Talk:Bobby Sands

There is a clear guideline on Wikipedia about the use of the word Terrorism. Please read it before editing.

Untitled

• Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Extremist, terrorist and freedom fighter

Category additions reverted again

I have again reverted the addition of biased categories from this article, and removed them in-line with consensus at other articles (Martina Anderson, Edward O'Brien (Irish republican) and Patrick Magee (Irish republican))

The history of Category:People imprisoned during the Northern Ireland conflict shows it was created as a result of Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Archive 9#Proposed solution to categorising those imprisoned during The Troubles, which starts right off by saying There has been extensive debate on how to neutrally categorise those individuals imprisoned during The Troubles in Britain and Ireland I have emphasised an important word in that sentence. The extensive debate refers to Wikipedia:Irish wikipedians' notice board/Archive16#POW category added to IRA articles, Wikipedia:Irish wikipedians' notice board/Archive16#Yes, POW is correct (part 2), Wikipedia:Irish wikipedians' notice board/Archive16#Compromise suggestions section (part 2) and Wikipedia:Irish wikipedians' notice board/Archive16#POWs (mk III). @Scolaire: summarises the whole issue perfectly in the last link, saying Woah! Hang on! You're not going to call them terrorists, you're going to call them criminals?? Let me say this one more time — this is not NPOV, this is extremely POV! I really had the feeling that you were pretty clued-in, that you were genuinely interested in finding a solution, but let me say: this is not it! Calling them criminals puts forward a point of view about the criminal justice system in the UK, as well as the competence of UK courts to try the cases, and whether politically-motivated acts can be treated as "criminal". So please, drop this one now!

Category:Criminals from Derry (city) contained only one article, Martina Anderson, despite it being created on 12 July 2019. This demonstrates clearly this was not an attempt to use categories to navigate to similar articles, but to add a criminal label to an article about a living person.

The debates concluded that it was inappropriate to categorise people imprisoned during the Troubles as criminals. This is supported by Wikipedia:Categorization of people#General considerations which says to categorize behaviour or acts as criminal, not people as criminal. FDW777 (talk) 06:02, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

The categories & inclusion in them aren't biased; your removal of them is. I usually assume good faith, but you've falsely assigned bad faith to me. Also, the large majority of your edits are about Irish republicanism, so you're portraying yourself as a single-purpose account who occasionally edits other topics.

The first discussion ended without consensus - it didn't reach anything like the conclusion that you claim. The other discussions were mainly about whether people imprisoned on terrorist charges/convictions should be categorised as POWs, which isn't anything to do with the cats in question.

There are many cats which categorise people as criminals. People who've been convicted of serious crimes (terrorist or not) - whose convictions have not been quashed - certainly should be categorised as criminals. Saying that we can't categorise people convicted of certain crimes or those belonging to certain criminal groups as criminals is ridiculous. For example, Ed O'Brien undoubtedly bombed a bus in 96. Patrick Magee undoubtedly bombed a hotel in 84, killing 5 people, then planted a bomb in a hotel in London in 85. Those were very serious crimes perpetrated against civilians & would be regardless of the bombers' ideology.

Cats being underpopulated - when other articles are eligible to be in them - doesn't mean anything like what you claim it does. Many valid cats are underpopulated months after they were created.

There's no rule/guideline that living people are ineligible for criminal cats.

In the edits you mention above, you removed criminal cats only from articles of people who committed terrorist-related offences whilst they were IRA members. Do you also think that we shouldn't categorise people who've committed terrorist crimes in the name of other ideologies (such as Mohammad Sidique Khan, Mohamed Atta, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Joseph Kony, Josu Urrutikoetxea, Anders Behring Breivik & Andreas Baader) as criminals? Your arguments - if accepted - would lead to the conclusion that criminal cats shouldn't be on those articles either. Or are you saying that there's some reason to categorise IRA members' criminality differently to the criminality of Islamist, Christian, separatist, far-right, far-left etc. terrorists? Jim Michael (talk) 12:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

The discussions included the categorisation of people as criminals, as the quote from @Scolaire: says. Read the discussions properly. Also read Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland/Archive 17#Politicians convicted of crimes, One side (the establishment) saw certain acts as crimes, and the other (the paramilitariesand their related political parties) saw them as political acts. Certainly, seven or eight years ago, there was a convention that they were not treated as either. The acts would be described as killings or robberies, and if a person was convicted and jailed for the act, they would be categorised as Category:Prisoners and detainees of Northern Ireland or a sub-cat of Category:People imprisoned during the Northern Ireland conflict. This applied equally to republicans, loyalists and members of the security forces.

I have no problem with anyone being categorised as part of Category:Republicans imprisoned during the Northern Ireland conflict or its sub-categories, since they are factual. Using any category using the term "Criminals" in it to describe anyone imprisoned during the Troubles, be they loyalist, republican or security forces, is inherently not NPOV. FDW777 (talk) 12:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

The thing about categories is that they are intended to bring together similar subjects. Thus, in a "criminal" category you would expect to find people like Ted Bundy, Ronnie Biggs and John Gilligan: people who committed crimes for personal gain, in the heat of passion, or simply because they could, and believed they would get away with it. What somebody once called "ordinary decent criminals". People who commit certain acts for ideological reasons are a different class of person. They're not the same as ODCs, and we don't expect to find them in the same category. That includes Mohamed Atta, Joseph Kony and Andreas Baader as well as Bobby Sands and other IRA men. A category ceases to have a useful function if it jumbles together subjects of different types. As FDW777 points out, republican and loyalist paramilitaries who committed acts of violence have their own categories; putting them in "criminal" categories as well only muddies the waters and doesn't improve the project. By the way, none of Mohamed Atta, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Joseph Kony, Josu Urrutikoetxea and Andreas Baader is in any "criminal" category. Mohammad Sidique Khan and Anders Breivik are, but I would argue for their removal. Scolaire (talk) 17:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

All those I listed here are in criminal-related cats of some sort - & Patrick Magee still is, after some applicable cats were recently removed. It seems like you're saying that categorising a terrorist as a murderer is correct, but we mustn't have the same person in a category which includes the word crime or criminal - which is bizarre, because Category:Murderers is a sub-subcat of Category:Criminals. It's also unsupported by any WP policy or guideline.

Categorising known serious criminals as criminals isn't POV - whether it's Magee, The Kray twins or Fred West. All those were undoubtedly murderers - it's factual, well-sourced & relevant. The criminal's motive makes no difference to whether or not what they did was a crime. A killer may do some sort of psychological gymnastics to make himself come to the conclusion that planting a bomb in a hotel in Brighton & another in a hotel in London is justified, productive & helpful, but he would still have been very aware that his actions were serious crimes, In addition, the authorities make no exception in the law on any such basis. Saying that having certain motives should exclude them from criminal cats would mean you could make that argument for other categories of criminal. You could argue that - to use your example - the difference between the motives of Ted Bundy & Ronnie Biggs is major - TB being primarily motivated by enjoying killing; RB motivated primarily by financial gain. It's highly unlikely that anyone would say that one of those types shouldn't be categorised as a criminal. Jim Michael (talk) 18:05, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Silly me! I looked for "criminal" in the categories and not for "murderers". My mistake, but I would still argue that those articles should not be in those categories. I still can't find "murderer" or any other subcat of "criminal" in the Kony, Urrutikoetxea or Baader articles.

You say, Categorising known serious criminals as criminals isn't POV, but Bobby Sands isn't a known serious criminal; he is regarded as a terrorist by many people, and as a freedom fighter by many others (few would regard him as just a common criminal). It's entirely a matter of point of view (POV), unlike Bundy and Biggs, who were unambiguously criminals. You also say, A killer may do some sort of psychological gymnastics to make himself come to the conclusion that planting a bomb in a hotel in Brighton & another in a hotel in London is justified, productive & helpful. That shows that you have strong feelings on the question, and you're expressing those strong feelings by adding a "criminal" cat. That is POV-pushing, even if it doesn't seem like it to you. I am not in any way an apologist for Sands. I simply think that having categories for political/religious activists who kill and categories for common criminals, and then putting people from one category into another, is unencyclopaedic. Scolaire (talk) 11:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

There's no policy or guideline which says that terrorists shouldn't be in criminal cats, nor would it make sense to have such an exclusion. They aren't exempt from conviction, imprisonment - nor from WP cats. This distinction you make between ordinary criminals & terrorists doesn't exist in the vast majority of contexts. If, for example, a person has been convicted of murder (whether it be Magee or Harold Shipman), they're rightly categorised as criminals & murderers. If they undoubtedly committed that crime but weren't able to be convicted due to being dead before there was an opportunity to try them (for example O'Brien or Fred West), they're likewise rightly categorised as such. That's unambiguous. To say that they aren't criminals (or some aren't based on their motive/ideology) & to not describe them as such is POV.

JK, JU & AB are all in terrorist cats.

Many criminals are held in high regard by some people - not only those with political motives. Biggs is regarded by many as some sort of folk hero for committing a very large robbery, escaping from prison & going on the run - remaining free for decades. Some people praised Raoul Moat. Many imprisoned, convicted serial killers receive fan mail. Freedom fighter cats rightly don't exist on WP.

You'd struggle to find people who know about terrorism yet have no feelings about it. It'd be even less likely that you'd find people who have no feelings on the matter, yet choose to spend many hours of their free time improving articles related to it. You could say the same about people who edit articles about politicians, actors, sportspeople etc. - most aren't neutral about the subjects of the articles. My editing is neutral & factual, including adding relevant cats.

Categories are for navigating to similar articles, not for labelling people. Anyone vaguely familiar with Bobby Sands will know he rejected the label of criminal to be wiling to endure years of appalling conditions in prison, followed by a hunger strike to the death. Saying he was convicted of a crime is a factual statement. Saying he was a criminal is not a factual statement, and endorses the British government's propaganda. Doing so fails Wikipedia:Categorization, since Categorization must also maintain a neutral point of view. FDW777 (talk) 12:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

People who've undoubtedly committed serious crimes are rightly described as criminals. That's factual & neutral, every bit as much as saying that they were convicted - it's not propaganda. Every country in the world regards people who bomb shops, hotels, buses etc. as criminals - it's not a British thing. It makes no difference if the perpetrators describe their crimes against civilian targets as a way of fighting, struggling or as an intended route to liberation. It wouldn't be neutral to introduce or categorise as a criminal someone who has a long successful career as an entertainer, scientist, sportsperson etc. who once committed a minor crime. However, the people we're talking about here are a world away from that. All 4 whom you removed cats from undoubtedly committed serious crimes. None of them said that they were framed. 3 undoubtedly committed violent crimes & the other made bombs for other people to use them for that purpose. There's no exception - in law, in WP policies, in media coverage etc. for any type of criminal based on their motivation - it would be very biased to give any type of criminal an exception. Many criminals of various kinds reject the label of criminal - either by denying that they committed the crimes, saying they were justified in committing them, saying that someone made them do it etc. Many terrorist orgs use words such as army, freedom, liberation or defence in order to make themselves sound legitimate. Some criminals who aren't political refer to themselves in ways that make them sound good, including some members of street gangs who refer to themselves as soldiers. Many rioters (political or not) refer to the rioting which they take part in as uprisings. Many of the 2011 rioters in England said that they were justified in burgling shops & setting them on fire in Manchester because police shot a drug dealer in London. Many career criminals say that committing crimes is justified as a way for them to provide a the best standard of living for their families. A hunger strike to the death is a slow suicide accompanied by demands. West isn't absolved of his crimes because he killed himself, nor are hunger strikers such as Sands or Barry Horne. Sands was well aware that planting a bomb in a furniture shop and carrying a gun were serious crimes and no-one claims that he was framed. Having been treated badly in prison doesn't change that. Jim Michael (talk) 09:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

We are not here to right great wrongs and the convention on wikipedia is pretty clear on the terrorist/criminal issue. If you want to change that you need to make a more general case for a change rather than working on one article -----Snowded ^TALK 11:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

No WP convention/policy/guideline says to not categorise terrorists as criminals. If it did, you'd give a link to it. I'm not merely working on 1 article. FDW chose to start a discussion here in relation to this & 3 other bios from which he recently removed criminal cats. Jim Michael (talk) 13:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

What Jim Michael deliberately fails to mention is that the other articles he refers to are ones that he added the categories to in the first place. Martina Anderson here and here, Edward O'Brien here and here and Patrick Magee here, here, here and here. FDW777 (talk) 14:15, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about Sands being badly treated, I said he endured years of appalling conditions, due to being on the blanket protest and dirty protest due to completely rejecting the label of criminal. These started due to the British government's three-pronged strategy, beginning in 1976 of criminalisation, normalistion and Ulsterisation. Criminalisation referring to the ending of internment without trial and the withdrawal of special category status, since before 1976 the British government were quite willing to accept that republican, and loyalist, prisoners weren't common criminals but had entirely different motivations. This is covered by any decent book on the Troubles. These authors give you an insight into the situation. Peter Taylor, Provos: The IRA and Sinn Féin page 251 Mrs McCloskey had said that she did not want her son to die and then when he lapsed into a coma she would take him off. 'I would like you to know that my son is not a criminal,' she said. 'He was a bad boy and he should not have shot that person. But if I thought he was a criminal I would never allow him to come inside my house again. Prior learned fast. 'That told me a great deal about the attitude and the mentality of the Republican community.'. Robert White Out of the Ashes: An Oral History of the Provisional Irish Republican Movement page 189 Adams, Carron, and Ruddy also visited Kieran Doherty and, when Adams told him that if he stayed on the fast he would be dead in a week, Doherty replied, 'Thatcher can't break us, I'm not a criminal.' Margaret M. Scull The Catholic Church and the Northern Ireland Troubles, 1968-1998 page 101 In addition, McCreesh told a rally in Toome: 'My brother is not a criminal', in direct response to Thatcher's 'crime is crime is crime, it is not political' speech It was a deliberate strategy of the British government to present republican, and loyalist, prisoners as common criminals, it would not be neutral for Wikipedia to present their view as fact. FDW777 (talk) 18:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

As I said, terrorists aren't unique in being a type of criminal who often don't categorise themselves as (common) criminals or whom claim to have justification for their crimes. Some professional criminals consider themselves to be above & distinct from criminals who commit crimes because they enjoy it or to fund addictions. Some people who are part of non-political organised crime groups consider themselves businesspeople. We neutrally categorise all sort of criminals as criminals & subcats of it. The UK Gov having formerly considered terrorists to be different to other types of criminals doesn't mean that they considered them to not be criminals - otherwise they'd have not convicted & imprisoned them. You're quoting people who were obviously strongly biased - including a convict on hunger strike & the mother of another convict on hunger strike - saying that we should follow their descriptions of them. If we were to do that, Reynhard Sinaga wouldn't be in criminal cats because his mother said that she doesn't believe that he's a criminal. Jim Michael (talk) 13:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Please stay on-topic. Unreferenced speculation about Reynhard Sinaga has got nothing to do with this article. FDW777 (talk) 14:15, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

If it's a fact they are criminals perhaps you could provide references to counter The Alleged Transnational Criminal:The Second Biennial International Criminal Law Seminar (Theory and Applications of Transport in Porous Media) (ISBN 978-0792334095) page 411 By doing so, the U.K. was given licence to obtain the return of Irish republicans from the U.S. without the vexing difficulty of establishing in fact and in law that Irish republicans are the "terrorists" and common criminals the two governments regularly pronounced them to be. Despite the vastness of their combined resource, the two governments had been markedly unsuccessful in convincing U.S. judicial officers of the correctness of their position. Naturally you'll provide zero references like you usually do when challenged. FDW777 (talk) 14:35, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Or how about The Irish Jurist (1984), 189, 192-193 "Irish Republican Prisoners - Political Detainees, Prisoners of War or Common Criminals" by Clive Walker (cited in Asian Yearbook of International Law 1994: 1994 v. 4) As a result the public is coaxed into taking a perception of the terrorists which corresponds to that of the State. In other words, the terrorists are viewed simply as criminals, so their treatment as such is acceptable . . . Thus, criminalisation is an important conditioning factor to be applied to the minds of the British public, and it is equally aimed at channelling world opinion. Movements denounced as criminal plots rather than freedom fighters are much less likely to receive moral or material support from third states. FDW777 (talk) 15:00, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Your first para doesn't give an online link, but it sounds like it's about an extradition case of suspects whom you haven't named. As you know, a suspect being extradited doesn't mean that they're automatically convicted. After being transferred to the custody of the receiving country, they're prosecuted in same way as suspects already in the country. Suspects who've committed crimes (regardless of motive or ideology) and who are arrested in another country are often extradited - that isn't specific to the UK.

The public anywhere in the world will typically view armed groups with a political motive who aren't lawful combatants as terrorists, because they clearly fit the definition - they don't need the gov to tell them that. Such groups aren't part of any country's armed forces & their actions are serious crimes. You again refer to terrorists being criminalised, but they do that themselves by the actions they choose to perform. They choose to join VNSA groups whom they know are outlawed & commit serious crimes, including the use of violence against civilian targets. Such attacks were already serious crimes before anti-terrorism legislation was brought in. There's no free pass or even mitigation in having a political motive. The claims by many that terrorist convicts are imprisoned for their political beliefs is clearly absurd - they're imprisoned for the crimes they committed. We're talking about people who committed armed attacks, not people who peacefully expressed dissatisfaction with the government. There's no law against believing that NI should be in the ROI, nor that the Basques or Tamils should each have their own country. Committing violent crimes to try to force such a change is a different matter. No country allows a VNSA group to bomb shops, buses, hotels etc. The authorities will take action against people who do & are justified in doing so - wherever in the world it takes place.

You clearly have a long-term grudge against the UK gov (& perhaps other governments as well), which makes you strongly biased.

You used a quote from the mother of a convict saying that he wasn't a criminal as though it were evidence that he wasn't. I showed how unreliable & biased such a source is by pointing out that Sinaga's mother said that he isn't a criminal.

You haven't shown any policy, guideline etc. which says that any particular type of criminal - whether it be motive, type of crime etc. - should be exempt from criminal cats. You know that what Sands, O'Brien, Anderson & Magee did were serious crimes - they chose to become criminals. They weren't framed, weren't exonerated & weren't POWs. Their motives do not make them or their actions any less criminal. Jim Michael (talk) 11:24, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Naturally you'll provide zero references like you usually do when challenged. With predictions that uncanny I should play the lottery more. You also misrepresent the completely off-topic claims you made about Reynhard Sinaga. As the original article with the interview in actually says Even now Normawati struggles to believe that her son could be capable of such evil crimes. She did not even know that he was gay. “We are a good Christian family who do not believe in homosexuality. He is my baby,” she said. So she never said he wasn't a criminal or his actions weren't crime, so even if it was on-topic (which it blatantly isn't) it doesn't even support your point, whatever it is. You deliberately ignore that a policy based objection (in addition to the mention of the guideline Wikipedia:Categorization of people, which again you ignored) was made in my very first post on this page, when I quoted Scolaire saying You're not going to call them terrorists, you're going to call them criminals?? Let me say this one more time — this is not NPOV, this is extremely POV. You can find the policy at WP:NPOV, since you appear to be totally ignorant of its existence. I have provided multiple references to support my arguments, you've proved a grand total of zero. FDW777 (talk) 12:17, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

As I said, I mentioned Sinaga as an example of a criminal whose mother says he isn't, in order to refute your claim that we shouldn't say that a convict on hunger strike was a criminal because his mother said he wasn't - even though she knew that he'd committed crimes. The reasons for denying their sons' criminality was different, but both mothers have done so. Sinaga's mother said that she thinks the victims made false reports that they'd been raped by him, despite him having proved himself guilty by recording his attacks. Mothers are typically a strongly biased source in relation to their own children.

Contrary to your repeated claim to have proved your position, you haven't provided anything significant to support your assertion that terrorists (or any other type of criminal) shouldn't be categorised on WP as criminals. None of the links you've provided even come close to doing so - they all fit into one or more of: a) opinion & claims rather than policy or guidelines - including the sentence you repeated from Scolaire which was merely part of a discussion; b) are from biased sources - including a convict's mother's opinion of him; c) don't say what you claim they do - including Categorising people, which doesn't say not to put terrorists in criminal cats. I've long been aware of the policies & guidelines. I read the ones you've linked to again recently to see if they'd changed to say what you claim they do, which as you know they don't come close to.

My additions of criminal cats to bios of people who undoubtedly committed serious crimes is well within WP policies & guidelines as well as facts & common sense. Your removal of them isn't supported by any policy or guideline. If they were, you'd quote them. Jim Michael (talk) 13:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Still no references! What a surprise!! Ignoring the policies and guidelines I keep pointing you to doesn't further discussion. The policy is Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and the guidelines are Wikipedia:Categorization of people and Wikipedia:Categorization. A specific quote from the last one is Categorization must also maintain a neutral point of view, so that doesn't mean they present the British government's viewpoint as fact. It's been well established that it was a specific policy of the British government to criminalize people imprisoned during the Troubles after 1976. Out of the Ashes: An Oral History of the Provisional Irish Republican Movement page 144 quotes Keirean Nugent saying And I didn't see the logic in the British government - saw again that had them offenses been committed before the first of March 1976, I would be a politicial prisoner. It turned out I was arrested on the fourth of May 1976, which is only two months after the date. Yet, they were saying that you weren't a political prisoner, you were a criminal. That underlines the absurdity of the whole situation, that people convicted of offences committed before March 1976 still received special category status (ie. political status) but people convicted of offences committed after that date didn't receive special category status and were classed as common criminals. The British government are masters of talking out of both sides of their mouth at the same time.

And since you still don't seem to understand simple English words, I will spell out the problem with your Sinaga argument.

• Mrs McCloskey had said that she did not want her son to die and then when he lapsed into a coma she would take him off. 'I would like you to know that my son is not a criminal,' she said. 'He was a bad boy and he should not have shot that person. But if I thought he was a criminal I would never allow him to come inside my house again. Prior learned fast. 'That told me a great deal about the attitude and the mentality of the Republican community.'

Liam McCloskey's mother accepts that her son was a bad boy and that he shot someone, but despite that she does not consider him a criminal.

• Even now Normawati struggles to believe that her son could be capable of such evil crimes. She did not even know that he was gay. “We are a good Christian family who do not believe in homosexuality. He is my baby,” she said

Reynhard Sinaga's mother struggles to understand that he son was capable of the crimes, a struggle lots of parents of criminals go through. However she does not say anything similar to Liam McCloskey's mother, she doesn't say Yes, he raped all those men. But that doesn't make him a criminal. So the two cases are not in any way similar. One mother acknowledges that her son did commit certain acts but says that doesn't make him a criminal, the other mother apparently labels his acts evil crimes. FDW777 (talk) 13:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

You're fond of boasting about the sources you place, but this latest one is also severely biased - from convicted criminal Kieran Nugent. A problem with the way you present his biased quote is that you're asserting that special category prisoners of the time that status existed weren't convicted criminals. That, as you know, is incorrect. They were still convicts serving prison sentences; the difference was that they had more rights & a more favourable status within the prison population. The government, prison service, police, media, general public etc. still regarded them as convicted criminals & their convictions constituted a criminal record.

Sinaga's mother didn't say that her son committed evil crimes. She's not saying that rape isn't a serious crime - she doesn't believe that he's a rapist. She said that she thinks the victims made false rape reports. I said that there's a similarity between the mothers' view of their convicted criminal prisoner sons in that they both deny their sons' criminality. As I said, the reasons for the denials are different, but the situation of a mother asserting that her criminal son isn't a criminal is the same.

Stop talking down to me as though I'm stupid. You can clearly see from the way I write that I'm educated. Do you see loads of mistakes in spelling, grammar, punctuation etc. in what I write? I realise that I'm not the only person that you're uncivil towards on WP, but you know that it's against policy to communicate that way on WP. You can clearly see that I've remained civil.

Why does it feel like it's 2007 again? Per FDW777, Scolaire, and Snowded, the convention on wikipedia is pretty clear on the terrorist/criminal issue. The criminal category is not appropriate for this article. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Jim Michael is fond of saying there is no policy or guideline to prevent him from adding the cat. Well, WP:Consensus is a policy. A consensus was arrived at many years ago not to categorise these people as criminals, and Jim Michael has failed to achieve a consensus for doing so now. Scolaire (talk) 17:48, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

You'll need to show a policy (not mere comments, opinion etc.) which clearly states (not merely hints, suggests etc.) that terrorists should not be categorised as criminals. You say that such a policy was formed, so why aren't you providing a link to it?

I'm fond of improving WP by following policies & editing neutrally. There's no doubt that Sands was a convicted criminal serving a long sentence. It would be beyond POV to not categorise him as such. Jim Michael (talk) 18:26, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

It would also be POV to categorise him as such, thus failing Wikipedia:Categorization since Categorization must also maintain a neutral point of view. Checkmate. FDW777 (talk) 18:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

It's neutral, because it's reliably sourced that he was convicted of serious crimes. If criminal cats or including criminals in them were POV, such cats wouldn't exist. It can't honestly be argued that he didn't commit crimes, nor that the crimes were minor &/or of little relevance to his life. The claim that he wasn't a criminal because he wasn't a common criminal is preposterous. Jim Michael (talk) 15:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

It's not neutral, according to me and Scolaire and numerous references. Pretending otherwise is disruptive. I suggest you head over to Talk:Nelson Mandela and propose your change there, and see how much traction it gets. FDW777 (talk) 15:50, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

It certainly is neutral & factual to state that people convicted of serious crimes whose convictions haven't been overturned are criminals. Two biased editors & some biased sources don't change that. Other reliable sources say that he was a criminal. It's you - rather than me - who's refusing to accept the truth. You're honestly claiming that bombing a furniture shop either isn't a crime (or shouldn't be regarded as a crime), then you're claiming that I'm being biased to say that it was a crime & that he was a criminal for doing it?! Do you say likewise for terrorists of other ideologies? Jim Michael (talk) 17:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Clive Walker and others aren't biased, more "I didn't hear that". Special Category: The IRA in English Prisons Vol. 2: 1978-1985 by Ruán O'Donnell page 312 POA [Prison Officers Association] Chairman Colin Steel concurred with Richards and was critical of the Prison Department's policy of accommodating criminals along with 'very sophisticated politically orientated prisoners' You're convincing nobody and still haven't produced any references. Why don't you to go Talk:Nelson Mandela? Is it because you know full well your proposal will get shot down in flames and permanently stop your POV-pushing here? FDW777 (talk) 17:59, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Also I don't see any criminal categories over at Nelson Mandela despite him being convicted of more serious charges and serving longer in prison than most, if not all, the people you claim should have the label "criminal" applied to. Mandela is in Category:South African prisoners and detainees, people imprisoned during the Troubles are in the similar Category:People imprisoned during the Northern Ireland conflict and its sub-categories. Why don't you go to Talk:Nelson Mandela and see if you can get consensus to add criminal categories to that article? FDW777 (talk) 18:58, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

You keep bringing up Mandela - that's not going to change the fact that Sands was a convicted criminal. No rule or guideline says that convicted criminals aren't eligible for criminal cats if their acts had political motives, nor if they were sophisticated. It's you who's POV-pushing. Jim Michael (talk) 22:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Can we just close this - the issue has been resolved years ago and one editor on a campaign over several articles is not enough to change prior consensus. personal attacks on other editors don't help either -----Snowded ^TALK 18:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Show where it was resolved - not merely a claim, suggestion, interpretation etc. - or a discontinued/unresolved/abandoned discussion. Putting criminal cats on articles about convicted criminals isn't a campaign. Jim Michael (talk) 22:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

That would be the most sensible option. Every time a few days pass I think a certain editor finally gets it, only to have him post again with no references repeating his repeatedly rejected POV. FDW777 (talk) 07:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

If by 'getting it' you mean swallowing your ridiculous bias, forget it. That will never happen. I'll never view any terrorist of any ideology in a positive way. Jim Michael (talk) 22:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Nelson Mandela keeps getting brought up because he's the poster boy for people convicted of politically motivated crimes. He was convicted of more serious crimes than Bobby Sands and served far longer in prison. Yet there are no categories that directly label him a "criminal" on his article. If your intent is that all people convicted of politically motivated crimes should have a "criminal" label directly applied to them, I suggest you start there since you're failing miserably here. FDW777 (talk) 09:38, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

How about a compromise on 'war criminal' rather than 'criminal' on the premise that the IRA (based on their view) were engaged in an armed struggle against the British State and they perpetrated war crimes - such as kidnapping, torturing, murdering and secretly burying a (civilian) mother of ten and then not disclosing the whereabouts of her body?

Just to clarify - is it fine to class Bobby Sands as a terrorist but not a criminal? Just an FYI - the IRA were an illegal organisation in Ireland since 1939 under the state's counter-terrorism laws ergo a member of that organisation would be viewed as a criminal under Irish and UK law on the basis membership of a proscribed organisation is illegal. Breaking the law = criminal (Definition of criminal: a person who has committed a crime. Definition of crime: an action or omission which constitutes an offence and is punishable by law). We are supposed to view matters objectively and without POV. Therefore, Bobby Sands is different from Nelson Mandela because the scenarios are incomparable so it is illogical to make an argument that is fundamentally flawed (suggesting Nelson Mandela's page is edited to refer to him as a criminal). At the time of Bobby Sands' conviction, imprisonment and death the law in respect of his conviction (and validity of same) was not changed. Further, the IRA is still a proscribed organisation in Ireland and the UK, bombing buildings is still illegal, and being arrested in possession of weapons without a licence is still a crime. Whether the purpose was for general crime, or for terrorist activities (against civilian populations) that is still criminal activity (on both sides of the border). TheSquareMile (talk) 22:52, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Why a furniture shop?

Why did he & his accomplices bomb a furniture shop? What was the significance of doing that? Did they have something against furniture, shops, the owner, or some combination of those? Is there a better explanation than something along the lines of: 'it was an economic target in the UK, so it was legitimate to attack it'? Jim Michael (talk) 17:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Read a book. FDW777 (talk) 17:52, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

The article should explain why they chose to bomb a furniture shop. If you know why that was selected as a target, add it to the article - rather than talking down to me as you usually do. Jim Michael (talk) 22:28, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Why should it? If it should (and no major objection) then find a reliable source and add it in. Drive by tagging asking other editors to do work for your is discouraged so I have reverted that. This is a more elaborate version of "Read a book" which I can't see as talking down although it is a little abrubt. -----Snowded ^TALK 08:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

At Talk:The Troubles/Archive 3#"Not a religious conflict" you suggested a change to the article, without suggesting what the change would be or providing any references. @Scolaire: replied stating Perhaps Jim Michael could propose a wording for his perspective, citing a reasonably authoritative source?. You replied without doing either, prompting replies including Scolaire's And it's not up to other editors to write it for you. Your comments here show this is a pattern of behaviour. I doubt anybody is going to research anything on your behalf, so it's up to you to do the legwork. FDW777 (talk) 09:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Your 'read a book' reply to me strongly asserts that were I to read a (relevant) book, I'd find out what the reason for a furniture shop being targeted was. It also implies that the reason is well-known, clear & that you know what it is. However, I've read a lot & have never seen anything approaching an explanation. I have, however, heard many people say that they're puzzled as to why it was selected & that it's a world away from being an obvious target (unlike for example a police station, army barracks or prominent politician's house/car). I must be one of thousands of people who've read this article in order to find out the motive for the furniture shop being selected. It's not a case of me not wanting to add this info to this article myself - I don't know the reason & haven't been able to find out. However, if (as you strongly suggest) you know, why would you not improve the article by adding that info to it? Surely you'd want to do that, particularly as Irish republicanism is clearly by far the topic that you're most interested in. If you don't know, why imply that you do? Jim Michael (talk) 13:50, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, reading a book can definitely help. Here is a result I got very quickly from a Google Books search: "the IRA continued to attack economic targets" (bottom of the page). I'm not saying Jonathan Tonge is the go-to source for information of this sort; it's just the first one I found. It's well known that the IRA bombed businesses, and I sincerely doubt there were any hand-wringing discussions about whether a furniture shop qualified or not. It's a non-story. The chosen target was a furniture shop, and the reader doesn't gain anything from asking why – even if the precise reason for the choice of that particular target could be ascertained, which of course it cannot, since they didn't keep minutes. Scolaire (talk) 20:20, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

It's strange that none of Sands' thousands of fans, even those who claim to have been friends of his, will say why he & his associates chose to bomb a furniture shop. They often describe him as a hero, but how can bombing a furniture shop be interpreted as heroic? It was severe vandalism of private property which had nothing to do with the government. Jim Michael (talk) 11:38, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Your (sneering and trying to degrading) "advice" "Read a book.", FDW777, is violating our wikiquette and is of NO real use to anyone interested in this question. It WOULD have been of great use if you wrote WHICH book - AND would have summarized what valuable information to this question you have found in this book.
Steue (talk) 15:46, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@ Steue: Indeed - he often talks down to constructive editors in a patronising tone in comments & edit summaries. Jim Michael (talk) 11:38, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@ Jim Michael

The article "says", in Bobby_Sands#Provisional_IRA_activity, "Balmoral Furniture Company".

What I do know: "Balmoral" is associated with the Queen, because she has a castle there. So my guess is: This association might have been enough cause for the attack.

Please ping me. Steue (talk) 16:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't believe the furniture company had any royal links, despite its name. I'm not aware of a royal name being a reason for being targeted, otherwise Windsor Davies & Barbara Windsor would have been considered by them to be legitimate targets.

Describing various civilian targets as economic targets was clearly an attempt by the IRA to make it sound like it's legitimate to target them, but it's a world away from targeting the military & police. In addition, the IRA are unlawful combatants, so any attacks by them were illegal, as is membership. Targeting shops isn't legal anywhere & it's a fact that Sands was convicted & imprisoned for serious crimes; he was far from being a prisoner of conscience. Even Sands' most devoted fans don't claim he was framed, so to claim that criminal cats shouldn't be on the article goes against reliably sourced facts as well as WP policies & guidelines.

A discussion on this talk page by a tiny number of people doesn't create a consensus to remove criminal cats from various articles about Irish republicans who were convicted of serious crimes. No WP policy or guideline says that biographies should be excluded from criminal cats on the basis of motive, ideology or any other factors. It's rare that anyone says anywhere other than on Irish republican articles that criminal cats should be omitted & it would certainly be very biased to exclude cats from articles related to crimes & criminals committed in the name of Irish republicanism when we don't do so for crimes committed in the name of religion, separatism, far-left, far-right, animal rights activism etc. Jim Michael (talk) 11:38, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

If you believe it was bombed because of the name "Balmoral", I suggest you read a book too. One or more of the many listed at Provisional Irish Republican Army#Bibliography might prevent similar comments in future. FDW777 (talk) 16:08, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

You strongly implied that a book will state specifically why a furniture shop was targeted. If one of them does that, say which one. Otherwise, stop stating such things. Also, stop using a patronising, uncivil tone in your comments & edit summaries. As you know, it's explicitly against WP rules. Jim Michael (talk) 11:38, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Jim Michael.
And, if you FDW777 really want to be of use, which I'm sure you want, you would include the page number.
Steue (talk) 07:16, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Is as simple and easy as looking for the term "Balmoral" (if you don't know Belfast). No relation with the English royal family, it is a district -whose name comes from the Irish language- of South Belfast, as you can see in this Wikipedia link: [[1]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.39.218.10 (talk) 13:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

"Bobby Sands" was the inspiration to "Byron" of "Babylon 5"

In the TV series "Babylon 5" there is the character "Byron" List_of_Babylon_5_characters#Byron.
Having seen this series and having read the article Bobby Sands and seen the two images within it,
it is quite obvious, to me, that "Bobby Sands" was the inspiration to "Byron" of "Babylon 5".
But I don't know of any source for this.
Please ping me. Steue (talk) 20:05, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:FORUM violation ^ and your personal observations have no place whatsoever on Wikipedia - only Reliable Sources do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.169.18.254 (talk) 09:15, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Set Internal Balmoral Furniture bombing hyperlink in the lede

I tried to do it but the text looks wrong. Wikipedia's interface has changed. It used to be easy to do this. I've done what I wanted, it just looks wrong. Can someone please tweak this thing?107.195.106.201 (talk) 16:57, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Cancel that. It looks fine now after publishing. There were extra characters in the "preview", but now it looks fine. I also think the casualties of the Balmoral bombing should be included in the Lede. Those lives mattered. Aware of the controversial nature of the Article, so I'm stepping out. I've done what I wanted to do.107.195.106.201 (talk) 17:01, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

1971 Balmoral Furniture Company bombing is nothing to do with Bobby Sands. FDW777 (talk) 18:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Terrorist

He wasn't a soldier he was a terrorist. 2A00:23C8:2293:7D01:1896:4E21:3A62:EBDB (talk) 21:00, 8 May 2023 (UTC)