Talk:1983 Harrods bombing/Archives/2013/October

Title

Shouldn't this be called simply the "Harrods bombing"? 128.42.152.114 01:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, has anyone any suggests for a new title as the current one is a little strange.--Vintagekits 11:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I've suggested Harrods bombing below. I'll move it. Tyrenius 13:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Mobile phone use in Harrods

Can anybody actually verify the "radio transmission block" in Harrods? It sounds very far fetched.

Strong POV in the article

This article is laced with POV from the target of the attack being quoted as "Christmas shoppers at Harrods", the line "Unfortunately the bomb exploded at 1.30 pm killing all three officers." which obviously denotes POV, to its categorisation as a terrorist attack to the tone employed.--Vintagekits 19:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk copied from User talk:Astrotrain

You recently made a number of undiscussed changes to this page. Can you explain the following please.

1. you reverted my edit stating that you considered is POV and vandalism, can you please explain both of those ascertions please.
2. As the target of the attack you stated "Christmas shoppers at Harrods" - can you clarify this answer as from all the reports that I have read on the issue the store and not the shoppers were the target and this was confirmed by the prior phoned warning to evacuate.
3. Your reverted the article from showing that is was a PIRA attack to state that was an IRA - what is your reasoning behind this?
4. You deleted the time of the explosion and replaced it with "Unfortunately they did not have time to defuse it" - a. why did you delete the time and b. "Unfortunately" may be correct but it is POV. can you explain these statements?
5. The article previously stated the line "Three officers and three civilians (including one citizen of the United States) were killed." but then you deleted, can you please explain this.
6. you removed the line "It stated that a bomb was placed the C&A deptartment store on the east side of Oxford Street, London." and replaced it with "They claimed a bomb had been placed in the heart of Oxford Street. It was said to be at the C&A store on the east side of the shopping street." the later sounds messy and POV can you explain the edit. regards

• I would like to resolve this issue and look forward to your reply.--Vintagekits 13:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• I restored the article to the version by User:El chulito, which was the previous best version- obviously the items above would have been changes at this point. Astrotrain 13:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• I understand that you reverted it, the question is why did you revert that information?--Vintagekits 13:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You still have not responded to this.--Vintagekits 19:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• You have once again reverted this article and refuse to enter into a discussion regarding the elemants that you are changing. Can you please response giving your reason that you consider the above can to be good edits.--Vintagekits 15:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss the content of the article on the article talk page, as you've been asked to do. You've been editing long enough to know that it is necessary to achieve consensus on article content. This is a policy requirement. Tyrenius 22:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I was reverting to the consensus version- as I noted on the edit summary and above. Astrotrain 23:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus version. There is no consensus on the talk page, only a question. You need to work to reach a consensus, or else don't edit that article and don't just revert it again. Tyrenius 00:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You were not reverting to the consensus version and you couldnt even explain why you were changing the details within the artile (and still havent). IN my opinion it is obvious you were reverting because of the editor not the edit.--Vintagekits 23:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It is an opinion we can do without thanks. It is conjecture. Tyrenius 00:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe so Tyrenius, but I carefully listed out the changes from the revert and the answer lead me to believe that he wasnt focused on the chages more on the changing. I will wipe the slate on that, stick to the facts and ask again.

1. you reverted my edit stating that you considered is POV and vandalism, can you please explain both of those ascertions please. Astorian - can you explain the following changes the you considered POV.-
2. As the target of the attack you stated "Christmas shoppers at Harrods" - can you clarify this answer as from all the reports that I have read on the issue the store and not the shoppers were the target and this was confirmed by the prior phoned warning to evacuate.
3. Your reverted the article from showing that is was a PIRA attack to state that was an IRA - what is your reasoning behind this?
4. You deleted the time of the explosion and replaced it with "Unfortunately they did not have time to defuse it" - a. why did you delete the time and b. "Unfortunately" may be correct but it is POV. can you explain these statements?
5. The article previously stated the line "Three officers and three civilians (including one citizen of the United States) were killed." but then you deleted, can you please explain this.
6. you removed the line "It stated that a bomb was placed the C&A deptartment store on the east side of Oxford Street, London." and replaced it with "They claimed a bomb had been placed in the heart of Oxford Street. It was said to be at the C&A store on the east side of the shopping street." the later sounds messy and POV can you explain the edit.--Vintagekits 01:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

END OF TALK COPIED FROM User talk:Astrotrain

This is a third party observation. I am concerned that the above conversation is being conducted without the obvious solution, which is to provide verifiable references to support the relevant points. Without that, it remains purely personal opinion and is invalid. IRA or PIRA? Find a reference, of course. I will go through the article and tag. Also "heart of" is best omitted, as editorialising, unless a ref is cited. Also this should be moved to "Harrods bombing". We use the obvious and common title. Tyrenius 02:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Fact tags

I have placed fact tags as follows:

They‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  claimed a bomb had been placed in the heart‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  of Oxford Street.

Is the caller singular or plural? Let's be precise here and stick to known facts (whatever they are). Did the caller(s) claim that a bomb had been placed in "the heart" of Oxford Street. If so, it should be in quote marks and referenced. If not, then it is editorialising which doesn't belong. Tyrenius 22:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Removal of unreferenced material]]

A non-negotiable policy is WP:VERIFY. Any editor is entitled to remove unverified statements from an article (but beware of WP:POINT). Reinsertion of such material without consensus is a breach of policy. Recurrence of the same amount to vandalism and will be seen as such. I note that the editors active on reverting have not participated in this talk page. This does them no credit. Tyrenius 22:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

PIRA vs IRA

This seems to be quite a point of debate in this article. PIRA (Provisional IRA) is more correct as that is the name which that group operated under, however they were commonly known (especially in mainland Britain, not sure about Ireland) and reported as the IRA.

As such its less about facts and verification as an editorial decision about which term to use - the technically correct one, or the commonly used one.

An acceptable solution might be to refer at the start to the "Provisional IRA (commonly referred to as simply the IRA)" at the start. However this should be consistant across all articles referring to the same group. Ms medusa 05:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) would seem the best soluion once we have a source Weggie 07:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)