyone with even a passing knowledge of the subject knows that this is a grossly inaccurate transcription of what was said. O Fenian (talk) 01:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The source already cited gives an accurate transcript from the tape, this gives a transcript ("She recorded the warning as") from the person writing it down as she took the call. Obviously the tape is correct, not her transcript. O Fenian (talk) 01:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

"Oglanahan" is not actually a "a grossly inaccurate transcription". It is phonetically correct, for people from certain parts of the North. The BBC article only says "Downing Street issued details...". It is up to the reader to decide how accurate a trancript that is likely to be, but it leaves out "Martha Pope", the codename that according to the trial transcript caused the RUC to take the warning seriously. I don't think "IRA Oglanahan" should be included, since it is obviously is not what was said, but I think "Martha Pope" ought to be. Punctuation is only a part of the transcription process, so it doesn't matter which version of the punctuation is used. Both sources could be cited (there are three or four citations for less controversial statements elsewhere in the article). Scolaire (talk) 08:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

"Martha Pope" is not the important part of the warning though, at least not in terms of this article which seems to be including the warnings to demonstrate how inaccurate they were compared to the actual location. There is also the fact that the other warnings would have included a code word, but those warnings have not been published in full. So the question has to be asked why it is important to include a code word in one warning only? The court source is only a source for what the person wrote down, and why is that really needed when other sources accurately transcribe what was said? O Fenian (talk) 09:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Again I would ask, how do you know the source(s) accurately transcribe what was said? The BBC article claims they are the "exact warnings", or says that Downing Street claims they are the "exact warnings", but it never uses the word "transcription". It is equally likely that the wording comes from an RUC report of interviews with the people who took the calls, which would make it second- or third-hand. According to the trial transcript, "Martha Pope" was used in all three warnings. Is it not more likely that it was omitted in the press release than that it was untruthfully added under oath in a trial? If you feel the article is slanted, then it ought to be edited for NPOV. The trial judge said that "one of the issues explored at the trial was the effect of the failure to transmit to police on the ground the warning to the Samaritans in Coleraine that the bomb was 200 yards from the courthouse." If it had been, " the cordon may well have been moved beyond the bomb car before the explosion", and "there may have been more focus on seeking to encourage members of public onto the side streets and entries away from the main shopping area." That's the sort of balance the article needs. Scolaire (talk) 13:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

And the court documents (a primary source) state the warning is what the woman recorded, which is not the same thing as an accurate transcript. Mooney and O'Toole's book contains the first message compete with "Martha Pope" and "Óglaigh na hÉireann". The BBC report is only dated days after Omagh, I assume that the codewords were not released at the time for two reasons. Firstly they were not important, since the release of the text of the warnings was to contradict the claims made by the Real IRA. Secondly it would make no sense for them to tell the world what the Real IRA's codeword was, since they might suddenly inundated with practical jokers phoning up with hoax alerts complete with valid codewords. I am not arguing against inclusion of the warnings, I just do not see why we need to quote a primary source's version of the warning which appears in court documents (another primary source) when it is simpler to just use the version in reliable sources. Why would we want to mix and match sources, instead of just using the BBC? O Fenian (talk) 17:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

But then why not cite Mooney and O'Toole if it's a reliable secondary source and it is complete and therefore more accurate? I just don't get why a scrap of an article on a website without any sourcing other than a vague "Downing Street" should be used rather than a thoroughly researched book or a carefully considered court judgement, even if the latter is a primary document. Scolaire (talk) 18:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, no source has the complete text of all the warnings in full. So I do not see what is possibly to gain by including the full text of the first warning, while leaving it out for the others? I do not understand the part about "carefully considered", I object to the inclusion of the woman's recording of the warning on obvious grounds, but that is not "carefully considered" anyway. There is nothing stopping a sentence or two about the similarity in attacks and codewords being used, but that "transcription" does not need to be quoted in order for that to happen. O Fenian (talk) 18:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Just checking the references section, I see that the 343-page Mooney and O'Toole book is used to reference two facts, one of which is the single word "courthouse", while the 242-word BBC story is used eight times. What is so sacred about the letters BBC that the smallest utterance with those letters above it is more reliable than any other source? Scolaire (talk) 18:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

You appear to be mistaking me for the person that wrote this article. O Fenian (talk) 18:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

No, only the person with the "revert first, don't ask questions later" policy. Scolaire (talk) 18:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it's absolutely essential that the code name Martha Pope should be mentioned in the article. As Scolaire points out, it was the repeated use of this accurate code word that made the RUC realise that the warnings were real and thus ordered the area around the courthouse to be evacuated.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 22:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I have put the court reported warnings back in since this is the clear consensus of the TalkPage. It is difficult to understand why a BBC account (which tells us it's incomplete, at least on this point) is used 8 times when much better researched and documentated sources are ignored or practically ignored. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 07:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no agreement to use an incorrect primary source over a secondary source. Jeanne all the warnings used a code word, why should only one warning include the term? That is misleading As I said earlier, include the use of a codeword some one way. Simply including the text "Martha Pope" at the end of one warning does not inform the reader in the way you give for its inclusion, since the reader does not know the significance of the term in the first place. I also object to the removal of the second warning issued to the same office, in the strongest possible terms. O Fenian (talk) 08:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC) O Fenian (talk) 08:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Appropriate details on the codeword now added. O Fenian (talk) 08:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Consensus at this Talk Section is 3 to 1 against you. You were blocked for the long edit-war you were carrying out here on a variety of dubious changes, including the omission of the code word. At Gerry Adams you are fighting to exclude mention of a feature over which the real world battle is lost - a book review (Business Post, Richard Curran [1]) that begins with "The controversy over whether Sinn Féin president Gerry Adams was ever in the IRA or not isn’t really much of a controversy at all. Adams seems to be the only one saying he was never in the IRA". When Adam's denial of IRA leadership is a battle that he's lost in real-life it seems bizarre to allow it to be re-fought at Wikipedia.

You were quick enough to warn me of the restrictions around these articles (and quick enough to delete my rejection of your warning), you're extremely lucky I can't work out where I should go to report you for this conduct. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 12:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Since when was consensus about counting heads? Where is the consensus, perhaps you can provide a diff that supports the existence of the consensus you made not also here, but when making your edit? My edit took Jeanne's concern of "As Scolaire points out, it was the repeated use of this accurate code word that made the RUC realise that the warnings were real and thus ordered the area around the courthouse to be evacuated" into account. As I correctly state, the inclusion of "Martha Pope" without explanation does not explain that in any way, but the edit I made did. Perhaps you could also answer the following questions?

• Where was the consensus for an edit that did not even make sense in any known language?
• Where was the consensus for removal of the second warning?
• Where was the consensus for the use of a primary source for the text of one warning in place of a secondary source?

Perhaps you could answer those, instead of you misusing talk pages with your irrelevant abuse. O Fenian (talk) 15:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I think its worth mentioning here that the BBC page is not a secondary source. It is a news report from three days after the bombing, and so it is a primary source in exactly the same way that a contemporary newspaper report of the 1848 Rebellion would be. It also disagrees with the other three quoted sources in a number of significant ways: it says "There's a bomb" where the other sources say just "Bomb", and it times the last call at 14:34 and the explosion at "approximately 15:00" – a difference of 26 minutes – where the others time the last call at between 14:30 and 14:32 and the explosion at 15:10 – a difference of 40 minutes! Scolaire (talk) 14:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)