![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Troubles, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on February 17, 2013, February 17, 2018, and February 17, 2021. |
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that an image or photograph of La Mon restaurant bombing be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in Belfast may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
The names of those killed in this incident was removed in accordance with Wikipedia policy, but for those interested, it can still be seen at: Previous version, including list of names -- Jackyd101 18:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
The term terrorist is POV and should be removed from the article, a number of editors have done this but Astrotrain keeps reinserting it. Can we come ot a consensus on this issue.-- Vintagekits 21:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't we change the title to La Mon Restaurant Bombing (Northern Ireland) as I assumed the article was about an atrocity ( a nice pov word for any type of murder, IMO) in France or thereabouts, which shows my ignorance but I we are writing for the ignorant (ie those who dont know abou this topic and want to learn). Anyway, just an idea, will only do if there is consensus, SqueakBox 23:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of peoples political pov, if an organisation/individual is using violence against a civilian population in order to force someone else (ie a government) to acquiesce to political demands, then they are terrorising that population. This goes for most of the "guerrilla" organisations in the recent history of Northern Ireland. Organisations can evolve, but at this point, ie. the La Mon Hotel bombing, this organisation, ie. the IRA, were terrorising civilians - they were terrorists. Coming to a consensus IS important and I agree that the organisation's name SHOULD be used.
Plot Tracer
{{ editprotected}}
There is no edit war, merely a misguided editor who is making edits contrary to Wikipedia guidelines and established consensus. The current version does not follow the style guidelines at WP:LEAD, in that the table of contents comes after the lead and does not include ugly amounts of whitespace, as can be seen in the version I was using. For consensus, see Talk:Omagh bombing#List of names where a list of names was removed by consensus from an identical article in terms of scope. It should be noted that he ignored this consensus and repeatedly tried to re-insert the list of names into that article as well. Please also see the help desk thread where the editor raised this and numerous editors have stated it adds nothing to the article. The editor in question has stated he is taking a wikibreak, so either the edit should be made or the page unprotected, as keeping it protected solves nothing except to maintain his version that is against consensus and Wikipedia guidelines on style. One Night In Hackney 303 02:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 06:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I can't understand the fact that the political historical figures are mentioned, though those ultimately affected - the victims - are not.
Plot Tracer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.107.96.30 ( talk) 00:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The information about the phone box (sourced by Mallie & Bishop) does not mention that being the IRA's version of events, it's what Mallie & Bishop say. Therefore to try and portray it as the IRA's version is grossly misleading and a breach of NPOV as it's attributing information to completely the wrong people. One Night In Hackney 303 18:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
There are objections (noted by reverts with cursory edit comments) to the addition of this article to a category regarding massacres. As no discussion has taken place, I would like to request comments on the issue. -- 86.12.24.209 ( talk) 15:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
One Night in Hackney, why not specifically address the problems you have with the article on the talk page rather than just toss up the template? Where exactly does the article "read like a loyalists' blog"? Ot are you disputing the fact that the victims were incinerated in the fireball caused by the blast bomb? I always strive to write from a NPOV, so please let us discuss what is troubling you about the page. I have already removed the piece about the writing on the handbill as that would be considered POV.-- Jeanne Boleyn ( talk) 12:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, the article's been vandalised. The claim of the involvement of 'British agents' appears to rely on a single article in the Sunday Mirror, which, as a tabloid, is not reliable source, and the Mirror piece merely cites unnamed IRA sources. (I can't imagine why republicans would want to play down their responsibility and implausibly blame the British, can you?) This is why Wikipedia is despised and why university teachers tell their students never to use it as a source. The fact that that disinformation remains on the page is rather damning. 146.199.101.19 ( talk) 20:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC)Hugo Barnacle
"Some of the injured were still receiving treatment 20 years later." And yet there is a section " Victims" listing 12 people, only. Not the "and injuring 30 more, many of whom were severely burnt." Nor the witnesses, nor...
Can someone rename the section to "Fatal Victims" or "Fatalities" or "People killed by deliberate monstrous act" ? Shenme ( talk) 01:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
The last sentence of the first paragraph of the Aftermath section says that the IRA Army Council told their units not to carry out any more bombings against trains, hotels or buses. However, after this 1978 restaurant bombing, the PIRA did carry out bombings against such targets, including the Dunmurry train bombing in 1980, the Brighton hotel bombing in 1984 & the Aldwych bus bombing in 1996. Were all those attacks carried out against the Council's ruling, or was the ruling temporary or later overturned? If it was temporary or overturned, why & when did it end? The article should clarify the situation. As it is, the article reads that 'authorisation' to bomb such locations ended soon after they bombed this restaurant. Jim Michael ( talk) 11:21, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Troubles, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on February 17, 2013, February 17, 2018, and February 17, 2021. |
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that an image or photograph of La Mon restaurant bombing be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in Belfast may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
The names of those killed in this incident was removed in accordance with Wikipedia policy, but for those interested, it can still be seen at: Previous version, including list of names -- Jackyd101 18:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
The term terrorist is POV and should be removed from the article, a number of editors have done this but Astrotrain keeps reinserting it. Can we come ot a consensus on this issue.-- Vintagekits 21:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't we change the title to La Mon Restaurant Bombing (Northern Ireland) as I assumed the article was about an atrocity ( a nice pov word for any type of murder, IMO) in France or thereabouts, which shows my ignorance but I we are writing for the ignorant (ie those who dont know abou this topic and want to learn). Anyway, just an idea, will only do if there is consensus, SqueakBox 23:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of peoples political pov, if an organisation/individual is using violence against a civilian population in order to force someone else (ie a government) to acquiesce to political demands, then they are terrorising that population. This goes for most of the "guerrilla" organisations in the recent history of Northern Ireland. Organisations can evolve, but at this point, ie. the La Mon Hotel bombing, this organisation, ie. the IRA, were terrorising civilians - they were terrorists. Coming to a consensus IS important and I agree that the organisation's name SHOULD be used.
Plot Tracer
{{ editprotected}}
There is no edit war, merely a misguided editor who is making edits contrary to Wikipedia guidelines and established consensus. The current version does not follow the style guidelines at WP:LEAD, in that the table of contents comes after the lead and does not include ugly amounts of whitespace, as can be seen in the version I was using. For consensus, see Talk:Omagh bombing#List of names where a list of names was removed by consensus from an identical article in terms of scope. It should be noted that he ignored this consensus and repeatedly tried to re-insert the list of names into that article as well. Please also see the help desk thread where the editor raised this and numerous editors have stated it adds nothing to the article. The editor in question has stated he is taking a wikibreak, so either the edit should be made or the page unprotected, as keeping it protected solves nothing except to maintain his version that is against consensus and Wikipedia guidelines on style. One Night In Hackney 303 02:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 06:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I can't understand the fact that the political historical figures are mentioned, though those ultimately affected - the victims - are not.
Plot Tracer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.107.96.30 ( talk) 00:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The information about the phone box (sourced by Mallie & Bishop) does not mention that being the IRA's version of events, it's what Mallie & Bishop say. Therefore to try and portray it as the IRA's version is grossly misleading and a breach of NPOV as it's attributing information to completely the wrong people. One Night In Hackney 303 18:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
There are objections (noted by reverts with cursory edit comments) to the addition of this article to a category regarding massacres. As no discussion has taken place, I would like to request comments on the issue. -- 86.12.24.209 ( talk) 15:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
One Night in Hackney, why not specifically address the problems you have with the article on the talk page rather than just toss up the template? Where exactly does the article "read like a loyalists' blog"? Ot are you disputing the fact that the victims were incinerated in the fireball caused by the blast bomb? I always strive to write from a NPOV, so please let us discuss what is troubling you about the page. I have already removed the piece about the writing on the handbill as that would be considered POV.-- Jeanne Boleyn ( talk) 12:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, the article's been vandalised. The claim of the involvement of 'British agents' appears to rely on a single article in the Sunday Mirror, which, as a tabloid, is not reliable source, and the Mirror piece merely cites unnamed IRA sources. (I can't imagine why republicans would want to play down their responsibility and implausibly blame the British, can you?) This is why Wikipedia is despised and why university teachers tell their students never to use it as a source. The fact that that disinformation remains on the page is rather damning. 146.199.101.19 ( talk) 20:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC)Hugo Barnacle
"Some of the injured were still receiving treatment 20 years later." And yet there is a section " Victims" listing 12 people, only. Not the "and injuring 30 more, many of whom were severely burnt." Nor the witnesses, nor...
Can someone rename the section to "Fatal Victims" or "Fatalities" or "People killed by deliberate monstrous act" ? Shenme ( talk) 01:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
The last sentence of the first paragraph of the Aftermath section says that the IRA Army Council told their units not to carry out any more bombings against trains, hotels or buses. However, after this 1978 restaurant bombing, the PIRA did carry out bombings against such targets, including the Dunmurry train bombing in 1980, the Brighton hotel bombing in 1984 & the Aldwych bus bombing in 1996. Were all those attacks carried out against the Council's ruling, or was the ruling temporary or later overturned? If it was temporary or overturned, why & when did it end? The article should clarify the situation. As it is, the article reads that 'authorisation' to bomb such locations ended soon after they bombed this restaurant. Jim Michael ( talk) 11:21, 18 February 2021 (UTC)