Talk:Thomas Begley

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, the Baronetcies, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under WP:1RR. When in doubt, assume it is related.--Domer48'fenian' 08:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Begley and the Shankill bombing page[edit]

This person is a noteworthy individual not only for his early republican but for the Shankill bombing and also because of the saga of his funeral and Gerry Adams - therefore should not be merged with the Shankill bombing page and should be extended.--Vintagekits 20:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The terror attack he committed is notable- but not him. Merge Astrotrain 20:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well in my opinion you are kind of biased and pretty much the majority of your edits on wiki have been yo disagree with me or revert my edits. Also going by this your judgement in these issues is pretty poor, so without meaning any disrespect I am not going to hold much weight in your opinion--Vintagekits 20:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well you have made your own republican POV well known- but Wikipedia is not a memorial site for terrorists. Astrotrain 21:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't merge imo Jdorney 21:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone got any more information about him? I've tried before and all I can find is tabloid stuff about him being 'backward'? Weggie 21:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tírghrá, National Commemoration Centre, 2002[edit]

Not a neutral source - one whole section based on it NPOV flag added Weggie 18:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weggie, Tirghra is a great source of information and was complied through interviews with a with family, friends and other members of the IRA. It is especially usual for personal details such as places or birth, dates of birth, what school they went to and other background information that is not normal shown anywhere else. Infact, if my memory serves me correctly you have also referenced it in other articles?--Vintagekits 19:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have never referenced it as a source. It is an provo publication and non-neutral. It is designed to commemorate IRA losses and is written as suchWeggie 19:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1. Didnt you use it in the Gerald Donaghy article. 2. It is not a "provo publication" that is bad faith and POV. 3. Its was published to commemorate the 364 republicans who were killed during the Troubles from Cumman Na mBan, Fianna Eirean, Sinn Fein and also the PIRA. I agree that as with many sources the tone is pro-Republican however when referencing this publication I never use some of the "peacock" terms that they use. However, saying that it gives a lot of good information and if also used by a number of publication outside of wiki as a source of information.--Vintagekits 19:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NO the guardian did - you could say X was listed as doing Y in Tírghrá which is an IRA produced book, so the bit about him joining in 1993 - OK but use "Begley considered himself a "true Republican" in the sense that he wanted to see an end to sectarianism and justice and peace for all." is ridiculous. I'm sure supporters of loyalists have similar books which state UVF paramilitaries commitment to free speech and their love of poetry. Weggie 19:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, it sounds a little schmaltzy, what is meant by it is that he believed in non sectarianism, i.e. the true meaning of republicanism not just in terms of Irish republicanism - again you are right if could be worded better. Have you any suggestions for an alternative use of the wording? regards--Vintagekits 19:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

Either the intended target goes in the lead as well, or the victims get removed. One Night In Hackney303 16:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edits[edit]

The entire Glenbryn incident has been removed (again) b/c it had nothing to do with the anniversary of Tom Begley's death as User:Vintagekits insists. If there is any connection it is to the bombing which killed nine Protestant civilians for which he was responsible. As he died in the blast, he died the same day.

Also, as User:Vintagekits has been informed repeatedly, "Oglaich" does not form part of anyone's birth name in Gaeilge or any other language. He has also been informed that the reference to Begley's belief in "non sectarian republicanism", even if true (which is questionable), it has not (cannot?) be substantiated; indeed it is not objectively substantiatable and is pure propaganda.

Note: my previous username was El chulito, but I was told by an Administrator that I had to change it as it could be deemed offensive in Spanish in a certain context, which was not my intent, so this is my new username. New identity 13:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Glenbryn "Loyalists involved in the Holy Cross school protest in north Belfast have displayed a poster marking the anniversary of the Shankill bombing.

The bomb at a fish shop on Belfast's Shankill Road on 23 October 1993 killed nine Protestants and IRA bomber Thomas Begley."

  1. Óglach (no I) is not bolded and is shown as his title in Irish.
  2. "non sectarian republicanism", a. its hardly an outlandish claim. b. I have already altered the term upon the request of Weggie, c. it is quoted Tírghra.--Vintagekits 14:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It does not matter about altering "non sectarian republicanism"--you cannot objectively or substantively prove that Begley held this view; regardless of what you may like to say.

Oglaich is not part of anyone's birth name--it is an IRA honorific and is always going to be removed by me if you pretend it is a part of the translation of someone's name from English to Gaeilge.

The Glenbyrn Estate may have memorialized the bombing date; not the death of the bomber, which was the same date!!! Why can you not understand that?

No one is confused by your partisan sources or your relentless POV.New identity 14:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been warned about WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA under you old user name and I am warning you again here.--Vintagekits 14:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As for partisan - CAIN, BBC, RTE, TIME, The People, iraatrocities - enough said!--Vintagekits 14:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what the problem is here. Perhaps I've got it wrong, but the holding up of pictures of bomb victims on the anniversary of his death is surely noteworthy enough to put in the "aftermath" section. Surely this is not "pro-IRA POV" but in fact the opposite. Logoistic 15:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Date of death[edit]

Month of death is different from info in text.

Gerry Adams & the coffin[edit]

Provos page 339 -Albert Reynolds "If he was going to have the influence and status to carry through the change in the organization's policy and strategy, in my view he had to." One Night In Hackney303 11:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Am I missing something here? The BBC only mention of Adams is a caption of a picture of him carrying the coffin, which states "Sinn Fein president Gerry Adams attended the funeral of bomber Thomas Begley". The Time article states "Before the Shankill bombing, John Hume, M.P. from Ulster, and Gerry Adams, head of Sinn Fein, the political wing of the I.R.A., had been discussing a new agenda for a peace plan. That was an indication that perhaps the I.R.A. had had enough of the killing game. But when Adams appeared as a pallbearer at bomber Begley's funeral, optimism faded. It now looks very much as if the killers are back in the driver's seat, and the road ahead is as murky as ever" - I wouldn't call that particularly critical myself. It doesn't even state who criticised him at all. One Night In Hackney303 11:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

Backgound section reads as a hagiography - not surprising given the source material Weggie 11:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly do you consider not in line with NPOV?--Vintagekits 11:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tírghrá as the only source obviously Weggie 12:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tírghrá, is reference by notable publications so its good enough for wiki and complies with its standards. I note the you dont query the use of the iraa website later in the article which is purely used you provide anti republican propaganda, interesting!--Vintagekits 12:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I was about to mention the use of "iraatrocities" as well. One Night In Hackney303 12:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[1] I didn't provide it - you did Interesting!Weggie 13:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So no reply??? You'd rather edit war is that it? Tírghrá is an non-neutral IRA linked publication - yet it is considered a suitable reference for his personal motivation? Err no. This is an encyclopedia not a provo fansite Weggie 17:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to rise to the bait. All I will say is that 1. Tirghra is already discussed above and elsewhere, 2. I have already amended the section to provide a NPOV version, see here, 3. Tirghra clearly conforms to WP:RS and 4. additionally it is referenced by a number of what you may consider reputable sources inc The Guardian, Telegraph etc - I have previously added these references for your information.--Vintagekits 17:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The outcome in the discussions to which you refer was that Tirghra and other primary republican sources should be used with caution - they can be used in certain circumstances to say that someone was in the IRA or their DOB but to claim that Begley was commited to non-sectarianism etc is POV without any reference to where the material is sourced from in the text. Weggie 17:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is not was the outcome of that discussion was. Tirghra satisfies WP:RS therefore it is a reliable source - this is further enforced as it is references by other recognised sources. You may not like its contents but that is just too bad - wiki does not censor or whitewash to suit a POV.--Vintagekits 17:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Point 2: You wrote above - "I note the you dont query the use of the iraa website later in the article which is purely used you provide anti republican propaganda, interesting" Why did you put that when you added the website in question? Weggie 17:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I dont know how that slipped in so I have no answer to that.--Vintagekits 17:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See the 'Extremist sources' section - The IRA are a designated terrorist organisation and so are an extreme source. Your content requires noting that it is from such a source Weggie 19:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The IRA didnt write or publish the book - and the book is about more than just those from the PIRA that have died. Your argument hasnt got a leg to stand on.--Vintagekits 21:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have taken information endorsed by the IRA (as highlighted by the Guardian) and framed it in this article as fact. This is controversial information but not referenced as such in the article - This is POV pushing at the worst. Weggie 21:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is your POV - The book is about the the 364 republicans who were killed during the Troubles from Cumman Na mBan, Fianna Eirean, Sinn Fein and also the PIRA and some IPLO and INLA. This book was written after the IRA ceasefire and was compiled from interviews with the dead's families, friends, employers, workmates and fellow Volunteers. It is THE book in this respect and stated as the "who's who" of those who where killed on the republican side. Just because you are politically opposed to republicanism does not give you right right to whitewash that perspective - The Guardian, The Impartial Reporter, The Bloody Sundy Inquiry, 2, The Irish News, Christian Science Monitor and The Daily Telegraph show that it is notable.--Vintagekits 21:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
it was produced to honour the dead (Guardian/Telegraph) - By all mean state that Begley was included in this book. The details it provides such as his non-sectrianism are biased as they are not from a neutral source - If you want to include paramilitary produced material you need to be explicit where the material has come from. This is not a neutral source, which is explicit in the links you provided. Weggie 22:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So now its the neutrality and not its reliability that you are questioning. There is nothing controverial in its claims that only issue is your POV pushing to whitewash any and every source that does not attack or demonise republicanism. Doe you have a reliable source to state that he did not believe in republicanism or non-sectarianism?--Vintagekits 22:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Background[edit]

This information will be added back at the earlist opportunity. Tírghrá is a reliable source for information on Begley, per policy WP:V. Any further attempts to remove it after this happens will be classed as vandalism. One Night In Hackney303 21:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Something "complied through interviews with a with family, friends and other members of the IRA" as stated above is hardly likely to be described as "reliable". Could I also ask what and where this "National Commemoration Centre" is. Also to quote from Wikipedia:Reliable_sources states that " their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand" and "Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and biographies of living people". This does not in any way meet the criteria for a "reliable source". Jonto 21:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you see policy WP:V rather than a mere guideline, which makes it expressly clear that the source can be used. One Night In Hackney303 21:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the paragraph on "Sources of questionable reliability" Jonto 21:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The 'Self-published sources' paragraph is also relevant, given that it appears to have been written by te IRA's families. Jonto 21:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have thanks, there's nothing contentious in there. Also "appears" isn't relevant, you'd need to prove that claim. One Night In Hackney303 21:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that none following points on the policy outline are applicable:

Material from self-published sources and sources of questionable reliability may be used in articles about themselves, so long as:

-it is relevant to their notability; -it is not contentious; -it is not unduly self-serving; -there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it.

Jonto 21:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the background information is introduced the article is POV, and WP:NPOV is also policy. The information is neither self serving, contentious or irrelevant. One Night In Hackney303 21:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Latest edit[edit]

  • Catholics category removed - shouldn't be used
  • Children removed from lead - in line with other articles. Number of dead goes in lead, details of dead expanded upon if necessary in article
  • Republican removed from the mural - standard not to mention republican when referring to memorials or murals
  • Spelling/style corrections

One Night In Hackney303 16:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide bomber?[edit]

Should the article describe Begley as a suicide bomber? Irvine22 (talk) 20:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NO and stop your trolling BigDunc 20:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, the bomb went off prematurely. GoodDay (talk) 23:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But did it? I don't see a source for that claim. Irvine22 (talk) 23:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, Begley is in no condition to tell us. GoodDay (talk) 23:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Or fortunately, depending on your POV. Irvine22 (talk) 23:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunate, in that we can't ask him. GoodDay (talk) 23:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He didn't intend to kill himself: only others. Mooretwin (talk) 23:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But the others he killed weren't those he intended. So should the article refer to him as "hapless" or "incompetent"? Irvine22 (talk) 23:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do any reliable sources refer to him as "hapless" or "incompetent" or, for that matter, a "suicide bomber" ? Rockpocket 03:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I'm asking. Irvine22 (talk) 03:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Thomas Begley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:58, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Thomas_Begley&oldid=1204690384"