Talk:Murder of Thomas Oliver

Release of murderers
The current link provided does not upload (404 message); the following Google searches also proved fruitless -- nothing in Google Search responds to "Thomas Oliver killers to go free". If it is true, then a better link should be available. What's more there is no inclusion of the assertion itself that the 3 men (RIRA 3, or whatever) are going to be released in this article itself. Quis separabit? 15:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Terrorism cat
The cat is usually avoided. See The Troubles for example. Not a mention of the word terrorism. Anyway is killing a "informer" really terrorism regardless of whether it is justified?Apollo The Logician (talk) 12:06, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Seek consensus for controversial edits and at present there is none. Also who says the category is usually to be avoided? Usually doesn't mean it must be and it has been in the article for a good while now (since 2012) with no problems so unless you can provide a valid reason for me to agree with you then it stays.
 * Also on Wikipedia you are meant to avoid using other articles as evidence as every article is its on entity. And yes it is still terrorism as you are sending the threat of terror to others who may or may not be informers or thinking of becoming one. Yet that is simply IRA propaganda to justify the murder. Mabuska (talk) 12:13, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes there is. Me and the IP User. Ther have been discussions about it. The consensus has always been to avoid the words terrorist or terrorism. See here for one example. According to the terrorism page it is "Terrorism is, in its broadest sense, the use of intentionally indiscriminate violence as a means to create terror or fear, in order to achieve a political, religious, or ideological aim". This is not indiscriminate violence.Apollo The Logician (talk) 12:19, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Personally considering your recent personal attacks against me based on a distorted interpretation of my user profile, which belies your own bias on the subject matter I'd rather take and abide by the view of Canterbury Tail who is an administrator on this site well versed on the topic and its nuances rather than yourself and a dubious IP. The talk page discussion you post provides no evidence of any policy or guidelines against or for its use. As Canterbury Tail stated at Harrods bombings where you ignored the WP:BRD guideline despite quoting it yourself very recently . Then again it has been in the article since 2012 no problem. Some valid argument please? Mabuska (talk) 12:30, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The talk page discussion I posted provides evidence that there is a consensus to avoid terrorism cats. Reverting once is not breaking BRD. You reverted once in the Irish war of independance article as well. What sources call Thomas Oliver's death as terrorism? How does how long the cat has been in the article matter? I see you avoided the fact that this cleary does not meet the definition of terrorism. I would revert your edit as there is a consensus to have the cat removed but I will not break the 1rr. Also what distorted interpretation of your profile?Apollo The Logician (talk) 12:38, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * None of the sources are describing it as a terrorist attack so I believe the removal of the category to be fair and reasonable. However be aware that there isn't actually a Wikipedia wide consensus to avoid the use of the word terrorism and it's categories. We just need to be careful of it's use and make sure it's backed up by sources. Canterbury Tail   talk  20:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Apollo please wait until the discussion has ended before jumping ahead as head counts don't equate to consensus. Thus I reverted again as there is no consensus yet but I am leaning towards agreement if no sources cite it as such. Maybe the article creator who added the category in the first place can enlighten us. If they likewise agree then I will remove the category myself for you as a sign of good faith. Mabuska (talk) 21:48, 9 April 2017 (UTC) considering there is a consensus to remove it I have done soApollo The Logician (talk) 11:48, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * What consensus? Also it is customary to wait longer than a few days to see if more responses come or not before reenforcing your contested edit. As it is I won't stand in the way of it due to lack of evidence however your eagerness should be held in check a bit, let time for discussion to occur... Mabuska (talk) 20:29, 23 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Five days is plenty of time.Apollo The Logician (talk) 22:28, 23 April 2017 (UTC) Apollo The Logician (talk) 22:28, 23 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Its almost twenty now. That is plenty of timeApollo The Logician (talk) 22:29, 23 April 2017 (UTC) Apollo The Logician (talk) 22:29, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Not in reality Apollo especially when an editor may not be able to make it due to real world instances. There is no harm in patience. 20 days would have been better than 5. Please learn to be a bit more patient and also please don't cite non existing consensus as it is bad faith. Mabuska (talk) 10:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)