Talk:La Mon restaurant bombing

Victims' names
The names of those killed in this incident was removed in accordance with Wikipedia policy, but for those interested, it can still be seen at: Previous version, including list of names --Jackyd101 18:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe it to be utterly stupid that Wikipedia think it wrong to not include such important facts. Oh well, what can I do? --172.141.30.128 22:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Terrorist
The term terrorist is POV and should be removed from the article, a number of editors have done this but Astrotrain keeps reinserting it. Can we come ot a consensus on this issue.--Vintagekits 21:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The event has been described as a terrorist event frequently. This will be included in the article with a reference. Vintage is correct in so far as this Fact should be supported with evidence. I'm not sure about consenus as this page should be used to establish one, not edit-waring. Weggie 22:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Weggie. "Terrorist" as spoken from the article persona is POV (in this respect, Vintage is indeed correct (I think that's the first time I've ever said that)), but it's not when references are provided. Logoistic 23:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I can provide a reference to say that they are "freedom fighters" - I am sure that will be OK with you then. However, in this case terrorist and freedom fighter are loaded terms and POV--Vintagekits 23:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, if there is a debate freedom fighter is as weasel as terrorist. Whatever our personal pov's wikipedia comes first and demands neutrality, and especially in political situations in which both sides suffer, SqueakBox 23:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There is a very simple solution to this problem. In the lead part of the article about the bombing, there should be no mention of the perpetrators except as members of the Provisional Irish Republican Army. Then, in a later section, there should be a brief mention of reactions to the event including sourced mention of the phrases terrorists and/or freedom fighters. Neither term should be given precedence over the other and this section (unlike the description of events) can include sourced reference to dictionary definitions and/or to government categorisations of the organisation as a whole. Sources should be from mainstream reputable news organisations or authors, not from biased or fringe commentators. It is actually irrelevant whether this incident fits a dictionary or Wikipedia definition of terrorism or not, since there are clearly strong opinions on both sides and no one wins with a lengthy and destructive edit war over choice of words. Contributors from both sides of the divide should be aware that pushing the POV that the perpetators of the bombing were either terrorists/freedom fighters is both disingenous and harmful to the article and Wikipedia as a whole. --Jackyd101 23:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The article should conform to the following guideline: WP:NPOV Weggie 23:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Which side are you suggesting has/might have undue weight?--Jackyd101 00:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * 'NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each.' Removing terrorism or atrocity altogether as some appear to want would not meet this guideline as a stack of reputable sources use these words. This not POV but reflecting the documented reaction to the event and the assessment of those who have commented on this event. I would suggest the best way of doing this is to use their words, i.e. quotes Weggie 00:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Northern Ireland
Shouldn't we change the title to La Mon Restaurant Bombing (Northern Ireland) as I assumed the article was about an atrocity ( a nice pov word for any type of murder, IMO) in France or thereabouts, which shows my ignorance but I we are writing for the ignorant (ie those who dont know abou this topic and want to learn). Anyway, just an idea, will only do if there is consensus, SqueakBox 23:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Not sure about that, but I don't know why the word restaurant is in there - if anything the La Mon is a hotel!Traditional unionist (talk) 23:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of peoples political pov, if an organisation/individual is using violence against a civilian population in order to force someone else (ie a government) to acquiesce to political demands, then they are terrorising that population. This goes for most of the "guerrilla" organisations in the recent history of Northern Ireland. Organisations can evolve, but at this point, ie. the La Mon Hotel bombing, this organisation, ie. the IRA, were terrorising civilians - they were terrorists. Coming to a consensus IS important and I agree that the organisation's name SHOULD be used.

Plot Tracer

Edit request
editprotected

There is no edit war, merely a misguided editor who is making edits contrary to Wikipedia guidelines and established consensus. The current version does not follow the style guidelines at WP:LEAD, in that the table of contents comes after the lead and does not include ugly amounts of whitespace, as can be seen in the version I was using. For consensus, see Talk:Omagh bombing where a list of names was removed by consensus from an identical article in terms of scope. It should be noted that he ignored this consensus and repeatedly tried to re-insert the list of names into that article as well. Please also see the help desk thread where the editor raised this and numerous editors have stated it adds nothing to the article. The editor in question has stated he is taking a wikibreak, so either the edit should be made or the page unprotected, as keeping it protected solves nothing except to maintain his version that is against consensus and Wikipedia guidelines on style. One Night In Hackney 303 02:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The page has already been unprotected by the admin who protected it originally; check the protection log. CMummert · talk 02:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It hadn't at the time, but thanks. One Night In Hackney 303 02:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 06:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't understand the fact that the political historical figures are mentioned, though those ultimately affected - the victims - are not.

Plot Tracer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.107.96.30 (talk) 00:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits
The information about the phone box (sourced by Mallie & Bishop) does not mention that being the IRA's version of events, it's what Mallie & Bishop say. Therefore to try and portray it as the IRA's version is grossly misleading and a breach of NPOV as it's attributing information to completely the wrong people. One Night In Hackney 303  18:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And furthermore:
 * "Dismayed by universal condemnation, the IRA claimed that the aim was to destroy the La Mon hotel without causing civilian casualties. Their statement detailed that after planting the bomb, the 'volunteers' attempted to issue a telephone warning but the public telephone box had been vandalised" - source says nothing of the sort so it's a POV addition, and "Dismayed by universal condemnation" is total POV not in the source.
 * "They further claimed that those who planted the bomb attempted to issue a prompt telephone warning but the public telephone box they chose had been vandalised" - again, source says nothing of the sort, POV addition.
 * Personal attack and accusations of bad faith
 * It's clear based on those first two highly POV edits what's going on here, especially with the attacks and other accusations. One Night In Hackney  303  22:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Category addition
There are objections (noted by reverts with cursory edit comments) to the addition of this article to a category regarding massacres. As no discussion has taken place, I would like to request comments on the issue. --86.12.24.209 (talk) 15:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What are the reasons for not including it in the category? Mooretwin (talk) 19:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Been discussed before, see Irish wikipedians' notice board/Archive19. That you think the sky being blue is the same as an unsourced POV label being applied to an event is quite telling. I'm not seeing any argument in favour of inclusion, merely the false assumption that it is up to others to justify why the category shouldn't be added. 2 lines of K  303  15:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please withdraw your personal attack. All I did was ask a perfectly reasonable question. Mooretwin (talk) 23:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Mooretwin I don't think the comment was an attack or for that matter directed at you. BigDunc  13:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Template
One Night in Hackney, why not specifically address the problems you have with the article on the talk page rather than just toss up the template? Where exactly does the article "read like a loyalists' blog"? Ot are you disputing the fact that the victims were incinerated in the fireball caused by the blast bomb? I always strive to write from a NPOV, so please let us discuss what is troubling you about the page. I have already removed the piece about the writing on the handbill as that would be considered POV.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's always easier for some editors to simply tag and avoid explaining why. Personally i think the template is uncalled for especially considering there are many articles where Hackney has edited that'd be more deserving of this template.
 * Everything is cited to reliable sources as is typical of Jeanne's editing style and i'd find it highly surprising if she didn't write anything in the article from a NPOV.
 * So unless Hackney can provide a credible reason for the template - and we can take it to the NPOV board and other places where we can let outside editors decide - it should be removed, preferably by Hackney himself. Mabuska (talk) 00:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, the article's been vandalised. The claim of the involvement of 'British agents' appears to rely on a single article in the Sunday Mirror, which, as a tabloid, is not reliable source, and the Mirror piece merely cites unnamed IRA sources. (I can't imagine why republicans would want to play down their responsibility and implausibly blame the British, can you?) This is why Wikipedia is despised and why university teachers tell their students never to use it as a source. The fact that that disinformation remains on the page is rather damning. 146.199.101.19 (talk) 20:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC)Hugo Barnacle
 * If you find something that is wrong or inaccurate then please by all means be bold and remove it or add a or  tag and the like. Obviously an open-edit site will never be a good source as it can be edited by anyone and some disruptive edits/biased edits sneak through. Mabuska (talk) 22:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The Sunday Mirror claim seems unlikely. It means the IRA bombers thought they were targetting the police so that's why the lethal bombs were planted, then immedidately having done that they run around trying to phone a warning? Also, unlike for instance Enniskillen where the IRA issued its excuse quickly, this time for La Mon it's taken 34 years to get this excuse out. It doesn't add up.--Flexdream (talk) 21:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Amazing insensitivity
"Some of the injured were still receiving treatment 20 years later." And yet there is a section "Victims" listing 12 people, only. Not the "and injuring 30 more, many of whom were severely burnt." Nor the witnesses, nor...

Can someone rename the section to "Fatal Victims" or "Fatalities" or "People killed by deliberate monstrous act" ? Shenme (talk) 01:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I actually question the inclusion of the names at all. Hate to say it but these people aren't notable. Yes they died in the bombing, but we're not a memorial and we don't generally list non-notable people in any capacity. I'm all for just removing their names completely. Canterbury Tail talk 13:22, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Removed. FDW777 (talk) 13:25, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Until the names of the victims are removed from the Bloody Sunday article (which they shouldn't be), the withholding of the victims' names from this article and articles on other IRA atrocities like Birmingham looks very, very, very bad indeed. It would appear to be a Nazi-style 'Nacht und Nebel' (Night and Fog) approach to the victims of mass murder. One would expect IRA groupies to take that line, but there's no reason why Wikipedia should.Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:58, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

PIRA bombings of trains, hotels & buses
The last sentence of the first paragraph of the Aftermath section says that the IRA Army Council told their units not to carry out any more bombings against trains, hotels or buses. However, after this 1978 restaurant bombing, the PIRA did carry out bombings against such targets, including the Dunmurry train bombing in 1980, the Brighton hotel bombing in 1984 & the Aldwych bus bombing in 1996. Were all those attacks carried out against the Council's ruling, or was the ruling temporary or later overturned? If it was temporary or overturned, why & when did it end? The article should clarify the situation. As it is, the article reads that 'authorisation' to bomb such locations ended soon after they bombed this restaurant. Jim Michael (talk) 11:21, 18 February 2021 (UTC)