Talk:Strabane

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Strabane article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles

Northern Ireland Mid‑importance

	Northern Ireland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Northern Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Northern Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Northern IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject Northern IrelandTemplate:WikiProject Northern IrelandNorthern Ireland-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ireland Mid‑importance

	Ireland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

[Untitled][edit]

"Occupied" is not an appropriate term to use in a nonpartisan encyclopedia article.

Blank Spaces[edit]

Several people have been adding blank spaces before/after section headings, presumably to try and move the headings past the images in the article. Doing this is not a good idea, because the layout of the page is different for each user (e.g. because of screen resolution/window size). It's best to keep the article source consistent. SeventyThree 7 July 2005 11:11 (UTC)

The majority will see it distorted so it is best to leave these spaces in order for the headings to be past the images. Could the person disputing the neutrality of the article please explain their problems.

Another NPOV dispute[edit]

"Some nationalists also claim that police brutality and intimidation is still common in the town"

Can you give your source please? If not, then it should not be included. Living in the town, I and many others would dispute this claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.223.135 (talk) 10:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs updating[edit]

Article seriously needs updating and inclusion of recent regeneration efforts. No mention of culturally significant locations such as the Alley Theatre. New photographs of the town (perhaps the new pig sculpture etc) are required - not just the "run down" areas! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.223.135 (talk) 10:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV dispute[edit]

]This article is quite POV even though the subtle ways the POV are expressed are not particularly offensive, but definitely exhibit a bias. The following are examples.

POV- 01 "Strabane (Irish Gaelic, an Srath Bán, which translates as 'The White Strand') is a town in the west of County Tyrone in Northern Ireland (known to most in the town as the 6 Counties) on the border with County Donegal."

Is there really any need to expand on the name of Northern Ireland by inserting "(known to most in the town as the 6 Counties)" This is dealt with under "Northern Ireland" and gives the article a POV bias from the start.

POV- 02

“Many innocent civilians were killed during the Troubles in Strabane, some deliberately by the British Army and others when caught up in IRA attacks.”

This seems very POV and should be backed up by evidence and references. In my lifetime (32 years) I don’t know of any proven cases off the British Army being accused of deliberately killing civilians in Strabane? Or does this mean alleged IRA volunteers? Who was killed and in what circumstances? Is this the NPOV version of events or is this in dispute? To make this statement without backing it up seems biased. Bloody Sunday is one incident where this claim would be less POV, but even it acknowledges that there is a dispute over the events.

POV- 03

“The most notable incident occurred in 1985 when three unarmed local IRA volunteers, Charlie Breslin (23), David Devine (16) and Michael Devine (18), were assassinated by a SAS unit as they returned to an arms dump. The SAS employed their "shoot-to-kill" policy, firing over 150 rounds at the three insurgents.”

This is POV as we are not given the British Army’s version of the events. Does the British Army agree that they were unarmed? Maybe so! Did the British Army admit they assassinated them? Or are the versions of events, whichever is actually true, disputed. Therefore this is POV. Killed would be the NPOV word to use.

The "shoot-to-kill" policy, from my understanding, has always been an issue of contention and is therefore POV.

Here is are two articles on the BBC News website, which seems to back up my thinking that there is dispute over the "shoot-to-kill" policy, whilst also giving information on accusations and a European court ruling.

IRA deaths: The four shootings:

Ten IRA men shot dead by British soldiers and the Royal Ulster Constabulary in Northern Ireland had their human rights violated, a European court has ruled. Judges at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg considered four separate incidents between 1982 and 1992 which led to accusations of a "shoot-to-kill" policy.

Full article at [1]

Also

UK condemned over IRA deaths:

Some of the incidents prompted claims that a shoot-to-kill policy was being operated by the security forces. In a judgement on Friday, the court ruled that eight IRA men shot dead by soldiers of an undercover SAS unit at Loughgall, County Armagh, in 1987, and two IRA men killed by RUC officers, had their human rights violated. It said this had arisen because of the failure of the state authorities to conduct a proper investigation into the circumstances of the deaths…… Secretary of State John Reid said he welcomed the fact that the court had "not made any finding that these deaths amounted to unlawful killing". "The criticisms are of procedures, the investigations, not the deaths themselves," he said. "We will want to study those criticisms seriously."

Full article [2]

The above refers to accusations/claims of a "shoot-to-kill" policy not a ruling or admission on the "shoot-to-kill" policy. This article leads me to believe that there is a dispute over this alledged policy. If this is not the case clear-cut evidnece should be referenced to back this up E.g European court, with accustions, British Governments version and verdict. Has there been a case were "shoot-to-kill" policy was proven as an official policy?

If this article is to be NPOV then I feel that these discrepancies need to be cleared up. In no way is this a personal attack on the author/authors and is meant only to improve this article to NPOV.

Steve Brown- 17:18- 9 Aug 2005--Strangelyb 01:26, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Recent POV Edits[edit]

Recent edits are reverting back to POV. This was why I changed them back to previous less POV version.

If the recent editor would have the courtesy of explaining their edits it would be appreciated. However they appear POV and so from my understanding of the rules of Wikepedia not appropriate.

POV contributors repeatedly have asserted that a verdict on the "Shoot-to-kill" policy has been made in the European courts. That being it has been proven as an official policy and therefore any statements to that fact are not POV. Or that is what I assume they mean as no discussion off edits was provided. It is my understanding that this is not the case, as per my previous discussion NPOV dispute. The European court did not rule on the alleged "Shoot-to-kill" policy, but rather that the men's human rights were violated by a lack of a proper investigation afterwards. Therefore "Shoot-to-kill" policy is in dispute and if proposed as fact is POV.

Along with the other edits recently made e.g. Previous I think NPOV version- "Some nationalists also claim that police brutality and intimidation is a common occurrence in the town, with the PSNI having little support in Strabane. With the ongoing reforms of the Police Service and the creation of the Strabane District Policing Partnership this may change over time."

Recent POV version- "Police brutality and intimidation is a common occurrence in the town, with the PSNI having little or no support in Strabane. With the ongoing reforms of the Police Service and the creation of the Strabane District Policing Partnership this may change over time but has not to date." - This in my opinion has changed NPOV text to POV. Does the whole town back up the claim? What about the at least 4 Nationalist members of the Strabane District Policing Partnership? Do they agree? If so has a credible survey been carried backing up this assertion? Or is this a biased claim from perhaps a Republican perspective? The only part that may be applicable is "but has not to date", however this, depending on your viewpoint could be considered POV. Surely the fact that there are at least 4 Nationalist members of the Strabane District Policing Partnership, is an indicator that attitudes are changing although arguably slowly, however I do not have enough information to back this up so I will omit. Therefore for the sake of NPOV I would leave "but has not to date" out.

For the sake of NPOV if any edits are being made prior discussion would be sensible so a NPOV consensus can prevail. I may be incorrect in some of my arguments, but I would be willing to amdmit this if presented with credible evidence. I may be wrong on the "Shoot-to-kill" policy. However from my limited research I don't think so. If I am please provide relevant evidence and then a NPOV consensus can be made by all. --Strangelyb 00:24, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To recent editor. There have no been petty edits. Go and look at Wikepedia five pillars before making POV edits or attacks. The proper way to edit is to discuss first.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_edit_a_page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tutorial http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_write_a_great_article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoiding_common_mistakes

These are not petty, just different to your point of view. Wikepedia is about Neutral Point of View, which in my opinion the recent edits are not. Therefore ruin what could be a balanced article on Strabane.

Where is your evedence that "Shoot-tokill" has been proven as an official British policy by the European courts. It may well have been, but I have been able to find any after searching. What I have been able to find is a ruling that the investigations were not properly carried out and that is why the compensation was payed. Not a ruling on "Shoot-to-kill" making any statements to your position eroneaous needing backed up.

You do not own the page on Strabane and cannot tell me stay out. All I wanted to do was improve to NPOV. If I am wrong discuss and then we ask for it to be adjudicated.

--Strangelyb 02:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to the Official European Court of Human Rights Judgement[3]. From my understanding they did not rule on "Shoot-to kill" as per following relevant text.

{Decision of the Court:

Article 2

Alleged responsibility of the United Kingdom for the deaths in question

Concerning the alleged responsibility of the United Kingdom for the deaths in question, the Court first noted that a number of key factual issues arose in the case. These matters were currently under examination in domestic procedures. It did not consider that it should engage in an exercise that would duplicate proceedings in the civil courts, which were better placed and equipped as fact-finding tribunals. The Court did not consider that there were any elements established which would deprive the civil courts of their ability to establish the facts in each case or to determine the lawfulness or otherwise of the deaths or any wrong-doing or negligence by the security forces (as alleged in the case of Shanaghan). Nor was the Court persuaded that it was appropriate to rely on the documentary material provided by the parties to reach any conclusions as to responsibility for the deaths. The written accounts provided had not been tested in examination or cross-examination and would provide an incomplete and potentially misleading basis for any such attempt. The situation could not be equated to a death in custody where the burden might be regarded as resting on the State to provide a satisfactory and plausible explanation.

Furthermore, the Court was not prepared to conduct, on the basis largely of statistical information and selective evidence, an analysis of incidents over the past thirty years with a view to establishing whether they disclosed a practice by security forces of using disproportionate force.

However, the Court noted, under Article 2, investigations capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible must be undertaken into allegations of unlawful killings. The Court therefore examined whether there had been compliance with this procedural aspect of Article 2.}

The really relevant paragraph, which I feel backs up my thinking is "Furthermore, the Court was not prepared to conduct, on the basis largely of statistical information and selective evidence, an analysis of incidents over the past thirty years with a view to establishing whether they disclosed a practice by security forces of using disproportionate force." Therefore they wouldn't conduct an analysis of "Shoot-to-Kill".

Anybody who ascerts that this judgement was a ruling on "Shoot-to-Kill" clearly hasn't read the full text and appear to be relying on POV analysis.

Now if this is not the judgement in question looking up the relevant ruling should easily clear up any misconceptions whether on my behalf or others.--Strangelyb 07:08, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More Background info[edit]

After searching for information on SAS killing of Charles Breslin, Michael Devine and David Devine in 1985. I have only been able to find information relating to compensation claims brought by their families which were settled in the Belfast High Court in May 2002. There does not appear to be any European Court of Human Rights ruling for this particular incident. From limited information I have been able to find from News archives and not POV analysis it does not appear to have been a ruling on the alledged "Shoot-to-Kill" policy, but undisclosed compensation to the families. As the families at the time were seeking to get an inquest opened one can perhaps presume that the larger issue of "Shoot-to-Kill" or even admission of unlawful killing was not addressed by this case. I would think that if the Belfast High Court or any other had made a ruling confirming an official policy of "Shoot-to-Kill" there would be substantial archival news articles available. The lack of this makes me suspect that as off yet no ruling exists thus leaving this issue in dispute and open to POV.

Shot IRA men's families pledge on legal battle By Sarah Brett 08 May 2002 Belfast Telegraph

THE families of three IRA men shot dead by the SAS in Strabane in 1985 today said they will continue their battle to bring the soldiers to court.

Substantial damages were awarded to the families by the Ministry of Defence yesterday as part of a High Court settlement.

But a spokeswoman for the families today said their fight had "only just begun".

Michael Devine (22) and his brother David (16) were killed alongside Charles Breslin (20) in a field at the back of Fountain Street in the town 17 years ago.

All three men were masked and armed with loaded rifles when they were shot by the SAS.

In 1988 a court was told that a holdall found beside the bodies contained two homemade projectiles with launchers and a loaded rifle.

The judge found that the men were armed terrorists on a mission to cause violence.

But their families have consistently claimed the three were shot without warning and were not a threat to the soldiers.

Charles Breslin's sister Carina said that 17 years on, her family's battle was just starting.

"The compensation claim was about making the MoD and the RUC accountable and responsible," she said.

"For us that meant getting the soldiers on the stand to give evidence but the MoD were not prepared to produce these soldiers."

The families are taking steps to reopen the inquest into the deaths of the three men in the coming months.

Families of IRA men shot by SAS compensated By Staff Reporter 07 May 2002 Belfast Telegraph

SEVENTEEN years after three IRA men were shot dead by the SAS in Strabane, the compensation claims brought by their families were settled in the High Court in Belfast today.

The terms were not disclosed but it is understood that the Ministry of Defence agreed to pay substantial damages.

Charles Breslin (20) and brothers Michael (22) and David Devine (16), from Strabane, were killed in February, 1985, in a field at the back of Fountain Street.

The compensation claims were brought by Joseph Breslin, father of Charles, and Teresa Devine, mother of Michael and David.

In court papers they claimed their sons were shot without warning when they presented no risk to the soldiers.

But at another High Court hearing in 1988 the then Mr Justice Carswell - now Lord Chief Justice Sir Robert Carswell - said the men were masked and each was carrying a loaded rifle when they were shot.

He said a hold-all found beside the bodies contained two home-made projectiles, two improvised launchers, a loaded rifle magazine, two cartridge cases, two masks and two pairs of rubber gloves.

"It is clear beyond argument that the men were armed terrorists on a mission involving violence," added the judge in refusing an application for a fresh inquest.

The original lasted 17 days and the jury returned a verdict that the three men met their deaths as a result of gunshot wounds.

Also an article relating to support for the Strabane Discrict Policing Partnership. This does not back up a claim that there is no support for the DPP in Strabane as others have claimed. If 34 per cent of Roman Catholics in Strabane support the DPP then the claim that the PSNI have no support in Strabane is unreliable. In fact it could be argued that the text relating to PSNI support should be changed to the following.

"Some nationalists also claim that police brutality and intimidation is a common occurance in the town, with the PSNI having mixed support in Strabane. With the ongoing reforms of the Police Service and the creation of the Strabane District Policing Partnership this may change over time with recent surveys indicating that a minority of Roman Catholics (34%)confident that the DPP is proving to be an effective forum for addressing local policing issues."

Although this is from the Belfast Newletter a Unionist Perpective paper. If you go to the Strabane DPP's own site and look at their surveys it back's it up. Now the DPP could be accused of being biased in their own favour, but it at least means that the claim that the DPP and PSNI have no support in Strabane is in dispute thus POV.

[4] [5]

More Catholic Support For Strabane DPP Wednesday 3rd November 2004 Belfast Newsletter

More Roman Catholics than Protestants have confidence in Strabane Distrist Partnership, a survey has revealed.

The survey found that 34 per cent of Roman Catholics were confident that the DPP is proving to be an effective forum for addressing local policing issues - compared to 31 per cent of Protestants.

The figures, published in the 2003/2004 Annual Report and Strategic Plan, are in stark contrast to previous years, when the Protestant community had the most faith in the ability of the DPP to deliver on policing.

Chief Inspector Nicky Thompson, deputy district commander, said: "I very much welcome the figures, which show an increase in the number of Catholics with confidence in the DPP and police service here.

"Everyone knows we endeavour to carry out our work in a transparent and impartial manner.

"As for local police, we are not really interested in the background figures, we work to provide a service for the whole community. Everyone is our customer and we, as a force, strive to deliver a top-class service for everyone and will continue to do so."

However I don't want to change this myself and would prefer if someone else double-checked the information in case I am wrong.

As hopefully anyone can see my edits are not designed to be petty or biased, but hopefully have improved the quality of this article to NPOV. --Strangelyb 02:22, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

History Section NPOV dispute tag[edit]

I have tagged thissection as in NPOV dispute as someone keeps changing text to what is in my opinion POV. They have not given a detailed explanation and from my research their infomation is incorrect and diputed by the relevant parties involved. The text in dispute is as follows.

"The most notable incident occurred in 1985 when three unarmed local IRA members, Charlie Breslin (23), David Devine (16) and Michael Devine (18), were killed by a SAS unit as they returned to an arms dump. The SAS firing over 150 rounds at the three men when operating their "shoot-to-kill" policy. This has been confirmed at the European Court of Human Rights when compensation was awarded to the bereaved families."

I have previously detailed why I think this is POV and provided substantial evidence to back this up. I may be wrong and am not interested in pushing the Unionist/British perspective on this, but just indicating that the circumstances are disputed. From my research their has been no European court ruling on this specific case and the case I presume metioned does not rule on the alledged "Shoot-to-Kill" policy. Even the ascertion that the men were unarmed is in dispute from the records I can find. The MOD did pay undisclosed compensation settlement recorded by the Belfast High Court, but the details are limited. After this the families were still pushing fo an inquest and we may presume that the settlement did not include an admission of "Shoot-to-kill". The lack of archival news evidence detailing a ruling on "Shoot-to-kill" would also make me suspect that no ruling has taken place. Therefore any ruling associated are for other reasons and only POV analysis interperates them as "Shoot-to-kill".

I hope others can assist in confiming or rejecting my interpretation. --Strangelyb 01:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

European Court of Human Rights Gibraltatar Ruling[edit]

Enclosed is a link to European Court of Human Rights Gibraltar Ruling in September 1995 and some sections I think relevant. [6]

The ruling appears to be on the issue that there was a lack of appropriate care in the control and organisation of the arrest operation. That they should have arrested the suspects prior to entering Gibraltar or attempted to wound the suspects. Insufficient training was given to the soldiers in respect to wounding rather than kiling. It does explicitly state that there was no premeditated policy in regards to this. Therefore I can only conclude that this does not amount to a ruling on a alledged "Shoot-to-Kill" policy, but on operational inadequecies.

I quote.

180. In the light of its own examination of the material before it, the Court does not find it established that there was an execution plot at the highest level of command in the Ministry of Defence or in the Government, or that Soldiers A, B, C and D had been so encouraged or instructed by the superior officers who had briefed them prior to the operation, or indeed that they had decided on their own initiative to kill the suspects irrespective of the existence of any justification for the use of lethal force and in disobedience to the arrest instructions they had received. Nor is there evidence that there was an implicit encouragement by the authorities or hints and innuendoes to execute the three suspects.

and

184. The Court therefore rejects as unsubstantiated the applicants’ allegations that the killing of the three suspects were premeditated or the product of a tacit agreement amongst those involved in the operation.

From my analysis this doesn't amount to a specific ruling confiming an official policy of "Shoot-to-Kill". I am unable to find any alternative corborating ruling and therefore conclude POV analysis has led editors to assume this. --Strangelyb 06:54, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Edits and Civilian Deaths Info[edit]

I have removed the History section NPOV Dispute tag. I hope everybody will agree that recent edits, not just by myself are not blatantly POV and generally been made in a positive manner.

I did edit some things to what I consider less POV.

E.g.

"The families, the local community and many people across Ireland believed these and other deaths were part of a wider British government "shoot-to-kill" policy in Northern Ireland,"

to

"The families, many in the local community and across Ireland believed these and other deaths were part of a wider British government "shoot-to-kill" policy in Northern Ireland,"

This was the way it was earlier and I believe the recent edits gave it a slight bias. We don't know whether the whole local community believed this do we? Therefore previous was less POV. Nick picking I know, but why not be consistent.

I also corrected the religious background from 95% to 93% as this is what the Census figures are (well 93.33% to be accurate).

[7]

Also I had a look at the civilian deaths in Strabane to see whether their were no civilian deaths attributed to paramilitaries aside from those caught up in attacks.

The following are some examples irrespective of the circumstances, which include alleged informers killed by the paramilitaries.

Pollock, Heather 27 December 1980 (53) Protestant Status: Civilian (Civ), Killed by: Irish Republican Army (IRA) Died three weeks after being shot in her home during sniper attack on Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) mobile patrol, Strabane, County Tyrone.

McDevitt, Eamon 18 August 1971 (24) Catholic Status: Civilian (Civ), Killed by: British Army (BA) Deaf and dumb man, shot during street disturbances, Fountain Street, Strabane, County Tyrone.

McCrory, Damien 07 October 1985 (20) Catholic Status: Civilian (Civ), Killed by: Irish Republican Army (IRA) Found shot, by the side of road, Drumrallagh, Strabane, County Tyrone. Alleged informer.

Mallon, Daniel 22 August 1985 (65) Catholic Status: Civilian (Civ), Killed by: Irish Republican Army (IRA) Shot while in Railway Bar, Strabane, County Tyrone. Mistaken for contractor to British Army (BA) / Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC).

Jack, Alan 19 July 1972 (0) Protestant Status: Civilian (Civ), Killed by: Irish Republican Army (IRA) Killed in car bomb explosion, Canal Street, off Abercorn Square, Strabane, County Tyrone. Inadequate warning given.

Harkin, Daniel 20 July 1974 (48) Catholic Status: Civilian (Civ), Killed by: Irish Republican Army (IRA) Shot at his home, Meenashesk Place, Strabane, County Tyrone.

Doherty, Mary 13 April 1980 (53) Catholic Status: Civilian (Civ), Killed by: British Army (BA) Shot while travelling in car approaching British Army (BA) Vehicle Check Point (VCP), Strabane, County Tyrone.

Devine, Hugh 22 June 1974 (30) Catholic Status: Civilian (Civ), Killed by: British Army (BA) Shot during altercation with British Army (BA) foot patrol, Olympic Drive, Ballycolman, Strabane, County Tyrone.

Carr, Bridget 24 November 1971 (24) Catholic Status: Civilian (Civ), Killed by: Irish Republican Army (IRA) Shot during gun battle outside British Army (BA) base, Lifford Road, Strabane, County Tyrone.

Barnhill, John 12 December 1971 (65) Protestant Status: Civilian Political Activist (CivPA), Killed by: Official Irish Republican Army (OIRA) Ulster Unionist Stormont Senator. Shot during bomb attack on his home, Brickfield House, near Strabane, County Tyrone.

I have therefore changed the article to indicate that some civilians were killed deliberately by the paramilitaries. Upon assessing this new research I feel the article read as if it was only the British army that had killed civilians apart from when caught up in attacks. And that this did not accurately reflect civilians the paramilitaries had killed.

I used the CAIN site for my research.

[8]

Hopefully this is agreed as NPOV. --Strangelyb 03:53, 30 August 2005 (UTC

We could leave controversial out alltogether, but this was there to reflect nationalist etc's concerns over army killings. If we go back to earlier revisions you will see that this replaced "Many innocent civilians were killed during the Troubles in Strabane, some deliberately by the British Army and others when caught up in IRA attacks". This was POV and from the records I can find the paramilitaries deliberately killed civilians and there appears less controversy over them. I am sure in some of the cases they admitted responsibility, but I don't have the info so I wouldn't assert this.

Therefore the issue was that the article read like only the British army deliberately killed civilians and that the one notable incident was the British Army killing three civilians, who were IRA members. It read anti the British army, which is POV, no matter what I or anybody else really thinks, and only focused on their killings therfore being biased.

The controversy over the Army killings is that the Security Forces dispute that they deliberately killed civilians, therefore controversial. I have been unable to find the same information realting to controversy over civilians killed by the paramilitaries, but would be interested to see any that can be provided so the article is balanced. Did the IRA mean to arrest those they killed.

E.g. "The Official IRA's arrest operation didn't go as planned and they accidently killed Protestant Civilian Political Activist John Barnhill (65), on the 12 December 1971, who was shot during a bomb attack on his home".

One sure thing is that the Paramilitaries operated a "Shoot-to-Kill" policy.

I do believe the article is still sympathetic in tone to the Nationlist/Republican viewpoint off Strabane and certainly all the pictures in the history section are off the "British Occupation". But really to think the following is not biased is wrong

"Northern Ireland (known to most in the town as the 6 Counties)"- Has a survey been done off this? My girlfirend, her parents and all their many relations in Strabane don't call it this. Maybe the "North of Ireland", but mostly Northern Ireland. As discussed eslewhere "the 6 Counties" is term used by those from a republican perspective and is heavily loaded. It is only really appropriate in a limited context. E.g. Sinn Fein describe Northern Ireland as the 6 Counties.

"Many innocent civilians were killed during the Troubles in Strabane, some deliberately by the British Army and others when caught up in IRA attacks"- As above POV did the IRA not deliverately kill the following.

McCrory, Damien 07 October 1985 (20) Catholic Status: Civilian (Civ), Killed by: Irish Republican Army (IRA) Found shot, by the side of road, Drumrallagh, Strabane, County Tyrone. Alleged informer.

Mallon, Daniel 22 August 1985 (65) Catholic Status: Civilian (Civ), Killed by: Irish Republican Army (IRA) Shot while in Railway Bar, Strabane, County Tyrone. Mistaken for contractor to British Army (BA) / Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC).

Harkin, Daniel 20 July 1974 (48) Catholic Status: Civilian (Civ), Killed by: Irish Republican Army (IRA) Shot at his home, Meenashesk Place, Strabane, County Tyrone.

Barnhill, John 12 December 1971 (65) Protestant Status: Civilian Political Activist (CivPA), Killed by: Official Irish Republican Army (OIRA) Ulster Unionist Stormont Senator. Shot during bomb attack on his home, Brickfield House, near Strabane, County Tyrone.

"The most notable incident occurred in 1985 when three unarmed local IRA volunteers, Charlie Breslin (23), David Devine (16) and Michael Devine (18), were assassinated by a SAS unit as they returned to an arms dump. The SAS employed their "shoot-to-kill" policy, firing over 150 rounds at the three insurgents"

The last one is heavily disputed on the following points.

unarmed- All state records indicate they were armed so disputed.

assassinated- The security forces dispute they assasinated them.

firing over 150 rounds- I haven't been able to find records of the number of rounds. This doesn't mean I am arguing that 150 rounds weren't fired, but I can't find any corroborating records.

employed their "shoot-to-kill" policy- This is disputed and as of yet no court ruling anywhere has proved this was an official policy.

The amendments are not changing the article to a British/Unionist POV so I am not being difficult just NPOV. It is anonymous IP(s) that are being difficult and not understanding NPOV.

--Strangelyb 00:11, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I have used my 3 reverts and am trying to abide by the rules (I hope I am) the only way to respond is on the talk page, which up to this point has proved inadequate.

What is this Unionist propaganda rubbish if I was a unionist propogandist I would have stated the facts from the oposite POV to our anonymus author/editor. I wouldn't have said anything was disputed and spent the time double-checking what I initialy thought was POV only to find that even more of the fact as initialy stated was also heavily disputed. Disputed is not the same as arguing a Unionist POV. Unless I'm wrong should the content not be balanced? Perhaps my and I quote "half-arsed explanations" which our anonymus author/editor couldn't be bothered reading are wrong but how would he/she know.

Neutrality of one sentence is disputed solely by me[edit]

Yes I would still dispute the one sentence. Not that I think that in it's current form it is POV, but that it is now too simplistic and that it needs expanding. I think that as the sentence previously read was better and created more context for the next paragraph.

"Many civilians were killed during the Troubles in Strabane, some controversially by the British Army, others by Republican Paramilitaries or when caught up in attacks on the security forces."

Historically the article was very POV and as previously stated indicating that everybody killed civilians means that along with the intially disputed next paragraph we don't have an anti british feel to the history section. To be truthful it is still very sympathetic to the majority view, but I am not arguing against that.

The anonymous author/editor is arguing that all civilian deaths are controversial. I have only been able to find controversy over the British Army killings.

The anonymous author/editor has not provided any evidence supporting his POV that their are controversial circumstances surrounding paramilitary deaths. Therefore it is untrue to state all deahts are controversial.

Anyway the reason I am being so pedantic is to get them to follow the rules and also that without agreement if one thing is changed then gradually more is changed to the point it becomes very POV again. I do not want to let edits slip by without understanding them, especially when they seem make the article worse. If the author hadn't written an artical that was full of republican propaganda to start off with there would have been no problem. That does not mean I am advocating Unionist propaganda. But reverting what were balanced contributions without dicussing them is against the rules from my understanding. And then to attack people and swear at them with a "It's my article" attitude is childish. If no-one contributes to anybody else's articles how rubbish would Wikepedia be. I suppose maybe we could change the Article to Strabane from a Republican POV, but that would be a bad as Strabane from a Unionist POV.

It's pretty clear at this stage that our anonymous friend is more interested in sectarian name-calling and user-page vandalism than following Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Time to get an admin to protect the page? Demiurge 08:13, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Demiurge thanks for your advice I agree with you I think it's time something is done so that edits are from a consensus rather than just revert wars. As I am new to Wikipedia I don't know how to get admin to protect a page and any help would be appreciated.

Thanks --Strangelyb 23:46, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've already made a page protection request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Request_to_protect_Strabane. Waiting for an admin to handle it... Demiurge 08:52, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can I please have evidence of the allegations made by Demiurge - specifically that I indulged in sectarian name-calling.

Minor NPOV[edit]

"and undoubtedly one of the best full-forwards in Ireland" is not the usual Wikipedia style. --Henrygb 01:45, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV[edit]

Please read WP:NPOV, WP:CITE and WP:CIVIL. You are in breach of all of these policies. The information you have given needs to be cited in line with Wikipedia's style guidelines. The ranking does not appear to have been "disregarded" by Strabane's citizen's at all -- otherwise why would they be writing in their local newspaper about it? Finally, your derogatory edit summaries are in breach of Wikipedia's WP:CIVIL policy. Demiurge 23:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edit wars aside...[edit]

...I think I as an outside reader prefer this version. Are those two killings in 1990 really vital to this article? What makes them so special that they are listed?

All that aside, please do not replace the link to the picture of the "Tinneys". That image was deleted for whatever reason, so unless a picture is uploaded with proper licensing that link is just broken. --Syrthiss 23:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point - although one which a club of users (namely Demiurge and co.) seem determined to ignore. This is, however, consistent with the petty, vindictive nature of these individuals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.202.35.46 (talk • contribs)

Speaking of petty and vindictive, just who exactly vandalised Demiurge's user page? - Ali-oops ^✍ 19:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it, the two killings mentioned (from both 'sides', it should be noted) tend to underscore the town's history during the period of The Troubles. Informative and encyclopedic, I would have thought. Re. the 'Tinneys' image, I've attempted to re-instate the text and the section on culture without incorporating the deleted image. Hope it's of some use ... - Ali-oops ^✍ 19:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You ignore the point that most of the killings that occurred in Strabane during the Troubles were carried out by British Crown forces on innocent Catholics, whereas bombings etc. were exclusively carreid out by the IRA. Why should the families of two victims be singled out and their grieving made public once more? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.189.227.199 (talk • contribs)

They're not being singled out. Why are you removing the 'Troubles' and 'unemployment' headings? Why have you removed the census information? Why have you reverted my correction of seamrógaí (note two fadas) as well as broke the 'tinneys' reference again (no image this time)? Why are you doing these things behind an ever-changing IP address? Why did you vandalise Demiurge's user page? Why are you constantly vandalising the Rolf Harris page? It's not even remotely amusing. Why have you declared yourself to be a vandal? Why are you not signing your comments? Why should anyone take you seriously? - Ali-oops ^✍ 10:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are being singled out and nobody could pretend otherwise. I happen to know one of the families involved, so don't you dare pretend that you know better when it comes to this sort of set of circumstances. Troubles and unemployment sections can happily go under recent history. You really know how to focus on the negatives of a town that you've probably never even been to, let alone have any linkes with. Cencus information has NOT been removed. To say otherwise is a blatant LIE. The information about the number of people living in the town was recorded twice in the article - can you come up with a reason as to why once does not suffice? I'd gladly stand corrected if you could. Tinney's picture infringes copyright I think. I gladly stand corrected on the seamrógaí issue. Ever changing IP address? I'm afraid you are going to have to take that one up with my Internet provider. I have no say in the matter. This was in fact the start of the personal attacks....I have NEVER EVER vandalised Demiurge or Rolf Harris' page - one IP address can be shared by many people. I never ever declared myself a vandal - why the hell would I do that? I will now sign my comments as I was previously unaware of the etiquette...but what exactly does all this information have to do with the Strabane article? I am entitled to respond to vicous personal attacks but you certainly appear to be vandalising this page. - (Inform me as to where I can find my IP address signed at 1743 on January 4 2006 from Strabane, Co.Tyrone —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.215.215.194 (talk • contribs)

Why is this unsigned person continually messing about with this article? Whoever you are you should have the courage of your convictions and stand over your contributions, as well as add appropriate references/sources for material added. The entries I had put in in a new section on The Troubles were derived from CAIN, a reputable, unbiased, authoritative and world renowned database and source. Yes they were incomplete, but anyone could see they were the start of a series and more would be added to cover all years. I have been trying to enter these for all towns and villages and create some general consistency. I also added the Census material - the population info was added in the introduction to give people a quick idea of the size of the town at the start of the article, so what if it features again in the 2001 Census section? This is about good, useful presentation for the reader. Sign in or sign off!! Ardfern 00:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not 'messing about'. If anyone is 'messing about' it is people like you. What difference does it make whether I register or not? We are NOT going to let a situation develop where every single person killed in the town during the Troubles is listed in this section. That is pathetic. I never for once stated that CAIN was a disreputable source so don't you dare pretend otherwise. There is nothing wrong with someone defending the town they love. I feel that you are letting sectarian feelings get in the way of what is right. - 15:48, 07 Jan 2006 (UTC)

<<<If you have a problem with the way that this is signed see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sign_your_posts_on_talk_pages >>>

Oh dear the sectarian Anonymous IP is adding in POV info then reverting and now has left me messages on my talk page with sectarian name calling

Here’s my evidence as clearly stated many months ago. Please provide your documented evidence and if I’m wrong we’ll revert.

Or in other words put up or shut up!