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 4, 2011, February 4, 2014, February 4, 2017, and February 4, 2021. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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 the dead were removed from this page in accordance with Wikipedia policy, but for anybody who is interested, the list can be found here: List of those killed in the M62 coach bombing —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackyd101 ( talk • contribs)
"The M62 coach bombing was an attack on a coach carrying off-duty British Army personnel by the Provisional Irish Republican Army." This is incorrect. The lead section should be a summary of the article. The article does not say this. Tyrenius 02:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Re. use of the word "terrorist", if it is used then it must say who has applied the label. See Al Quaida: "The United Nations Security Council[2] and several UN member states[3][4][5][6][7] have labeled al-Qaeda a terrorist organization." Tyrenius 02:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Weasel wording. Say which sources specifically and reference. Tyrenius 02:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I removed this category from this article, it was never claimed by the IRA or proven that that they where involved in it.-- padraig3uk 04:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
There are many sources claiming the IRA was involved, and the IRA never denied it. It's the silence of the IRA enough to have the category removed? IsaacMorrison ( talk) 03:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
There are a few newspaper articles stating information regarding this. This is one of many
http://news.scotsman.com/news/Milestone-on-the-road-to.2268475.jp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Location222 ( talk • contribs) 14:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments on this talk page, I will attempt to sort out the wording in the 'most sources' section. The most significant problem here is the use of categories - when is it appropriate to use terrorism categories for IRA activities? Vintagekits wants to remove all terrorism categories from pages about IRA bombings, claiming that such categorisation in POV whilst I suggest that they should remain as to remove them is to provide undue weight to the Republican viewpoint. Is there a clear consensus about this anywhere? Clearly a category cannot sit on the fence the way an article can, neither can it be sourced to the satisfaction of all users. What should be done in this situation?-- Jackyd101 03:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
If you remember, I quoted the same thing at you about a month ago in this self same debate, see your talk page. The problem then and now was that the UN do not rule Wikipedia, and their definition is not the basis for editing Wikipedia unless it has been enshrined as a Wikipedia regulation, which this has not. Plenty of other definitions of terrorism include attacks on military property, and your removal of categories based on your interpretation of a UN statement is Original research. You also haven't answered my question about Omagh-- Jackyd101 19:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Why are the terrorism categories being removed? This incident is described by numerous independent reputable sources as a terrorist attack. The only objectors I'm seeing are Padraig and a banned editor. Bastun BaStun not BaTsun 13:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
"The M62 coach bombing happened on 4 February 1974 on the M62 motorway in England, when a bomb exploded in a coach carrying off-duty British Army personnel and family members." So unless anyone has any information to the contrary, the target was both army and civilians - both passengers on the coach and whatever collateral casualties there may have been in nearby traffic. I am therefore changing the 'Target:' information in the infobox to "British Army personnel and their families" as that is who the target and victims were. Bastun 23:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I see no source that supports the addition of text saying the bombers deliberately targeted the families of soldiers, and have removed it. Please provide a source stating that this was the intention of the bombers before adding the text back. Brixton Busters 06:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I've restored the blanked template line and added the information that the target was a coach. Unless maybe the unknown perpetrators put the bomb on the wrong vehicle, it seems a safe enough assumption that the coach was the target. The coach was carrying British Army personnel and their families - as stated in the article. Bastun BaStun not BaTsun 14:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
(Deindent). For the last time - I'm not engaging in OR. Stop accusing me of doing so. In fact, stop your other personal attacks too. I agree - IRA is the acronym for the Irish Republican Army. And these too:
Bastun BaStun not BaTsun 14:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I am not particularly happy with the age of the kids being included - it does seem more graphic than required in an enclyclopedic article - but I suspect the whole lot will be reverted despite Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus can change Aatomic1 13:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
The discussion on Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army is whether to use PIRA instead of IRA, not vice-versa. Please leave the IRA name intact unless consensus is achieved there. Brixton Busters 19:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
My opinion would be IRA and not PIRA no body says it was a PIRA attack it would be reported as an IRA one. BigDunc 20:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment: There is no point in having the same discussion between the same people in two different places. Can we centralise discussion at Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army. Bastun BaStun not BaTsun 22:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree. BigDunc 22:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I Agree, I have been directing editors to Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army, but they have decided not to bother. -- Domer48 22:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Re. this edit and summary, "IRA is a singular noun; when will people get that? There is no "British mainland", Britain suffices." IRA is a collective noun and as it says in that article:
British mainland is a common usage to mean England, Scotland and Wales, as opposed to the bits of Britain which are in various islands here and there, in this case specifically the bit that is called Northern Ireland. Tyrenius ( talk) 22:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
As far as I remember it the IRA were in the middle of a bombing campaign at the time of the M62 bombing but it's a bit of a stretch using Guildford and Birmingham as examples considering these never occurred until several months later. Are there no better examples? GiollaUidir ( talk) 22:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Domer, you are not saying that the target was a "hired coach carrying British soldiers" and omitting the fact that it was also carrying family members. Rather than edit war, I guess its back to the weak compromise version - "Hired coach". Bastun BaStun not BaTsun 11:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Two suggestions. 1) "Coach. The coach carried soldiers and their families." This states the facts. 2) change "target" (which implies conscious intent) to a different word which implies they were the recipients of the bomb, whether intended or not (I can't think of a suitable word offhand). Tyrenius ( talk) 19:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
In the spirit of compromise I suppose Hired Bus is not a bad outcome as it has not been proved that family members of the soldiers where specifically targeted. BigDunc ( talk) 20:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Another point what is the source that the bomb contained 25lb of explosive, in sources I've seem it was 50lbs.-- Padraig ( talk) 00:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
The infobox should be an extract from the main article text, where the facts should be established with verifiable references. The text is unable to ascertain who did the bombing: "The true culprits have never been discovered." It is known of course that a bomb blew up on the coach and that soldiers and their families were on the coach. As we don't even know who did the bombing, we cannot tell whether they intended to target only the soldiers or the families also (or even, unlikely, that they had a vendetta against the coach company). Specifying a target thus remains OR. I suggest that a target cannot therefore be specified, only a location or victims or somesuch, as that would be the limit of verification. Anything else would be speculation. Tyrenius ( talk) 00:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Can anyone provide a source which states what the target was? If so, that can be used and the ref cited. If not, then any conclusions violate WP:SYNTH. Tyrenius ( talk) 12:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
The debate on this page has prompted me to suggest the removal of this section altogether. Shall we see what the outcome is of that suggestion? Tyrenius ( talk) 14:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like a reasonable solution. Progress anyway. -- Domer48 ( talk) 14:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I've removed target section from infobox template. Let's see if it holds. How's about Location section reading:
And not having a target section in this article, come-what-may. Tyrenius ( talk) 18:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
So the republican movement bias continues on Wikipedia. A bomb was placed on a coach carrying army personnel and their civilian families and it blew up on a major road. And yet because of the ideological viewpoint of some of the editors on here we are not allowed to say that civilans were targetted in this attack? It's blindingly obvious civilians were intended targets, or if they weren't why blow up a "hired bus" on a busy motorway? The doublespeak going on here beggars belief. What exactly is wrong with saying civilians were targetted, enough of them died for goodness sake! Anyway, I'll keep my head down from now on, I realise it's not worth the hassle. Obviously whoever carried out this attack isn't going to say civilians were targetted, but just judging by the facts we do know (a bus carrying soldiers and civilans was blown up on a busy motorway) I think we can safely assume civilians were targetted. Cornisle ( talk) 14:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Proposed wording: "IRA cited in the media, but not proven or admitted". Tyrenius ( talk) 15:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeh, seems fine, I'd go along with that. -- Domer48 ( talk) 18:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
It would appear we have agreement on this and in the section above.-- Padraig ( talk) 11:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Article protection removed. Infobox amended per above consensus. Editors should not change the specific info without achieving a new consensus to do so, and may be reverted otherwise. Category changed per John above. Tyrenius ( talk) 15:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC) Brian Keenan IRA Quartermaster asked for the M62 bomb to be taken into consideration when being sentanced for other crimes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jelly222 ( talk • contribs) 20:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
His name is Houghton, with a o.-- Padraig ( talk) 18:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Protected for one week. Please discuss and come to an agreed version on this page. Don't keep on edit-warring. Tyrenius ( talk) 12:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
The coordinates attributed to the bombing are currently 53°44′35.4″N 1°40′12″W, due north of Oakwell Hall. This is around 4.5 miles away from Hartshead Moor Service Station, and i find it odd that this is considered to be "near Hartshead Moor Motorway service area", when there are other, closer, landmarks to be used as a reference point. Can anyone find a reference for the exact location of the explosion? I've looked, with no success. Julianhall ( talk) 23:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I've added some new images. A gallery may not be required - the images might be better integrated with the text. The distant ones are not the best quality, as they a a bit blurred - a better camera on a tripod is really required. The installation is quite a big deal at the services, as it is also very visibly advertised by a large double-sided plastic banner. I did not think this was a suitable image as it's not clear if it's intended to be permanent and it also rather prominently shows the sponsor - Marshalls plc. Martinevans123 ( talk) 13:32, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
FYI. Andy Dingley ( talk) 09:34, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:M62 coach bombing/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
.
|
Last edited at 14:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 22:42, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
An editor is repeatedly removing the obvious category Category:Terrorist incidents in the United Kingdom in 1974 from this article. Before I take this to ANEW, are you going to explain why? Andy Dingley ( talk) 21:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on M62 coach bombing. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:30, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Is it not worth mentioning that George Oldfield led and also botched the Yorkshire Ripper case? 46.7.195.132 ( talk) 21:36, 24 February 2020 (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 4, 2011, February 4, 2014, February 4, 2017, and February 4, 2021. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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 the dead were removed from this page in accordance with Wikipedia policy, but for anybody who is interested, the list can be found here: List of those killed in the M62 coach bombing —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackyd101 ( talk • contribs)
"The M62 coach bombing was an attack on a coach carrying off-duty British Army personnel by the Provisional Irish Republican Army." This is incorrect. The lead section should be a summary of the article. The article does not say this. Tyrenius 02:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Re. use of the word "terrorist", if it is used then it must say who has applied the label. See Al Quaida: "The United Nations Security Council[2] and several UN member states[3][4][5][6][7] have labeled al-Qaeda a terrorist organization." Tyrenius 02:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Weasel wording. Say which sources specifically and reference. Tyrenius 02:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I removed this category from this article, it was never claimed by the IRA or proven that that they where involved in it.-- padraig3uk 04:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
There are many sources claiming the IRA was involved, and the IRA never denied it. It's the silence of the IRA enough to have the category removed? IsaacMorrison ( talk) 03:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
There are a few newspaper articles stating information regarding this. This is one of many
http://news.scotsman.com/news/Milestone-on-the-road-to.2268475.jp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Location222 ( talk • contribs) 14:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments on this talk page, I will attempt to sort out the wording in the 'most sources' section. The most significant problem here is the use of categories - when is it appropriate to use terrorism categories for IRA activities? Vintagekits wants to remove all terrorism categories from pages about IRA bombings, claiming that such categorisation in POV whilst I suggest that they should remain as to remove them is to provide undue weight to the Republican viewpoint. Is there a clear consensus about this anywhere? Clearly a category cannot sit on the fence the way an article can, neither can it be sourced to the satisfaction of all users. What should be done in this situation?-- Jackyd101 03:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
If you remember, I quoted the same thing at you about a month ago in this self same debate, see your talk page. The problem then and now was that the UN do not rule Wikipedia, and their definition is not the basis for editing Wikipedia unless it has been enshrined as a Wikipedia regulation, which this has not. Plenty of other definitions of terrorism include attacks on military property, and your removal of categories based on your interpretation of a UN statement is Original research. You also haven't answered my question about Omagh-- Jackyd101 19:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Why are the terrorism categories being removed? This incident is described by numerous independent reputable sources as a terrorist attack. The only objectors I'm seeing are Padraig and a banned editor. Bastun BaStun not BaTsun 13:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
"The M62 coach bombing happened on 4 February 1974 on the M62 motorway in England, when a bomb exploded in a coach carrying off-duty British Army personnel and family members." So unless anyone has any information to the contrary, the target was both army and civilians - both passengers on the coach and whatever collateral casualties there may have been in nearby traffic. I am therefore changing the 'Target:' information in the infobox to "British Army personnel and their families" as that is who the target and victims were. Bastun 23:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I see no source that supports the addition of text saying the bombers deliberately targeted the families of soldiers, and have removed it. Please provide a source stating that this was the intention of the bombers before adding the text back. Brixton Busters 06:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I've restored the blanked template line and added the information that the target was a coach. Unless maybe the unknown perpetrators put the bomb on the wrong vehicle, it seems a safe enough assumption that the coach was the target. The coach was carrying British Army personnel and their families - as stated in the article. Bastun BaStun not BaTsun 14:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
(Deindent). For the last time - I'm not engaging in OR. Stop accusing me of doing so. In fact, stop your other personal attacks too. I agree - IRA is the acronym for the Irish Republican Army. And these too:
Bastun BaStun not BaTsun 14:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I am not particularly happy with the age of the kids being included - it does seem more graphic than required in an enclyclopedic article - but I suspect the whole lot will be reverted despite Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus can change Aatomic1 13:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
The discussion on Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army is whether to use PIRA instead of IRA, not vice-versa. Please leave the IRA name intact unless consensus is achieved there. Brixton Busters 19:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
My opinion would be IRA and not PIRA no body says it was a PIRA attack it would be reported as an IRA one. BigDunc 20:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment: There is no point in having the same discussion between the same people in two different places. Can we centralise discussion at Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army. Bastun BaStun not BaTsun 22:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree. BigDunc 22:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I Agree, I have been directing editors to Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army, but they have decided not to bother. -- Domer48 22:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Re. this edit and summary, "IRA is a singular noun; when will people get that? There is no "British mainland", Britain suffices." IRA is a collective noun and as it says in that article:
British mainland is a common usage to mean England, Scotland and Wales, as opposed to the bits of Britain which are in various islands here and there, in this case specifically the bit that is called Northern Ireland. Tyrenius ( talk) 22:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
As far as I remember it the IRA were in the middle of a bombing campaign at the time of the M62 bombing but it's a bit of a stretch using Guildford and Birmingham as examples considering these never occurred until several months later. Are there no better examples? GiollaUidir ( talk) 22:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Domer, you are not saying that the target was a "hired coach carrying British soldiers" and omitting the fact that it was also carrying family members. Rather than edit war, I guess its back to the weak compromise version - "Hired coach". Bastun BaStun not BaTsun 11:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Two suggestions. 1) "Coach. The coach carried soldiers and their families." This states the facts. 2) change "target" (which implies conscious intent) to a different word which implies they were the recipients of the bomb, whether intended or not (I can't think of a suitable word offhand). Tyrenius ( talk) 19:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
In the spirit of compromise I suppose Hired Bus is not a bad outcome as it has not been proved that family members of the soldiers where specifically targeted. BigDunc ( talk) 20:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Another point what is the source that the bomb contained 25lb of explosive, in sources I've seem it was 50lbs.-- Padraig ( talk) 00:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
The infobox should be an extract from the main article text, where the facts should be established with verifiable references. The text is unable to ascertain who did the bombing: "The true culprits have never been discovered." It is known of course that a bomb blew up on the coach and that soldiers and their families were on the coach. As we don't even know who did the bombing, we cannot tell whether they intended to target only the soldiers or the families also (or even, unlikely, that they had a vendetta against the coach company). Specifying a target thus remains OR. I suggest that a target cannot therefore be specified, only a location or victims or somesuch, as that would be the limit of verification. Anything else would be speculation. Tyrenius ( talk) 00:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Can anyone provide a source which states what the target was? If so, that can be used and the ref cited. If not, then any conclusions violate WP:SYNTH. Tyrenius ( talk) 12:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
The debate on this page has prompted me to suggest the removal of this section altogether. Shall we see what the outcome is of that suggestion? Tyrenius ( talk) 14:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like a reasonable solution. Progress anyway. -- Domer48 ( talk) 14:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I've removed target section from infobox template. Let's see if it holds. How's about Location section reading:
And not having a target section in this article, come-what-may. Tyrenius ( talk) 18:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
So the republican movement bias continues on Wikipedia. A bomb was placed on a coach carrying army personnel and their civilian families and it blew up on a major road. And yet because of the ideological viewpoint of some of the editors on here we are not allowed to say that civilans were targetted in this attack? It's blindingly obvious civilians were intended targets, or if they weren't why blow up a "hired bus" on a busy motorway? The doublespeak going on here beggars belief. What exactly is wrong with saying civilians were targetted, enough of them died for goodness sake! Anyway, I'll keep my head down from now on, I realise it's not worth the hassle. Obviously whoever carried out this attack isn't going to say civilians were targetted, but just judging by the facts we do know (a bus carrying soldiers and civilans was blown up on a busy motorway) I think we can safely assume civilians were targetted. Cornisle ( talk) 14:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Proposed wording: "IRA cited in the media, but not proven or admitted". Tyrenius ( talk) 15:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeh, seems fine, I'd go along with that. -- Domer48 ( talk) 18:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
It would appear we have agreement on this and in the section above.-- Padraig ( talk) 11:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Article protection removed. Infobox amended per above consensus. Editors should not change the specific info without achieving a new consensus to do so, and may be reverted otherwise. Category changed per John above. Tyrenius ( talk) 15:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC) Brian Keenan IRA Quartermaster asked for the M62 bomb to be taken into consideration when being sentanced for other crimes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jelly222 ( talk • contribs) 20:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
His name is Houghton, with a o.-- Padraig ( talk) 18:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Protected for one week. Please discuss and come to an agreed version on this page. Don't keep on edit-warring. Tyrenius ( talk) 12:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
The coordinates attributed to the bombing are currently 53°44′35.4″N 1°40′12″W, due north of Oakwell Hall. This is around 4.5 miles away from Hartshead Moor Service Station, and i find it odd that this is considered to be "near Hartshead Moor Motorway service area", when there are other, closer, landmarks to be used as a reference point. Can anyone find a reference for the exact location of the explosion? I've looked, with no success. Julianhall ( talk) 23:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I've added some new images. A gallery may not be required - the images might be better integrated with the text. The distant ones are not the best quality, as they a a bit blurred - a better camera on a tripod is really required. The installation is quite a big deal at the services, as it is also very visibly advertised by a large double-sided plastic banner. I did not think this was a suitable image as it's not clear if it's intended to be permanent and it also rather prominently shows the sponsor - Marshalls plc. Martinevans123 ( talk) 13:32, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
FYI. Andy Dingley ( talk) 09:34, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:M62 coach bombing/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
.
|
Last edited at 14:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 22:42, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
An editor is repeatedly removing the obvious category Category:Terrorist incidents in the United Kingdom in 1974 from this article. Before I take this to ANEW, are you going to explain why? Andy Dingley ( talk) 21:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on M62 coach bombing. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:30, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Is it not worth mentioning that George Oldfield led and also botched the Yorkshire Ripper case? 46.7.195.132 ( talk) 21:36, 24 February 2020 (UTC)