Jump to content

Talk:Birmingham Six

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconIrish republicanism Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Irish republicanism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Irish republicanism and Irish nationalism related topics 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.Irish republicanismWikipedia:WikiProject Irish republicanismTemplate:WikiProject Irish republicanismIrish Republicanism articles
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.


Granada Television documentaries

[edit]

I note that anonymous IP 188.141.15.253 is making a concerted effort to remove details of the two Granada Television documentaries on this subject. These are major and entirely legitimate productions from a major UK broadcaster. To frame their inclusion on this page as "commercial spam" is utterly preposterous. Any further vandalism of this section will be treated accordingly. Nick Cooper (talk) 17:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While the material appears worthy of inclusion, reliable sources are needed in order to prove that it is in fact not spam. If such sources cannot be incorporated into the article within a reasonable amount of time, the material should be removed. —Eustress talk 18:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but what exactly are you asking for citations of? Are you disputing that these programmes were actually made? Who Bombed Birmingham? dramatises Chris Mullin MP's work with World in Action already mentioned on the page, and was made by the same broadcaster. Significant documentaries/dramatisations are mentioned on numerous WIkipedia pages, as appropriate, but I don't see the demand for this level of scrutiny being applied to them. Nick Cooper (talk) 18:53, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally, all material on Wikipedia would be supported by reliable citations, but when the material is called into question (in this case, the anonymous editor believes they constitute spam), they become necessary. The quickest way to assuage WP:SPAMMER is to incorporate reliable sources: Award the 1991 documentary won? Proof that the 1990 documentary was about these bombings and not others? Citation that it was repackaged as "The Investigation"? —Eustress talk 19:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you serious? The section on Who Bombed Birmingham? has been on this page for over three years, and nobody has tried to suggest that it was not about the Birmingham Six! As to the alternate title, that's what it's listed on IMDB and, what it was released on DVD in the US as. Nick Cooper (talk) 19:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Section now cited. I await demands for comparable scrutiny of similar material on other pages. Nick Cooper (talk)
I am reverting the section because I don't see any justification for deleting the cast and production team information, nor the original UK transmission date, especially when later US date remained intact. The same applies to the broadcast date of the follow-up World in Action Special. It also seems bizarre to delete the exact details of the latter's DVD release, since such information is routinely included on WIkipedia pages, and we should not pander to 188.141.15.253's bizarre and spurious cry of "commercial spam."
Finally, the section heading of "Granada Television Productions" is more appropriate, because it is specifically dealing with programmes made by that broadcaster, and no others. As with the earlier editions of World in Action mentioned in the narrative events, Who Bombed Birmingham? is widely acknowleded as having had an influence on the events the page deals with, so to marginalise them is a gross misrepresenation. Granada's role was frequently noted in Parliament (e.g. [1], [2], [3], [4]), not least that the original WiA programme which disputed the work of forensic scientist Frank Skuse, prompted not only the initial Home Office investigation[5], but also Skuse's sudden early retirement (at only 50) just three days after the broadcast.[6]. Who Bombed Birmingham? was similarly discussed in Parliament, especially in the context of Granada passing corroborating evidence to the Home Office after the broadcast.[7] Granada's active and influential role is also acknowledged here, here, here, here, and here. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree. The section violates WP:UNDUE, going into unnecessary detail and supporting the anon's claim that this resembles spam. If this documentary is as notable as you claim, you should create Who Bombed Birmingham? and put the detail there. (This would actually be the preferred solution since the content is duplicated in Birmingham pub bombings.) The rationale for naming the section "Media attention" instead of "GT productions" is to show its relation to the article's subject and to facilitate future growth of the section. —Eustress talk 16:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is categorically not undue weight, given the wide acknowledgement that the Granada productions had a direct bearing on how the case actually developed. Granada's work should not be marginalised as general detached media coverage, because it wasn't, and that's the reason it merits a section of its own. They were inextricably part of the process that led to the eventual release of the Six. Clearly these programmes are notable, as per the numerous references I've already provided, not least because they directly provoked debate and discussion in Parliament. Do I actually have to explain the significance of that? The duplication on Birmingham pub bombings is a red herring, given that that page deals with the event and its after effects, while this one is about the Birmingham Six, who would not have been released as early as they were - if at all - without the Granada productions. I remain mystified by the "spam" claim. Nick Cooper (talk) 17:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two things. 1. Keep an eye on this page, it keeps getting vandalised 2. Nobody cares about your wiki turf war, if it's relevant it's relevant. Keep the Granada thing in —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.105.80.229 (talk) 17:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reference

[edit]

Hi Egghead, I've added a reference. Gob Lofa (talk) 13:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Birmingham Six. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 04:37, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Birmingham Six. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 23:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Birmingham Six. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 04:31, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

. . . who had accidentally killed himself while planting a bomb . . .

[edit]

Suggested rewrite: . . . who was a victim of his own bomb attack . . . (Pamour (talk) 20:19, 19 July 2018 (UTC)).[reply]

Oppose. He was killed whilst planting it, which correctly implies that it didn't go off as planned, and doesn't imply (incorrectly) that the IRA were using suicide bombers. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:20, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per AD. People who get blown up by their own bombs =/= suicide bombers. serial # 09:12, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Use of "Irishmen" in lead

[edit]

At present the lead reads "The Birmingham Six were six Irishmen who were each sentenced to life imprisonment in 1975...". The use of "Irishmen" seems somewhat improper here, as to the best of my knowledge the term has been deprecated for some time, and so I'd appreciate some thoughts on whether it should be replaced. I'd considered using "men from Northern Ireland", noting their birthplaces, but I fear this may be controversial – while the alternative "men from Ireland" could be regarded as inaccurate.

I also think that the lead should mention that the men were tried and sentenced in the UK, or even better England specifically (being the jurisdiction), as at the moment this isn't directly specified in the article at all. Thanks. XAM2175 (T) 16:17, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Birmingham_Six&oldid=1255439962"