text:
Talk:Strabane

[Untitled]
"Occupied" is not an appropriate term to use in a nonpartisan encyclopedia article.

Blank Spaces
Several people have been adding blank spaces before/after section headings, presumably to try and move the headings past the images in the article. Doing this is not a good idea, because the layout of the page is different for each user (e.g. because of screen resolution/window size). It's best to keep the article source consistent. SeventyThree 7 July 2005 11:11 (UTC)

The majority will see it distorted so it is best to leave these spaces in order for the headings to be past the images. Could the person disputing the neutrality of the article please explain their problems.

Another NPOV dispute
"Some nationalists also claim that police brutality and intimidation is still common in the town"

Can you give your source please? If not, then it should not be included. Living in the town, I and many others would dispute this claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.223.135 (talk) 10:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Article needs updating
Article seriously needs updating and inclusion of recent regeneration efforts. No mention of culturally significant locations such as the Alley Theatre. New photographs of the town (perhaps the new pig sculpture etc) are required - not just the "run down" areas! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.223.135 (talk) 10:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

NPOV dispute
]This article is quite POV even though the subtle ways the POV are expressed are not particularly offensive, but definitely exhibit a bias. The following are examples.

POV- 01 "Strabane (Irish Gaelic, an Srath Bán, which translates as 'The White Strand') is a town in the west of County Tyrone in Northern Ireland (known to most in the town as the 6 Counties) on the border with County Donegal."

Is there really any need to expand on the name of Northern Ireland by inserting "(known to most in the town as the 6 Counties)" This is dealt with under "Northern Ireland" and gives the article a POV bias from the start.

POV- 02

“Many innocent civilians were killed during the Troubles in Strabane, some deliberately by the British Army and others when caught up in IRA attacks.”

This seems very POV and should be backed up by evidence and references. In my lifetime (32 years) I don’t know of any proven cases off the British Army being accused of deliberately killing civilians in Strabane? Or does this mean alleged IRA volunteers? Who was killed and in what circumstances? Is this the NPOV version of events or is this in dispute? To make this statement without backing it up seems biased. Bloody Sunday is one incident where this claim would be less POV, but even it acknowledges that there is a dispute over the events.

POV- 03

“The most notable incident occurred in 1985 when three unarmed local IRA volunteers, Charlie Breslin (23), David Devine (16) and Michael Devine (18), were assassinated by a SAS unit as they returned to an arms dump. The SAS employed their "shoot-to-kill" policy, firing over 150 rounds at the three insurgents.”

This is POV as we are not given the British Army’s version of the events. Does the British Army agree that they were unarmed? Maybe so! Did the British Army admit they assassinated them? Or are the versions of events, whichever is actually true, disputed. Therefore this is POV. Killed would be the NPOV word to use.

The "shoot-to-kill" policy, from my understanding, has always been an issue of contention and is therefore POV.

Here is are two articles on the BBC News website, which seems to back up my thinking that there is dispute over the "shoot-to-kill" policy, whilst also giving information on accusations and a European court ruling.

IRA deaths: The four shootings:

Ten IRA men shot dead by British soldiers and the Royal Ulster Constabulary in Northern Ireland had their human rights violated, a European court has ruled. Judges at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg considered four separate incidents between 1982 and 1992 which led to accusations of a "shoot-to-kill" policy.

Full article at

Also

UK condemned over IRA deaths:

Some of the incidents prompted claims that a shoot-to-kill policy was being operated by the security forces. In a judgement on Friday, the court ruled that eight IRA men shot dead by soldiers of an undercover SAS unit at Loughgall, County Armagh, in 1987, and two IRA men killed by RUC officers, had their human rights violated. It said this had arisen because of the failure of the state authorities to conduct a proper investigation into the circumstances of the deaths…… Secretary of State John Reid said he welcomed the fact that the court had "not made any finding that these deaths amounted to unlawful killing". "The criticisms are of procedures, the investigations, not the deaths themselves," he said. "We will want to study those criticisms seriously."

Full article

The above refers to accusations/claims of a "shoot-to-kill" policy not a ruling or admission on the "shoot-to-kill" policy. This article leads me to believe that there is a dispute over this alledged policy. If this is not the case clear-cut evidnece should be referenced to back this up E.g European court, with accustions, British Governments version and verdict. Has there been a case were "shoot-to-kill" policy was proven as an official policy?

If this article is to be NPOV then I feel that these discrepancies need to be cleared up. In no way is this a personal attack on the author/authors and is meant only to improve this article to NPOV.

Steve Brown- 17:18- 9 Aug 2005--Strangelyb 01:26, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Recent POV Edits
Recent edits are reverting back to POV. This was why I changed them back to previous less POV version.

If the recent editor would have the courtesy of explaining their edits it would be appreciated. However they appear POV and so from my understanding of the rules of Wikepedia not appropriate.

POV contributors repeatedly have asserted that a verdict on the "Shoot-to-kill" policy has been made in the European courts. That being it has been proven as an official policy and therefore any statements to that fact are not POV. Or that is what I assume they mean as no discussion off edits was provided. It is my understanding that this is not the case, as per my previous discussion NPOV dispute. The European court did not rule on the alleged "Shoot-to-kill" policy, but rather that the men's human rights were violated by a lack of a proper investigation afterwards. Therefore "Shoot-to-kill" policy is in dispute and if proposed as fact is POV.

Along with the other edits recently made e.g. Previous I think NPOV version- "Some nationalists also claim that police brutality and intimidation is a common occurrence in the town, with the PSNI having little support in Strabane. With the ongoing reforms of the Police Service and the creation of the Strabane District Policing Partnership this may change over time."

Recent POV version- "Police brutality and intimidation is a common occurrence in the town, with the PSNI having little or no support in Strabane. With the ongoing reforms of the Police Service and the creation of the Strabane District Policing Partnership this may change over time but has not to date." - This in my opinion has changed NPOV text to POV. Does the whole town back up the claim? What about the at least 4 Nationalist members of the Strabane District Policing Partnership? Do they agree? If so has a credible survey been carried backing up this assertion? Or is this a biased claim from perhaps a Republican perspective? The only part that may be applicable is "but has not to date", however this, depending on your viewpoint could be considered POV. Surely the fact that there are at least 4 Nationalist members of the Strabane District Policing Partnership, is an indicator that attitudes are changing although arguably slowly, however I do not have enough information to back this up so I will omit. Therefore for the sake of NPOV I would leave "but has not to date" out.

For the sake of NPOV if any edits are being made prior discussion would be sensible so a NPOV consensus can prevail. I may be incorrect in some of my arguments, but I would be willing to amdmit this if presented with credible evidence. I may be wrong on the "Shoot-to-kill" policy. However from my limited research I don't think so. If I am please provide relevant evidence and then a NPOV consensus can be made by all. --Strangelyb 00:24, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

To recent editor. There have no been petty edits. Go and look at Wikepedia five pillars before making POV edits or attacks. The proper way to edit is to discuss first.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_edit_a_page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tutorial http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_write_a_great_article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoiding_common_mistakes

These are not petty, just different to your point of view. Wikepedia is about Neutral Point of View, which in my opinion the recent edits are not. Therefore ruin what could be a balanced article on Strabane.

Where is your evedence that "Shoot-tokill" has been proven as an official British policy by the European courts. It may well have been, but I have been able to find any after searching. What I have been able to find is a ruling that the investigations were not properly carried out and that is why the compensation was payed. Not a ruling on "Shoot-to-kill" making any statements to your position eroneaous needing backed up.

You do not own the page on Strabane and cannot tell me stay out. All I wanted to do was improve to NPOV. If I am wrong discuss and then we ask for it to be adjudicated.

--Strangelyb 02:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Here is a link to the Official European Court of Human Rights Judgement. From my understanding they did not rule on "Shoot-to kill" as per following relevant text.

{Decision of the Court:

Article 2

Alleged responsibility of the United Kingdom for the deaths in question

Concerning the alleged responsibility of the United Kingdom for the deaths in question, the Court first noted that a number of key factual issues arose in the case. These matters were currently under examination in domestic procedures. It did not consider that it should engage in an exercise that would duplicate proceedings in the civil courts, which were better placed and equipped as fact-finding tribunals. The Court did not consider that there were any elements established which would deprive the civil courts of their ability to establish the facts in each case or to determine the lawfulness or otherwise of the deaths or any wrong-doing or negligence by the security forces (as alleged in the case of Shanaghan). Nor was the Court persuaded that it was appropriate to rely on the documentary material provided by the parties to reach any conclusions as to responsibility for the deaths. The written accounts provided had not been tested in examination or cross-examination and would provide an incomplete and potentially misleading basis for any such attempt. The situation could not be equated to a death in custody where the burden might be regarded as resting on the State to provide a satisfactory and plausible explanation.

Furthermore, the Court was not prepared to conduct, on the basis largely of statistical information and selective evidence, an analysis of incidents over the past thirty years with a view to establishing whether they disclosed a practice by security forces of using disproportionate force.

However, the Court noted, under Article 2, investigations capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible must be undertaken into allegations of unlawful killings. The Court therefore examined whether there had been compliance with this procedural aspect of Article 2.}

The really relevant paragraph, which I feel backs up my thinking is "Furthermore, the Court was not prepared to conduct, on the basis largely of statistical information and selective evidence, an analysis of incidents over the past thirty years with a view to establishing whether they disclosed a practice by security forces of using disproportionate force." Therefore they wouldn't conduct an analysis of "Shoot-to-Kill".

Anybody who ascerts that this judgement was a ruling on "Shoot-to-Kill" clearly hasn't read the full text and appear to be relying on POV analysis.

Now if this is not the judgement in question looking up the relevant ruling should easily clear up any misconceptions whether on my behalf or others.--Strangelyb 07:08, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

More Background info
After searching for information on SAS killing of Charles Breslin, Michael Devine and David Devine in 1985. I have only been able to find information relating to compensation claims brought by their families which were settled in the Belfast High Court in May 2002. There does not appear to be any European Court of Human Rights ruling for this particular incident. From limited information I have been able to find from News archives and not POV analysis it does not appear to have been a ruling on the alledged "Shoot-to-Kill" policy, but undisclosed compensation to the families. As the families at the time were seeking to get an inquest opened one can perhaps presume that the larger issue of "Shoot-to-Kill" or even admission of unlawful killing was not addressed by this case. I would think that if the Belfast High Court or any other had made a ruling confirming an official policy of "Shoot-to-Kill" there would be substantial archival news articles available. The lack of this makes me suspect that as off yet no ruling exists thus leaving this issue in dispute and open to POV.

Shot IRA men's families pledge on legal battle By Sarah Brett 08 May 2002 Belfast Telegraph

THE families of three IRA men shot dead by the SAS in Strabane in 1985 today said they will continue their battle to bring the soldiers to court.

Substantial damages were awarded to the families by the Ministry of Defence yesterday as part of a High Court settlement.

But a spokeswoman for the families today said their fight had "only just begun".

Michael Devine (22) and his brother David (16) were killed alongside Charles Breslin (20) in a field at the back of Fountain Street in the town 17 years ago.

All three men were masked and armed with loaded rifles when they were shot by the SAS.

In 1988 a court was told that a holdall found beside the bodies contained two homemade projectiles with launchers and a loaded rifle.

The judge found that the men were armed terrorists on a mission to cause violence.

But their families have consistently claimed the three were shot without warning and were not a threat to the soldiers.

Charles Breslin's sister Carina said that 17 years on, her family's battle was just starting.

"The compensation claim was about making the MoD and the RUC accountable and responsible," she said.

"For us that meant getting the soldiers on the stand to give evidence but the MoD were not prepared to produce these soldiers."

The families are taking steps to reopen the inquest into the deaths of the three men in the coming months.

Families of IRA men shot by SAS compensated By Staff Reporter 07 May 2002 Belfast Telegraph

SEVENTEEN years after three IRA men were shot dead by the SAS in Strabane, the compensation claims brought by their families were settled in the High Court in Belfast today.

The terms were not disclosed but it is understood that the Ministry of Defence agreed to pay substantial damages.

Charles Breslin (20) and brothers Michael (22) and David Devine (16), from Strabane, were killed in February, 1985, in a field at the back of Fountain Street.

The compensation claims were brought by Joseph Breslin, father of Charles, and Teresa Devine, mother of Michael and David.

In court papers they claimed their sons were shot without warning when they presented no risk to the soldiers.

But at another High Court hearing in 1988 the then Mr Justice Carswell - now Lord Chief Justice Sir Robert Carswell - said the men were masked and each was carrying a loaded rifle when they were shot.

He said a hold-all found beside the bodies contained two home-made projectiles, two improvised launchers, a loaded rifle magazine, two cartridge cases, two masks and two pairs of rubber gloves.

"It is clear beyond argument that the men were armed terrorists on a mission involving violence," added the judge in refusing an application for a fresh inquest.

The original lasted 17 days and the jury returned a verdict that the three men met their deaths as a result of gunshot wounds.

Also an article relating to support for the Strabane Discrict Policing Partnership. This does not back up a claim that there is no support for the DPP in Strabane as others have claimed. If 34 per cent of Roman Catholics in Strabane support the DPP then the claim that the PSNI have no support in Strabane is unreliable. In fact it could be argued that the text relating to PSNI support should be changed to the following.

"Some nationalists also claim that police brutality and intimidation is a common occurance in the town, with the PSNI having mixed support in Strabane. With the ongoing reforms of the Police Service and the creation of the Strabane District Policing Partnership this may change over time with recent surveys indicating that a minority of Roman Catholics (34%)confident that the DPP is proving to be an effective forum for addressing local policing issues."

Although this is from the Belfast Newletter a Unionist Perpective paper. If you go to the Strabane DPP's own site and look at their surveys it back's it up. Now the DPP could be accused of being biased in their own favour, but it at least means that the claim that the DPP and PSNI have no support in Strabane is in dispute thus POV.

More Catholic Support For Strabane DPP Wednesday 3rd November 2004 Belfast Newsletter

More Roman Catholics than Protestants have confidence in Strabane Distrist Partnership, a survey has revealed.

The survey found that 34 per cent of Roman Catholics were confident that the DPP is proving to be an effective forum for addressing local policing issues - compared to 31 per cent of Protestants.

The figures, published in the 2003/2004 Annual Report and Strategic Plan, are in stark contrast to previous years, when the Protestant community had the most faith in the ability of the DPP to deliver on policing.

Chief Inspector Nicky Thompson, deputy district commander, said: "I very much welcome the figures, which show an increase in the number of Catholics with confidence in the DPP and police service here.

"Everyone knows we endeavour to carry out our work in a transparent and impartial manner.

"As for local police, we are not really interested in the background figures, we work to provide a service for the whole community. Everyone is our customer and we, as a force, strive to deliver a top-class service for everyone and will continue to do so."

However I don't want to change this myself and would prefer if someone else double-checked the information in case I am wrong.

As hopefully anyone can see my edits are not designed to be petty or biased, but hopefully have improved the quality of this article to NPOV. --Strangelyb 02:22, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

History Section NPOV dispute tag
I have tagged thissection as in NPOV dispute as someone keeps changing text to what is in my opinion POV. They have not given a detailed explanation and from my research their infomation is incorrect and diputed by the relevant parties involved. The text in dispute is as follows.

"The most notable incident occurred in 1985 when three unarmed local IRA members, Charlie Breslin (23), David Devine (16) and Michael Devine (18), were killed by a SAS unit as they returned to an arms dump. The SAS firing over 150 rounds at the three men when operating their "shoot-to-kill" policy. This has been confirmed at the European Court of Human Rights when compensation was awarded to the bereaved families."

I have previously detailed why I think this is POV and provided substantial evidence to back this up. I may be wrong and am not interested in pushing the Unionist/British perspective on this, but just indicating that the circumstances are disputed. From my research their has been no European court ruling on this specific case and the case I presume metioned does not rule on the alledged "Shoot-to-Kill" policy. Even the ascertion that the men were unarmed is in dispute from the records I can find. The MOD did pay undisclosed compensation settlement recorded by the Belfast High Court, but the details are limited. After this the families were still pushing fo an inquest and we may presume that the settlement did not include an admission of "Shoot-to-kill". The lack of archival news evidence detailing a ruling on "Shoot-to-kill" would also make me suspect that no ruling has taken place. Therefore any ruling associated are for other reasons and only POV analysis interperates them as "Shoot-to-kill".

I hope others can assist in confiming or rejecting my interpretation. --Strangelyb 01:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

European Court of Human Rights Gibraltatar Ruling
Enclosed is a link to European Court of Human Rights Gibraltar Ruling in September 1995 and some sections I think relevant.

The ruling appears to be on the issue that there was a lack of appropriate care in the control and organisation of the arrest operation. That they should have arrested the suspects prior to entering Gibraltar or attempted to wound the suspects. Insufficient training was given to the soldiers in respect to wounding rather than kiling. It does explicitly state that there was no premeditated policy in regards to this. Therefore I can only conclude that this does not amount to a ruling on a alledged "Shoot-to-Kill" policy, but on operational inadequecies.

I quote.

180. In the light of its own examination of the material before it, the Court does not find it established that there was an execution plot at the highest level of command in the Ministry of Defence or in the Government, or that Soldiers A, B, C and D had been so encouraged or instructed by the superior officers who had briefed them prior to the operation, or indeed that they had decided on their own initiative to kill the suspects irrespective of the existence of any justification for the use of lethal force and in disobedience to the arrest instructions they had received. Nor is there evidence that there was an implicit encouragement by the authorities or hints and innuendoes to execute the three suspects.

and

184. The Court therefore rejects as unsubstantiated the applicants’ allegations that the killing of the three suspects were premeditated or the product of a tacit agreement amongst those involved in the operation.

From my analysis this doesn't amount to a specific ruling confiming an official policy of "Shoot-to-Kill". I am unable to find any alternative corborating ruling and therefore conclude POV analysis has led editors to assume this. --Strangelyb 06:54, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Recent Edits and Civilian Deaths Info
I have removed the History section NPOV Dispute tag. I hope everybody will agree that recent edits, not just by myself are not blatantly POV and generally been made in a positive manner.

I did edit some things to what I consider less POV.

E.g.

"The families, the local community and many people across Ireland believed these and other deaths were part of a wider British government "shoot-to-kill" policy in Northern Ireland,"

to

"The families, many in the local community and across Ireland believed these and other deaths were part of a wider British government "shoot-to-kill" policy in Northern Ireland,"

This was the way it was earlier and I believe the recent edits gave it a slight bias. We don't know whether the whole local community believed this do we? Therefore previous was less POV. Nick picking I know, but why not be consistent.

I also corrected the religious background from 95% to 93% as this is what the Census figures are (well 93.33% to be accurate).

Also I had a look at the civilian deaths in Strabane to see whether their were no civilian deaths attributed to paramilitaries aside from those caught up in attacks.

The following are some examples irrespective of the circumstances, which include alleged informers killed by the paramilitaries.

Pollock, Heather 27 December 1980 (53) Protestant Status: Civilian (Civ), Killed by: Irish Republican Army (IRA) Died three weeks after being shot in her home during sniper attack on Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) mobile patrol, Strabane, County Tyrone.

McDevitt, Eamon 18 August 1971 (24) Catholic Status: Civilian (Civ), Killed by: British Army (BA) Deaf and dumb man, shot during street disturbances, Fountain Street, Strabane, County Tyrone.

McCrory, Damien 07 October 1985 (20) Catholic Status: Civilian (Civ), Killed by: Irish Republican Army (IRA) Found shot, by the side of road, Drumrallagh, Strabane, County Tyrone. Alleged informer.

Mallon, Daniel 22 August 1985 (65) Catholic Status: Civilian (Civ), Killed by: Irish Republican Army (IRA) Shot while in Railway Bar, Strabane, County Tyrone. Mistaken for contractor to British Army (BA) / Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC).

Jack, Alan 19 July 1972 (0) Protestant Status: Civilian (Civ), Killed by: Irish Republican Army (IRA) Killed in car bomb explosion, Canal Street, off Abercorn Square, Strabane, County Tyrone. Inadequate warning given.

Harkin, Daniel 20 July 1974 (48) Catholic Status: Civilian (Civ), Killed by: Irish Republican Army (IRA) Shot at his home, Meenashesk Place, Strabane, County Tyrone.

Doherty, Mary 13 April 1980 (53) Catholic Status: Civilian (Civ), Killed by: British Army (BA) Shot while travelling in car approaching British Army (BA) Vehicle Check Point (VCP), Strabane, County Tyrone.

Devine, Hugh 22 June 1974 (30) Catholic Status: Civilian (Civ), Killed by: British Army (BA) Shot during altercation with British Army (BA) foot patrol, Olympic Drive, Ballycolman, Strabane, County Tyrone.

Carr, Bridget 24 November 1971 (24) Catholic Status: Civilian (Civ), Killed by: Irish Republican Army (IRA) Shot during gun battle outside British Army (BA) base, Lifford Road, Strabane, County Tyrone.

Barnhill, John 12 December 1971 (65) Protestant Status: Civilian Political Activist (CivPA), Killed by: Official Irish Republican Army (OIRA) Ulster Unionist Stormont Senator. Shot during bomb attack on his home, Brickfield House, near Strabane, County Tyrone.

I have therefore changed the article to indicate that some civilians were killed deliberately by the paramilitaries. Upon assessing this new research I feel the article read as if it was only the British army that had killed civilians apart from when caught up in attacks. And that this did not accurately reflect civilians the paramilitaries had killed.

I used the CAIN site for my research.

Hopefully this is agreed as NPOV. --Strangelyb 03:53, 30 August 2005 (UTC

We could leave controversial out alltogether, but this was there to reflect nationalist etc's concerns over army killings. If we go back to earlier revisions you will see that this replaced "Many innocent civilians were killed during the Troubles in Strabane, some deliberately by the British Army and others when caught up in IRA attacks". This was POV and from the records I can find the paramilitaries deliberately killed civilians and there appears less controversy over them. I am sure in some of the cases they admitted responsibility, but I don't have the info so I wouldn't assert this.

Therefore the issue was that the article read like only the British army deliberately killed civilians and that the one notable incident was the British Army killing three civilians, who were IRA members. It read anti the British army, which is POV, no matter what I or anybody else really thinks, and only focused on their killings therfore being biased.

The controversy over the Army killings is that the Security Forces dispute that they deliberately killed civilians, therefore controversial. I have been unable to find the same information realting to controversy over civilians killed by the paramilitaries, but would be interested to see any that can be provided so the article is balanced. Did the IRA mean to arrest those they killed.

E.g. "The Official IRA's arrest operation didn't go as planned and they accidently killed Protestant Civilian Political Activist John Barnhill (65), on the 12 December 1971, who was shot during a bomb attack on his home".

One sure thing is that the Paramilitaries operated a "Shoot-to-Kill" policy.

I do believe the article is still sympathetic in tone to the Nationlist/Republican viewpoint off Strabane and certainly all the pictures in the history section are off the "British Occupation". But really to think the following is not biased is wrong

"Northern Ireland (known to most in the town as the 6 Counties)"- Has a survey been done off this? My girlfirend, her parents and all their many relations in Strabane don't call it this. Maybe the "North of Ireland", but mostly Northern Ireland. As discussed eslewhere "the 6 Counties" is term used by those from a republican perspective and is heavily loaded. It is only really appropriate in a limited context. E.g. Sinn Fein describe Northern Ireland as the 6 Counties.

"Many innocent civilians were killed during the Troubles in Strabane, some deliberately by the British Army and others when caught up in IRA attacks"- As above POV did the IRA not deliverately kill the following.

McCrory, Damien 07 October 1985 (20) Catholic Status: Civilian (Civ), Killed by: Irish Republican Army (IRA) Found shot, by the side of road, Drumrallagh, Strabane, County Tyrone. Alleged informer.

Mallon, Daniel 22 August 1985 (65) Catholic Status: Civilian (Civ), Killed by: Irish Republican Army (IRA) Shot while in Railway Bar, Strabane, County Tyrone. Mistaken for contractor to British Army (BA) / Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC).

Harkin, Daniel 20 July 1974 (48) Catholic Status: Civilian (Civ), Killed by: Irish Republican Army (IRA) Shot at his home, Meenashesk Place, Strabane, County Tyrone.

Barnhill, John 12 December 1971 (65) Protestant Status: Civilian Political Activist (CivPA), Killed by: Official Irish Republican Army (OIRA) Ulster Unionist Stormont Senator. Shot during bomb attack on his home, Brickfield House, near Strabane, County Tyrone.

"The most notable incident occurred in 1985 when three unarmed local IRA volunteers, Charlie Breslin (23), David Devine (16) and Michael Devine (18), were assassinated by a SAS unit as they returned to an arms dump. The SAS employed their "shoot-to-kill" policy, firing over 150 rounds at the three insurgents"

The last one is heavily disputed on the following points.

unarmed- All state records indicate they were armed so disputed.

assassinated- The security forces dispute they assasinated them.

firing over 150 rounds- I haven't been able to find records of the number of rounds. This doesn't mean I am arguing that 150 rounds weren't fired, but I can't find any corroborating records.

employed their "shoot-to-kill" policy- This is disputed and as of yet no court ruling anywhere has proved this was an official policy.

The amendments are not changing the article to a British/Unionist POV so I am not being difficult just NPOV. It is anonymous IP(s) that are being difficult and not understanding NPOV.

--Strangelyb 00:11, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

As I have used my 3 reverts and am trying to abide by the rules (I hope I am) the only way to respond is on the talk page, which up to this point has proved inadequate.

What is this Unionist propaganda rubbish if I was a unionist propogandist I would have stated the facts from the oposite POV to our anonymus author/editor. I wouldn't have said anything was disputed and spent the time double-checking what I initialy thought was POV only to find that even more of the fact as initialy stated was also heavily disputed. Disputed is not the same as arguing a Unionist POV. Unless I'm wrong should the content not be balanced? Perhaps my and I quote "half-arsed explanations" which our anonymus author/editor couldn't be bothered reading are wrong but how would he/she know.

Neutrality of one sentence is disputed solely by me
Yes I would still dispute the one sentence. Not that I think that in it's current form it is POV, but that it is now too simplistic and that it needs expanding. I think that as the sentence previously read was better and created more context for the next paragraph.

"Many civilians were killed during the Troubles in Strabane, some controversially by the British Army, others by Republican Paramilitaries or when caught up in attacks on the security forces."

Historically the article was very POV and as previously stated indicating that everybody killed civilians means that along with the intially disputed next paragraph we don't have an anti british feel to the history section. To be truthful it is still very sympathetic to the majority view, but I am not arguing against that.

The anonymous author/editor is arguing that all civilian deaths are controversial. I have only been able to find controversy over the British Army killings.

The anonymous author/editor has not provided any evidence supporting his POV that their are controversial circumstances surrounding paramilitary deaths. Therefore it is untrue to state all deahts are controversial.

Anyway the reason I am being so pedantic is to get them to follow the rules and also that without agreement if one thing is changed then gradually more is changed to the point it becomes very POV again. I do not want to let edits slip by without understanding them, especially when they seem make the article worse. If the author hadn't written an artical that was full of republican propaganda to start off with there would have been no problem. That does not mean I am advocating Unionist propaganda. But reverting what were balanced contributions without dicussing them is against the rules from my understanding. And then to attack people and swear at them with a "It's my article" attitude is childish. If no-one contributes to anybody else's articles how rubbish would Wikepedia be. I suppose maybe we could change the Article to Strabane from a Republican POV, but that would be a bad as Strabane from a Unionist POV.
 * It's pretty clear at this stage that our anonymous friend is more interested in sectarian name-calling and user-page vandalism than following Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Time to get an admin to protect the page? Demiurge 08:13, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Demiurge thanks for your advice I agree with you I think it's time something is done so that edits are from a consensus rather than just revert wars. As I am new to Wikipedia I don't know how to get admin to protect a page and any help would be appreciated.

Thanks --Strangelyb 23:46, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I've already made a page protection request at Requests for page protection. Waiting for an admin to handle it... Demiurge 08:52, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Can I please have evidence of the allegations made by Demiurge - specifically that I indulged in sectarian name-calling.

Minor NPOV
"and undoubtedly one of the best full-forwards in Ireland" is not the usual Wikipedia style. --Henrygb 01:45, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

NPOV
Please read WP:NPOV, WP:CITE and WP:CIVIL. You are in breach of all of these policies. The information you have given needs to be cited in line with Wikipedia's style guidelines. The ranking does not appear to have been "disregarded" by Strabane's citizen's at all -- otherwise why would they be writing in their local newspaper about it? Finally, your derogatory edit summaries are in breach of Wikipedia's WP:CIVIL policy. Demiurge 23:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Edit wars aside...
...I think I as an outside reader prefer this version. Are those two killings in 1990 really vital to this article? What makes them so special that they are listed?

All that aside, please do not replace the link to the picture of the "Tinneys". That image was deleted for whatever reason, so unless a picture is uploaded with proper licensing that link is just broken. --Syrthiss 23:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Excellent point - although one which a club of users (namely Demiurge and co.) seem determined to ignore. This is, however, consistent with the petty, vindictive nature of these individuals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.202.35.46 (talk • contribs)

 * Speaking of petty and vindictive, just who exactly vandalised Demiurge's user page? - Ali-oops✍ 19:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

 * As I see it, the two killings mentioned (from both 'sides', it should be noted) tend to underscore the town's history during the period of The Troubles. Informative and encyclopedic, I would have thought. Re. the 'Tinneys' image, I've attempted to re-instate the text and the section on culture without incorporating the deleted image. Hope it's of some use ... - Ali-oops✍ 19:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

 * You ignore the point that most of the killings that occurred in Strabane during the Troubles were carried out by British Crown forces on innocent Catholics, whereas bombings etc. were exclusively carreid out by the IRA. Why should the families of two victims be singled out and their grieving made public once more? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.189.227.199 (talk • contribs)

 * They're not being singled out. Why are you removing the 'Troubles' and 'unemployment' headings? Why have you removed the census information? Why have you reverted my correction of seamrógaí (note two fadas) as well as broke the 'tinneys' reference again (no image this time)? Why are you doing these things behind an ever-changing IP address? Why did you vandalise Demiurge's user page? Why are you constantly vandalising the Rolf Harris page? It's not even remotely amusing. Why have you declared yourself to be a vandal? Why are you not signing your comments? Why should anyone take you seriously? - Ali-oops✍ 10:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

 * They are being singled out and nobody could pretend otherwise. I happen to know one of the families involved, so don't you dare pretend that you know better when it comes to this sort of set of circumstances. Troubles and unemployment sections can happily go under recent history. You really know how to focus on the negatives of a town that you've probably never even been to, let alone have any linkes with. Cencus information has NOT been removed. To say otherwise is a blatant LIE. The information about the number of people living in the town was recorded twice in the article - can you come up with a reason as to why once does not suffice? I'd gladly stand corrected if you could. Tinney's picture infringes copyright I think. I gladly stand corrected on the seamrógaí issue. Ever changing IP address? I'm afraid you are going to have to take that one up with my Internet provider. I have no say in the matter. This was in fact the start of the personal attacks....I have NEVER EVER vandalised Demiurge or Rolf Harris' page - one IP address can be shared by many people. I never ever declared myself a vandal - why the hell would I do that? I will now sign my comments as I was previously unaware of the etiquette...but what exactly does all this information have to do with the Strabane article? I am entitled to respond to vicous personal attacks but you certainly appear to be vandalising this page.   -   (Inform me as to where I can find my IP address signed at 1743 on January 4 2006 from Strabane, Co.Tyrone —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.215.215.194 (talk • contribs)

 * Why is this unsigned person continually messing about with this article? Whoever you are you should have the courage of your convictions and stand over your contributions, as well as add appropriate references/sources for material added. The entries I had put in in a new section on The Troubles were derived from CAIN, a reputable, unbiased, authoritative and world renowned database and source. Yes they were incomplete, but anyone could see they were the start of a series and more would be added to cover all years. I have been trying to enter these for all towns and villages and create some general consistency. I also added the Census material - the population info was added in the introduction to give people a quick idea of the size of the town at the start of the article, so what if it features again in the 2001 Census section? This is about good, useful presentation for the reader. Sign in or sign off!! Ardfern 00:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I am not 'messing about'. If anyone is 'messing about' it is people like you. What difference does it make whether I register or not? We are NOT going to let a situation develop where every single person killed in the town during the Troubles is listed in this section. That is pathetic. I never for once stated that CAIN was a disreputable source so don't you dare pretend otherwise. There is nothing wrong with someone defending the town they love. I feel that you are letting sectarian feelings get in the way of what is right. - 15:48, 07 Jan 2006 (UTC)

<<>>

Oh dear the sectarian Anonymous IP is adding in POV info then reverting and now has left me messages on my talk page with sectarian name calling

Here’s my evidence as clearly stated many months ago. Please provide your documented evidence and if I’m wrong we’ll revert.

Or in other words put up or shut up!

Shot IRA men's families pledge on legal battle By Sarah Brett 08 May 2002 Belfast Telegraph

THE families of three IRA men shot dead by the SAS in Strabane in 1985 today said they will continue their battle to bring the soldiers to court.

Substantial damages were awarded to the families by the Ministry of Defence yesterday as part of a High Court settlement.

But a spokeswoman for the families today said their fight had "only just begun".

Michael Devine (22) and his brother David (16) were killed alongside Charles Breslin (20) in a field at the back of Fountain Street in the town 17 years ago.

All three men were masked and armed with loaded rifles when they were shot by the SAS.

In 1988 a court was told that a holdall found beside the bodies contained two homemade projectiles with launchers and a loaded rifle.

The judge found that the men were armed terrorists on a mission to cause violence.

But their families have consistently claimed the three were shot without warning and were not a threat to the soldiers.

Charles Breslin's sister Carina said that 17 years on, her family's battle was just starting.

"The compensation claim was about making the MoD and the RUC accountable and responsible," she said.

"For us that meant getting the soldiers on the stand to give evidence but the MoD were not prepared to produce these soldiers."

The families are taking steps to reopen the inquest into the deaths of the three men in the coming months.

Families of IRA men shot by SAS compensated By Staff Reporter 07 May 2002 Belfast Telegraph

SEVENTEEN years after three IRA men were shot dead by the SAS in Strabane, the compensation claims brought by their families were settled in the High Court in Belfast today.

The terms were not disclosed but it is understood that the Ministry of Defence agreed to pay substantial damages.

Charles Breslin (20) and brothers Michael (22) and David Devine (16), from Strabane, were killed in February, 1985, in a field at the back of Fountain Street.

The compensation claims were brought by Joseph Breslin, father of Charles, and Teresa Devine, mother of Michael and David.

In court papers they claimed their sons were shot without warning when they presented no risk to the soldiers.

But at another High Court hearing in 1988 the then Mr Justice Carswell - now Lord Chief Justice Sir Robert Carswell - said the men were masked and each was carrying a loaded rifle when they were shot.

He said a hold-all found beside the bodies contained two home-made projectiles, two improvised launchers, a loaded rifle magazine, two cartridge cases, two masks and two pairs of rubber gloves.

"It is clear beyond argument that the men were armed terrorists on a mission involving violence," added the judge in refusing an application for a fresh inquest.

The original lasted 17 days and the jury returned a verdict that the three men met their deaths as a result of gunshot wounds.

--Strangelyb 16:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Sock Puppet Nonsense
So now you think that I am a sock puppet and that by trying to make the Strabane article adhere to NPOV is a Loyalist conspiracy. What planet do you live on. Oh yes the one that has ruined Ireland for so long. Try and have a proper look at what you are spreading. Incorrect, unsupported POV information, which you won't even have the courage to join the Wikipedia community properly sign up with a user name and add posts on the talk page explaining your point of view. I on the other hand am willing to admit I am wrong if presented with credible evidence. Where is it? Because you live in Strabane does not mean that you are not biased and aserting that something is disputed, which I can back-up (see previous Belfast Telgraph articles) is not the same as spreading loyalist propaganda. Don't paint others with your own bigotry. The loyalist paramilitaries are as hideous as the republican ones. Defenders of their communites nonsense organised criminals more like.

--Strangelyb 17:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC

Please stop leaving abusive messages on my talk page like the one as follows! Oh and of course I'm a sock puppet. Look at my button eyes and felt mouth. As if grow up woooooo loyalist conspiracy again. Yes and the only reason why you don't register is so you and hide behind non static IP addresses and then say prove that was me pathetic. However I do agree it is only good Wikipedia etiquette so keep hiding if you like. You do however break multiple other rules so stop it!

"Possible Sock puppet Is this true? I think you ought to be exposed. 02:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC) ... (See Wikpedia's signiture policy if you have a problem with unregistered users and signing)

The discussion page of a different subject is no place to talk about yourself. Why target Strabane in such a manner? Strabane's discussion page is to talk about Strabane, and Strabane alone. Stop being so self-centred as to indulge in more sectarian name-calling on that page. You clearly are a sock puppet mate. And by the way, it makes no difference whatsoever whether I register or not :) :) :) Have a nice day you tosser. 11:24, 30 January (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Strangelyb"

--Strangelyb 12:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

An attempt at peacemaking
As an outsider (and the admin who has just blocked the anon), I'll make a brief appearance in an attempt to promote discussion and maybe peace. I know little about this, so forgive me if this looks naive, but the edits being reverted (e.g. ) look comparatively minor. To me. I can see that Many civilians died during the course of the Troubles, some killed controversially (and unarmed) by the British army is badly written and probably provocative; would Many unarmed civilians died during the course of the Troubles, some killed controversially by the British army be acceptable? Would changing ''when three IRA members, Charlie Breslin (20), David Devine (16) and Michael Devine (22), were killed by a SAS unit as they returned to an arms dump in a field at the back of Fountain Street. All were unarmed. to when three unarmed IRA members, Charlie Breslin (20), David Devine (16) and Michael Devine (22), were killed by a SAS unit as they returned to an arms dump in a field at the back of Fountain Street.'' I'm assuming that the problem is the jarring and POV-looking insertion of unarmed, and hoping that a more natural placing might be OK. Obviously if the point at issue is whether they were armed or not, then this doesn't help. And and the creation of the Strabane District Policing Partnership this may change, but it will take time. to and the creation of the Strabane District Policing Partnership this may change in time.. And I've ducked the where Strabane was left bit for now... William M. Connolley 21:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well yes, the problem is that the three shot IRA members were armed, according to the Belfast Telegraph (see the article quoted above: "All three men were masked and armed with loaded rifles when they were shot by the SAS."). Your other changes are fine by me, thanks for your help. Demiurge 21:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I've made the minor edits. As re the IRA members, yes it does rather look like they were armed... a bit of googling didn't turn up anything definite, but even the "victims of british policy" type pages didn't assert that they *were* unarmed. William M. Connolley 22:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC).

 * Likewise, re. User:Demiurge, I feel your edits are a reasonable compromise. - Ali-oops✍ 00:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Peacemaking is what I tried to do initially and pleaded for corroborating information if what I had turned up was incorrect. The silence from the anon IP's is deafening. They as ,I think there is more than one, wrote what was a very POV article to start off with. When I tried to indicate some things were disputed and not adhering to NPOV policy this has been ongoing. Now I have not tried to asert the Loyalist viewpoint and am not interested in this. Unfortunately what starts of as minor POV edits then eventually reverts the article back to one that was full of POV nonsense. It would be nice if anon would discuss properly on the talk page, but as they live in Strabane (or I suppose they do) and they think they own the article telling us outsiders to keep out this has been a waste of time. They started the revert wars and have vandalised users talk pages and left abusive messages on mine. Unfortunately they appear only interested in an article about Strabane that is full of POV republican nonsense. Originally when I looked at the article it seemed pretty POV,however when I did a lot of research even more was POV as on many of the previous sections on this page. I presume the gossip down the town in Strabane says the men were unarmed, but this is not backed up so POV and this is the crux of my point not pushing a Loyalist or even a unionist agenda. Thanks to others for their help with this, but I think the policy of alowing anon IP's to contribute is fundamentaly flawed and believe only signed up members should be able to contribute.

--Strangelyb 18:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

North West of the Island of Ireland vs Northern Ireland
Alright this is what I think. No offence is meant and I understand your viewpoint on the "North West of the Island of Ireland". However this is a republican viewpoint the same as "British Ulster" is a loyalist POV. The neutral and internationaly recognised term is "Northern Ireland" no more is required and to state so is not sectarian just fair. To change the start of the article to insert this is pointless. Strabane is in Northern Ireland anything else in the opening line is pushing a POV agenda. As this edit came right after another POV edit I can only assume that we have the same anon IP vandals who have been involed in revert wars, vandalisng user pages and have been repeatively blocked from this page. If you beleive there is a genuine reason why this should be changed to "is a town in the north-west of the island of Ireland" instead of "in Northern Ireland" in the opening line I would be interested to hear. Otherwise it appears POV and pushing a republican agenda as ample information on the exact location was previously provided. After looking at how most other towns in the region are described in the opening line all use Northern Ireland. A compromise if geographical location was the intention would be this "Strabane (Irish, an Srath Bán, The Fair River Valley/White Strand) is a town in the north-west of Northern Ireland". So lets discuss OK? --Strangelyb 19:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Firstly British Ulster is factually inaccurate in that Ulster consists of 9 counties. That is besides the point anyways as it is made clear TWICE in the opening paragraph that Strabane is indeed in Northern Ireland. Strabane IS in the north-west of the island of Ireland - as this is fact, why battle with the truth? Another issue to be considered would be the fact that the overwhleming majority of people in Strabane would consider themselves to live on the island of Ireland rather than Northern Ireland - again this is not too important as everyone does, at the end of the day, accept that, for now, Strabane remains part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. No POV agenda is being pushed. As I've said before, it is made very clear that Strabane is in Northern Ireland, but it remains the case, and it will until the end of time, that Strabane lies on the island of Ireland. Your 'compromise' is quite pathetic. Also, I have never, ever vandalised anyone's user page. That accusation is a deliberate slur and a half-hearted smear campaign. 00:57, 28 March (UTC)

 * You are forgetting that 'British Ulster' could of course refer to the parts of traditional Ulster that remain British today, i.e. Northern Ireland. Jonto 03:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

From your comments it is clear that you are pushing a POV. I am not advocating "British Ulster" and was just using it as an example of the opposite to your viewpoint both of which are inappropriate for Wikpedia. See the Five Pillars of WikipediaWP:5P. You have not explained why you changed what adhered to the norms of introduction, as on most other towns in N.I,  to your version which appears POV. If it is for anything other than geographical context it is pushing a POV agenda, which is innapropriate. If you don't want to be tarred with the same brush as previous anon IP's 172.XXX.XXX who are vandals I would advise you register properly and stand over your edits with a user name. --Strangelyb 09:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Please find a link to other towns in Tyrone List of places in County Tyrone all of them start with the correct NPOV opening mentioning Northern Ireland in the first line. --Strangelyb 09:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Stop this nonsense you obviously have an agenda for changing the opening line indictaed by your previous statement "Another issue to be considered would be the fact that the overwhleming majority of people in Strabane would consider themselves to live on the island of Ireland rather than Northern Ireland - again this is not too important as everyone does, at the end of the day, accept that, for now, Strabane remains part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland." Do you have a unbiased survey that backs up this claim? Because most people in Strabane ,93.3%, are from a nationlist/republican background does not mean that the article should not adhere to NPOV. I am not advocating a unionist or loyalist intro just the standard NPOV norm for an opening line to towns, which don't cause these sort of pointless arguments. Unless you have a NPOV reason just leave the way it was. --Strangelyb 17:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense? Relax - I made it clear, abundantly, that the fact that the people of Strabane do not consider themselves do be part of the UK is irrelevant. (Proof? Look at the last election results, a huge majority in the town voted for parties that advocate a 32-county republic.) If you point out the factual inaccuracies, I would be very greatful. In the absence of this, your claims of POV are ridiculous. You really cannot handle the truth, or so it would seem. I have absolutely no agenda, unlike yourself sir. 18:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

You still haven't expalined why you changed it to what appears POV in the first place. Does your intro work better somehow that I'm missing? Is Strabane a special case and needs a different intro than all the rest of the towns in Tyrone, which seems exactly to advocate a 32 county republic, therefore POV. The normal practice is start it in a NPOV way so what is the problem with this? Just because people vote Sinn Fein or the SDLP doesn't mean that they don't think Strabane is in Northern Ireland. Weak argument and you would need a specific survey on this question. Can you provide one? Remember you are the one who started accusing people of sectarianism and going mad about "British Ulster", which wasn't what I advocating anyway. Perhaps you should take your own advice and i quote "put your glasses on the next time before you embark on a sectarian attack". --Strangelyb 17:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I really do not see the point in discussing things here as you have deliberately lied and taken things that I have said out of context. Nevertheless, I shall try to nip this deliberate smear campaign in the bud. 1. I have done 90% of the work on this page, over the last year. Something that you are missing? Stop taking the credit for work that is not yours. 2. Strabane is not a special case. 3. I never once suggested that the intro should be changed because of the political beliefs held by the people of the town. I merely pointed out that it was the case that the town was overwhelmingly nationalist. For the THIRD time I will make it quite clear that this has no bearing on my decision to amend my previous work. It is simply the reality of the situation. 4. Specific suvey? How about a general election. However, once more, see point 3. (The fourth time I will endevour to make it clear to you that the political situation has no bearing on my decision). 5. Can you provide evidence of where I was "going mad about British Ulster"? I never once suggested that you advocated this. I simply highlighted that this was a flawed anaology, in that only 2/3 of Ulster is in fact British. Next time, find an appropriate analogy. 6. Can you point out where I said "put your glasses on the next time before you embark on a sectarian attack". 7. Can you highlight the factual inaccuracies of the opening paragraph? 8. Do you agree that it is made clear in the opening paragraph that Strabane is indeed in Northern Ireland?

--- 19:25, 28 March (UTC)  ---
 * "6. Can you point out where I said "put your glasses on the next time before you embark on a sectarian attack". That would be here. And please don't try to claim it wasn't you -- your long history of personal attacks is well known to both myself and Strangelyb. As for the substantive issue, the opening sentence should mention specifically the location of the town. We don't describe Paris as "a city in western Europe"; we don't describe Beijing as "a city in eastern Asia". Demiurge 18:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for the put on your glasses remark. Demi - if you are going to get involved, try reacting to ALL the points raised - not just the ones that suit your own agenda. Europe and Asia, if I am not mistaken, are continents. Ireland is a tiny island. Therefore, this analogy, like all the ones the have also been put forward, is flawed. - - -  19:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah now you are admitting that you are our previous anon IP vandal. But you said earlier and I quote "Also, I have never, ever vandalised anyone's user page. That accusation is a deliberate slur and a half-hearted smear campaign." You vandalised mine and Dimi's hiding behind your non static IP. This is why I'm being hard on this, along with the fact that it is POV. You change one thing then change the whole article to Strabane from a republican virepoint, which once again is not the point of Wikipedia. NEUTRAL POINT OF VEIW get it? At least you are starting to discuss things now instead of just vandalising however you are not backing up any of your arguments with reliable, accepted, NPOV evidence. That is all I want not Strabane from a unionist viewpoint. So why did you change the opening line. I'm still waiting on an answer. --Strangelyb 19:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The put on your glasses remark was made very recently. However, the other acts of vandalism have nothing to do with me and seem to have occurred a long time ago. By accusing me of that sort of thing, you are deliberately creating a smokescreen behind which you hide from the fact that the opening paragraph is perfectly valid. Could you point out where I have admitted that I am the previous anon IP vandal''? The article as it stands is from a neutral point of view...get it? - - - 21:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I would hope that you could have the courtesy to address points 1-5 and 7-8 as previously raised by myself. - - - 22:00, 28 March (UTC)

So you are the original author of this article then it was you back in September, and numerous times thereafter, who was involved in this vandalism and were blocked from the page for not following the rules.

(cur) (last) 00:45, 6 September 2005 172.214.106.21 (Don't you dare claim to be a 'writer'. 80% of the content of this article is my work.)

More examples.

(cur) (last) 01:51, 6 September 2005 Strangelyb (This is exactly the reason why I and others are reverting. If you can't be bothered to explain what appears to be POV then your missing the point of Wikipedia. It's a community u don't own the article) (cur) (last) 01:46, 6 September 2005 172.214.106.21 (You have deliberately distorted my arguement. Nobody else cares.) (cur) (last) 01:39, 6 September 2005 Strangelyb (How would anybody really know what your argument is as you don't use the talk page or follow dispute resolution) (cur) (last) 01:37, 6 September 2005 172.214.106.21 (This current dispute boils down to all incidents not being viewed as controversial.) (cur) (last) 01:28, 6 September 2005 Strangelyb (From the rules When a conflict arises as to which version is the most neutral, declare a cool-down period and tag article as disputed; hammer out details on the talk page, follow dispute resolution) (cur) (last) 00:45, 6 September 2005 172.214.106.21 (Don't you dare claim to be a 'writer'. 80% of the content of this article is my work.) (cur) (last) 23:50, 5 September 2005 Strangelyb (The rules - Wikipedia:Five pillars- 2. Wikipedia uses the "neutral point-of-view", 4. Wikipedia follows the writers' rules of engagement. E.g. "hammer out details on the talk page") (cur) (last) 23:36, 5 September 2005 172.214.106.21 (rv vandal - state the rules that i broke and then state the attacks i am alledged to have made.) (cur) (last) 23:32, 5 September 2005 Strangelyb (rv vandal- Wind yer neck in. You shouldn't be using Wikepedia if you can't follow the rules and then can only attack those who do.) (cur) (last) 13:58, 5 September 2005 172.201.110.58 (cur) (last) 13:53, 5 September 2005 Demiurge m (rv blanking) (cur) (last) 13:26, 5 September 2005 172.201.110.58 (shoot to kill not exclusive to IRA volunteers in 6 counties. I can go on like this all day, all night, all week, all year.) (cur) (last) 13:23, 5 September 2005 Demiurge m (rv blanking) (cur) (last) 13:21, 5 September 2005 172.201.110.58 (Which particular facts?) (cur) (last) 03:25, 5 September 2005 Strangelyb (rv You are not abiding by the rules of Wikipedia. My edits are not advocating Unionist POV, just indicating when your so called facts are disputed as per the rules.) (cur) (last) 23:31, 4 September 2005 172.203.221.62 (rv vandal) (cur) (last) 22:58, 4 September 2005 Demiurge m (rv vandal) (cur) (last) 22:27, 4 September 2005 172.203.221.62 (vandal! halting the spread of unionist propaganda.) (cur) (last) 13:26, 4 September 2005 Demiurge m (rv vandal) (cur) (last) 12:45, 4 September 2005 172.188.208.189 (piss off)

You still haven't answered my question on why you changed the opening line so why should I address points 1-5 and 7-8 when you can't even answer one. You are not fooling anyone. Adhere to NPOV and you won't have any issues editing this page. And again just because you started the page does'nt mean you own it. Wikipedia is a community. --Strangelyb 21:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The smokescreen just grows bigger and bigger....those are comments made by another individual. The contributions that that person has made do not constitute as the main contribution to this article. Be aware of that. Also, I never once said that I owned the article. What I was pointing out is that you have no claim to have started this article or contributed to it, as you so proudly display on your homepage. The changes I made to the opening article do not have to be explained. Why? Because everything included in the opening paragraph is factual, can be backed up and is non-pov - this includes the changes I made. Now, if you would be so kind as to cease this endless smoke and mirrors situtation that you have created, remove yourself from behind the smokescreen, and address, or even try to attempt having a stab at, my questions. There's a good boy. --- 22:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no smokescreen apart from the one you are spinning with your not so subtle subterfuge. Hide behind a non static IP if you want. I can stand by all my comments and don't need to pretend I didn't make them so I can continue to spread POV nonsense. You wrote what was a very POV article to start off with concentrating on the republican perspective hardly NPOV. Why not add more about the history of Strabane like the Great Northern Railway, which closed down 41 years ago? Or the pubs like the Farmers home or Felix's. Why not more history on Dr. George Sigerson? Why mostly concentrate on the British occupation? Why not more on the Reverend Dr. Joseph Ruggles Wilson the grandfather of Woodrow Wilson? Strabane was a Jacobite base to launch attacks on Derry during the siege of Derry. What about the Strabane Football Club are only Gaelic sports played? And this is not protestant culture versus catholic culture as the genral manager of Strabane Football Club is a nationalist. The article was not up to NPOV standard. Why if I am a loyalist sectarian conspirator would I add the following line "Substantial damages were awarded to the families by the Ministry of Defence on 7 May 2002, as part of a Belfast High Court settlement." Hardly advancing the loyalist cause that one eh! Show me where I ever said I started the article. And that you mention that I put that I contributed to Strabane on my user page is the same cry as the anon supposed author who then went on to vandalise it. And by the way as Wikipedia is a community I have contributed to the page just not any contributions you like, but that's the point you don't own the page and neither do I. Why don't you sign up and stand over your comments like the upstanding misunderstood individual you purport to be? --Strangelyb 08:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is indeed a community. The reason I focused on the recent history of Strabane is because it is what I most familiar with. If you know so much about the things you mention i.e. Great Northern Railway, then why the hell did you not enter information on them? Although, I fail to see the relevance of adding information abotu the Farmers' Home. Can you point out where I called you a "conspirator"? Strabane FC is mostly made up of Catholics, but is of little significance compared to the recent turbulant history of gaelic culture in Strabane. Again, information on Sigersons GFC is included in a Recent History section of Gaelic culture revival in the town, this being my 'expertise'. I do not pretend to know much about Dr. Sigerson, the railway line or Woodrow Wilson's anscestors - so why should you force me to include them? Anyone, including yourself, is welcome to include that information.

However, once again your comments only serve to prove my point re. the smokescreen you have so deliberately created and subsequently maintained. Can you tell me where it says that I must become a Wikipedia registered user in order to contribute to artciles? Exactly, it doesn't. Once again, you have also failed to address the points I raised earlier - if anyone is hiding behind a smokescreen, it's YOU. The money paid out to the families of the 3 murdered IRA men proves nothing - as you have so loudly proclaimed in the past, it was never proven in a court of law that these men were not carrying weapons etc. so stop including that as 'evidence' that you are not a "loyalist sectarian conspirator."

ADDRESS MY POINTS PREVIOUSLY RAISED. END THE SMOKESCREEN NOW.

--- 17:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't need to address any of your points as you are the one blocked from using the page by your stupid policy of not registering so you can say wasn't me I'm the real victim here. Seems pretty pointless to me as you come off worse. Now if you'd act responsibly and be NPOV you wouldn't have a problem. The problem is when you purport things to be fact when they are your POV. You admit yourself that the Gaelic culture revival in the town is your expertise. Great! However that doesn't mean that everything from that perspective is agreed to be fact. There is a difference between opinion and what is generally agreed to be 100% fact. So yes there was money paid out to the 3 murdered (killied in Wikipedia NPOV speak until proven)IRA men and yes all the documnetary evidence indicates there is a dispute over whether they were armed or not. So learn to write NPOV and don't dress up opinion as fact. --Strangelyb 19:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

"I'm the real victim here." Pathetic. Tír Eoghain abú

 * At least you have an account now. Well done. - Ali-oops✍ 19:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Just a little observation or two here. An anonymous editor has put forth the following argument:

"Another issue to be considered would be the fact that the overwhleming majority of people in Strabane would consider themselves to live on the island of Ireland rather than Northern Ireland"

The constituency of West Belfast is undoubtedly also overwhelmingly nationalist - a large number of the people there would probably prefer to refer to themselves as being from the island of Ireland. But that does not stop West Belfast from being a part of Northern Ireland.

Considering that Northern Ireland is located wholly within the island of Ireland (islands aside), then it is a given that Strabane is also within Ireland. The information is extraneous at the very least. The very mention of Strabane being in a location in Ireland, as opposed to the more specific Northern Ireland, is POV - especially considering the anonymous user's suggestion that "the people in Strabane... [etc etc]". --Mal 14:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Precisely; it smacks of political POV. - Ali-oops✍ 14:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe if you read the whole talk page you would see what I actually meant. Have the decency to do so in future. Do not pick out snippets that are unrepresentative of my actual intention. For example, I wrote this during the debate:  I never once suggested that the intro should be changed because of the political beliefs held by the people of the town. I merely pointed out that it was the case that the town was overwhelmingly nationalist. For the THIRD time I will make it quite clear that this has no bearing on my decision to amend my previous work. It is simply the reality of the situation. I find the smear campaign currently being orchestrated against myself very troubling indeed. Tír Eoghain abú 15:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

 * "Smear campaign"? Oh, please! The opinions of yourself or the residents of Strabane (or my opinion) matter naught. What matters is factual accuracy, that's all. Let's stick to the geography of the matter, rather than trying to score points by trying to place Strabane in the centre of the island of Ireland rather than the political entity of 'Northern Ireland'. It's like saying the city of Cork is in the north-west corner of Europe (oh, and it happens to be in the Republic of Ireland) - Ali-oops✍ 15:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Once again, I repeat: "I never once suggested that the intro should be changed because of the political beliefs held by the people of the town. I merely pointed out that it was the case that the town was overwhelmingly nationalist.'" Last time I checked, Europe is a continent. Ireland is a much smaller geographical entity. Another flawed anology. Tír Eoghain abú 15:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

.. and Northern Ireland is an even smaller geographical entity. What's your point? --Mal 16:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly what is your point? Tír Eoghain abú 16:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

My point is that I was asking you what your point was. --Mal 17:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Dispute Resolved
I think that the new look introductory paragraph should satisfy all sides. I believe that the article remains npov. Tír Eoghain abú 16:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

 * It's better, but the whole 'island of' thing seems kinda weird and unnecessary. Everyone knows Northern Ireland is on the geographical island of Ireland - Ali-oops✍ 17:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. I spend a lot of the year in England and have come into contact with many foreign nationals that are very much confused as to the poltical situation in Northern Ireland and its exact geographical location. Tír Eoghain abú 17:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * All the more reason to not muddy the waters with vague references - Ali-oops✍ 18:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Is this ready to be unprotected? · Katefan0(scribble)/ poll 17:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't believe so, though User:Tír Eoghain abú pulled the . Re-adding. - Ali-oops✍  18:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry you feel that way. It may be protected for all eternity as far as I am concerned as it makes no difference to me any longer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tír Eoghain abú (talk • contribs)
 * Please don't remove sprotected tags. It doesn't unprotect the article; only administrators can push the extra button that actually performs the unprotect. Removing the tag only makes it confusing when new editors try to edit and can't. · Katefan0(scribble)/ poll 19:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

 * To Tír Eoghain abú; please stop reverting the article until at least some concensus is reached. - Ali-oops✍ 19:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * To Ali-oops: ditto. Tír Eoghain abú 19:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

 * To Ali-oops: Could you please explain the importance you have attatched to the second line mentioning that Strabane straddles the border between N.I. and RoI? Tír Eoghain abú 23:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It points to the fact that Strabane is in an interesting political situation and also indicates that the town has close links to the RoI. *That* is pretty-close to compromise, considering you obviously have some 'island of Ireland' thing going on. It stands to at least neutralise the fact that you apparently find its being in NI somehow abhorrent - Ali-oops✍ 23:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Compromise? I hardly think that including legitimate facts could be considered a 'compromise'. They are just that - facts. Their inclusion does not have to be justified. As for the 'abhorrent' comment - I will not rise to that deliberate attempt to provoke. The very least you could do before launching personal attacks is to back them up with proof. You are incapable of doing so. Tír Eoghain abú 00:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Im sorry you see my use of the word 'abhorrent' (I said ' you apparently find [it] somehow abhorrent') as being a personal attack. That's pretty mild. Im not interested in personal politics, just the facts and NPOV. Now please, compromise - Ali-oops✍ 00:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Justify the claim that I "apparently find [it] somehow abhorrent". Have I attempted to delete it? No. Have I questioned the fact that Strabane lies within the UK? No. Have I pointed out (quite correctly) that Strabane is located on the island of Ireland? Yes, and that's all. This talk of the second line being a 'compromise' is quite ridiculous. By all means, delete the part about Strabane straddling the border if you feel so concerned about it. But to deny that Strabane is a border town is quite riduclous...but if you feel different, as I said just before, I won't stand in your way if you wish to delete it. I certainly do not see its inclusion as a 'compromise'. In all honesty, I find such a suggestion laughable. Tír Eoghain abú 00:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not interested in deleting the second line; I'm merely pointing out that it goes towards a compromise with yourself as it mentions both political entities. Frankly, this whole thing has descended into the ludicrous and, right now, this page needs admin assistance. Please note that your are in major violation of WP:3RR right now. You have very little interest in negotiation around this issue and instead, constantly revert to your way and your way only. - Ali-oops✍ 00:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You are consistently making unfounded personal attacks. Please stop. 3RR? I'm not the only one - why don't you talk to Setanta also? Or are you only interested in me? Once again, please stop this smear campaign. It's really becoming tiresome. Why can't you accept the truth? Please answer this question: Why is it wrong to include in the opening paragraph, in brackets, that Strabane is located in Ireland - this being stated after we the reader is made aware that Strabane is also in Northern Ireland? Tír Eoghain abú 00:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not making personal attacks, trust me on that. Re. the 'island of Ireland' comment, other editors including myself have repeatedly pointed out where the problems are with that, including the basic fact that it's confusing to readers, plain and simple. Revert away if you must, someone else will probably fix it anyway. Right now, I feel the page needs mediation and note already that you called for unprotection already today. Why? - Ali-oops✍ 00:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

 * It is far from confusing. It actually clarifies the geographical locations of both Strabane and Northern Ireland. You take it for granted that people from around the world all know that N.I. is located on the island of Ireland. Believe me, they do not. I actually think that to accuse me of 'confusing' the reader, however indirectly you have done so, is rather silly and a very, very poor excuse. The reason I think that the page should be unprotected is because the page was originally protected quite blatantly to prevent me from editing it. As I have been a member for more than a week, it seems rather silly to prevent me from editing the page when I can do so now as a full member. Got it? Tír Eoghain abú 00:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Then you'd best go round and fix all the other Scotland/Wales/England towns so, too. Frankly, if you were more willing to enter into a sensible dialogue with other editors, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Got it? Night night now! :-) - Ali-oops<sup style="color:darkred;">✍  00:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, totally unfounded allegations. Tír Eoghain abú 01:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Still don't think that anything other than the norm intro line is applicable. As previously discussed all other towns in Tyrone start this way and I don't see what benefit this brings to the article other than what appears to be pushing a POV. Now I know Tír Eoghain abú sates that this is not the reason and has recently clarified this as follows "It actually clarifies the geographical locations of both Strabane and Northern Ireland."

I think it reads poorly is unecessary and if people don't know where Northern Ireland is they can look it up by clicking the link.

If we are to change Strabane for this reason then we need to look at all towns in Ireland is that realy what is being proposed here or once again is there some reason why Strabane is a special case. Hell look at the towns across the border in Donegal they’re not described in this way.

"Letterkenny (Leitir Ceanainn in Irish) is the largest town in County Donegal, in the Republic of Ireland, located 35 miles north of Donegal Town and 20 miles west of Derry in Northern Ireland."

And Lifford just across the river is decribed as this.

"Lifford (Leifear in Irish) is the county town of Donegal in the Republic of Ireland and the seat of Donegal County Council."

I think my previously offered compromise if geographical location is the intention "Strabane (Irish, an Srath Bán, The Fair River Valley/White Strand) is a town in the north-west of Northern Ireland" is fair and was meant in good faith. --Strangelyb 19:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Compromise accepted on my part. Tír Eoghain abú 19:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yayy!! - Ali-oops<sup style="color:darkred;">✍ 20:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

No more problems that I can see given a cursory glance at the article Tir Eoghain abú.. but keep looking. ;) In all honesty, I can't see that there was anything wrong with the article as it stood in the first place. Oh - one 'problem' that I did notice is that there is no map for the article, indicating exactly where Strabane is (see the article on Crewe as an example of a well-written town article, and have a look maybe at this website too... I wonder what the copyright on those images are). --Mal 21:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Unfortunately I really don't know much about copyright with regard to images and maps etc. The article is in much need of such things though as you rightly point out, if even only for aesthetic purposes. I added some images a long time ago but they were removed one by one over a period of time because of alleged copyright infringement, but I would urge somebody with more expertise in the field to add some images, maps etc. if at all possible. Tír Eoghain abú 21:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Well perhaps you can write an email to that website and see if its possible to get the copyright info from them, or ask them for permission to use either or both of the pictures on that page, in this encyclopedia. Alternatively, if you're any good with photoshop, you could copy the pic that's already in the Crewe article, and change it to suit. In fact, I think I'll do that now. :) --Mal 22:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Done. If the dot position is wildly inaccurate, let me know - its easily fixed. --Mal 22:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Looks spot on to me. Cheers. Go raibh míle maith agat. Tír Eoghain abú 23:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

New Map and Info
Any thoughts? It looks a little bit messy now, but I think that if the protection symbols were removed then it mightn't look as bad. Tír Eoghain abú 18:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Yeah I was looking at the Strabane coat of arms earlier, on the District Council site, and was going to suggest it should be added. Stayed away from it though as their may be Wikipedia copyright issues. Anyway now it's up I'm sure if there is an issue it will be flagged pretty sharpish. The two map thing may be overkill, but don't have an issue with it and will wait and see when the protection is lifted.

--Strangelyb 18:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

 * I think removal of the protection tag will only shift the text and images up.. so the page will look the same. Perhaps the other map could be made smaller and inserted into the infobox you have created Tir Eoghain abú? I would personally replace the map showing the county with the map showing the location of the town... the county map is maybe more relevant to the County Tyrone article. But I'll leave it up to you. For the meantime, perhaps move the map I added to below the infobox (right hand side). --Mal 20:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Something is up with the infobox Mal, can that be fixed? Tír Eoghain abú 14:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't see any problem with it. But I remember I had problems with Internet Explorer not showing some images (I've since switched to Firefox).. could that be the prob? I've also changed the infobox.. maybe that's what you are talking about. I left the older code in, but commented it out.

I created a new template for Northern Irish towns, which I think will look better once I've improved it a bit. Take a look at it here: Template:Northern Irish town. --Mal 02:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

 * If, as previously alluded to by yourself and others, you are looking for a 'standardisation' of N.I. town articles then there's going to have to be some changes made to that infobox. i.e. inclusion of its Irish name (as 99% of Irish town names are simply Anglified Gaelic names), the province, and also just a map of the island of Ireland showing the town or a map of N.I. showing the town. Until then I think I am going to revert the page so that the infobox looks more like the standard issue as seen on the Ballymena, Carrick, Newry, articles for example. Tír Eoghain abú 10:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I reverted this to the new infobox I created. If you look carefully at the top of the infobox, you'll note that the Irish name had already been included, in line with wikipedia guidelines. I don't think we need to include information about the province, as 100% of Northern Ireland is contained within Ulster. --Mal 08:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Tyrone, I didn't understand your edit comment ("this version is more appropriate and the standard version for the time being. also, although you have included the irish name in your own infobox, there is no actual title to do so.").. specifically this part: "although you have included the irish name in your own infobox, there is no actual title to do so". The name in Irish is mentioned in the body of the text, and is also in brackets beside the English version name above the infobox (actually as part of the template, as I coded it). I don't know what you see as the problem with it, but if ou're more specific then that would help me in possibly improving the infobox I made.

As it stands, I suppose the infobox I created is incomplete and so I'll not revert it back. I have the infobox in a couple of other Northern Irish town articles which I can work on instead. I'm sure you might agree though, that we can avoid a future revert war by using an infobox specific to NI. One could easily argue that the 'standard' should be either that of UK places or Irish places. To that end, while I was researching the use of infoboxes to 'sexy up' this article, and the use of the map etc, I thought I'd create a NI template. Its based on a couple of templates, and I plan to use some formatting from the Irish place infobox as well. --Mal 03:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Yeah man by all means create an NI town infobox. Definitely. But you just can't, in all seriousness, omit from the box a field that contains the town name in Irish. I think that the box as it stands is more than appropriate but if you come up with something more suitable, I'd be very happy to help you implement it in all towns within the 6 counties. Tír Eoghain abú 01:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll get back to work on the template then, and I'll be asking your opinion when I've got most of it done. :) I'm still not sure what you mean about the Irish name tbh - the Irish name is there, clearly, at the very top of the infobox. In the template it is labelled as a variable name_irish or something. --Mal 00:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Cheers Mal. I think that the changes made by AlistairWard and I are adequate enough and should do the trick. Tír Eoghain abú 15:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

List of deaths
Just wondering where the total of "Dozens of British soldiers" came from. I was checking out the CAIN website at http://cain.ulst.ac.uk and its search lists 40 deaths in total in Strabane during the Troubles and not as many as the article suggests were soldiers. Does anyone have a copy of "Lost Lives"? Alastairward 16:59, 10 April 2006

Why don't you do some work for a fucking change and find the actual number of people that died instead of criticising the work of others? Why don't you go out and get the real facts? If that's too much for u and u cant back up your work, then u can go suck my balls. 172.209.210.43 18:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi there anonymous, thanks for your feedback! The Sutton Index of Deaths, accessed through the CAIN website, lists only seven soldiers (regular British Army and UDR soldiers) dead in Strabane through terrorist actions and two RUC officers killed. The dozens listed in the article sounds a bit Hollywood to be honest, possibly a change is necessary? Alastairward 10:25, 11 April 2006

Had this very same thought some months back but couldn't be bothered with more revert wars and abuse from anon IP's. Also I thought that as the sentence stated "Dozens of British soldiers met their deaths in the Strabane area" rather than in Strabane town itself that this may not be as outlandish as first appears. I think at the time I looked at the numbers in Strabane and neighbouring villages etc and the disparity wasn't enough for me personally to argue over as there were at the time more obvious POV statements in the article. However if you think this requires tidying up I wouldn't have a problem as accuracy is the important thing about encyclopedias. And by the the way you can't suck my balls I don't care what other people's sexual preferences are but that's definitely off limits for me.--Strangelyb 12:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Yeah that's true. It doesn't actually say Strabane town. You must take into account the phrase 'Strabane area'. To me, this would include surrounding areas such as Clady (where many soldiers were killed, incl. one of huge significance - the 1st ever in NI? I'm not sure) Sion Mills, and both sides of the A5 (in the general direction of both Omagh and Derry). If these areas were taken into consideration then I'm sure you'd be right and the claim would not seem so bizarre or far-fetched. Also, Alistair, while I do not condone the vulgarities used by the anon IP, I would share some of his sentiment. If you can conclusively prove otherwise, then why not include your findings in the article instead of stopping short and including a 'citation needed' sign? There may be a good reason as to why you do not do this but I would definitely encourage you to do so. Tír Eoghain abú 13:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

 * As pointed out, the Sutton Index of deaths, listed on the reputable CAIN website, lists a bit short of 40 deaths attributable to killings by either paramilitaries or the security forces. I did not add the "citation needed", I listed a source that anyone, anon' or not, can check. In the absence of any definitive list, I don't think we can say "dozens", many seems more suitable. The burden of proof is on those making the claims, you can't just slap a number of deaths into the article and demand someone prove otherwise, its illogical.
 * My thoughts are that Clady and Sion Mills are not in Strabane but are towns/villages in themselves, so can't really be taken into account. How big is this Strabane area you talk of? Is someone trying to pad the kill count for the terrorists here? I think it would be proper to note deaths as only those in Strabane, from town to town attitudes and demographics change, a higher number of terrorist deaths peculiar to a certain town is an important note surely.
 * Also, as a note, the soldier listed as first killed during The Troubles was Robert Curtis shot by sniper while on foot patrol on the New Lodge Road, Belfast. Alastairward 16:57, 11 April 2006

 * That paragraph, in my opinion, has now been tidied up nicely. Though it would be nice to get an actual figure sometime. Anyways, the problem is resolved for now. Tír Eoghain abú 15:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that Clady and Sion Mills were in Strabane - i'm referring to the Strabane area. If short of forty people died in Strabane during the Troubles, then surely this is three dozen, and the phrase could be that dozens of people met their death in Strabane during the Trouble. I didn't say that the burden of proof was on you, rather that because you had gone to the trouble of looking up the CAIN list, surely there was the possibility of adding the exact number of deaths (or as near as is impossible) to the article. Tír Eoghain abú 16:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, this discussion is talking place on the talk page of an article about the town Strabane: "Strabane (Irish, an Srath Bán, Fair River Valley or White Strand) is a town". In that sense, any note of numbers of deaths of anyone should relate specifically to the town itself. However, Tír has solved the problem admirably. --Mal 10:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Wait a minute, I think it is an tSraith Bhán, i.e. sraith being feminine despite Ó Dónaill's dictionary (see the more authoritative Dineen). The genitive to my ear is na Sraithe Báine, making it definitely feminine. And yes, it means Fair River Valley, but strand is trá, and not sraith. Meabhar 00:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Re:Attracta Harron
This info has been inserted by a member of the extended family. If you want to see comprehensice detail have a look at the item for Trevor Hamilton and her brother in law's site http://www.martinharran.com

 * Just because the information has been included on their personal website does not mean that the family has given permission for such information to be used on Wikipedia. As for the Hamilton article, as true as the descriptions may be, they will soon be changed as they are blatantly POV. Tír Eoghain abú 13:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

 * What was Hamilton's link with Strabane? --Guinnog 13:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

 * None, as far as I am aware. He lived outside Sion Mills on the road to Omagh. I think the late Mrs. Harron got into his car in Strabane, but that's about it. Tír Eoghain abú 17:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

"Some of" the most serious incidents in the Troubles
Are there many serious incidents from the Troubles in Strabane missing from the linked list? Alastairward 16:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Recent vandalism
There seems to have been a bout of vandalism by anonymous editors. Would they mind putting reasons for their edits on the talk page and perhaps registering Alastairward 20:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Irish name?
I have it on good authority (from an Irish teacher in Derry) that the name An Srath Bán actually translates as "grassy meadow beside a river". Check out the meaning of Bán and then the genetive of the word as used in the name and it seems that "white strand" is incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.235.138 (talk) 16:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

What is the correct Irish name? We have 'An Srath Bán' in the text and 'An tSraith Bhán' in the info box. The translation of the council's name does not look right either. Oaken 17:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

An Srath Bán is the correct spelling. Im not sure what that other spelling is about as the An does not make Srath femine its the context that the work is used in that changes the spelling. The town name is An Srath Bán, however if you look at the name of the Naiscoil it forces a change in the name. Naiscoil an tSratha Bain. Mefein07 12:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC) Mefein07 4/9/07

 * The place names in Irish article disagrees, which is correct? Alastairward (talk) 20:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Without the 't' is correct in this circumstance. I've also updated the place names in Irish article.
 * I've added a ref for that, which also gave a different translation. I'm not contradicting what is said above but merely replacing it with a ref'ed translation. --RA (talk) 08:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

legfordum transmitor
how is the fact that strabane has a television transmitor and was featured on a utv map years ago relevant information for this article?????????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.52.54 (talk) 14:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear anonymous editor, I think your vandalism of Wikipedia would need to stop before anyone takes you seriously. Alastairward (talk) 12:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

"An Srath Bán" translates as "grassy meadow beside a river". The word "Bán" means meadow in this instance and not "white". The name of the footbal pitch, "The Meadows", beside the river supports this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.13.125.79 (talk) 01:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

People
Is there any consensus on who should be included and who shouldn't on the list of people? At first it was a list of "Notable natives" and then changed to "People" and still people are popping on and off the list (George Sigerson has recently returned) Alastairward (talk) 12:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Population
According to the Western Health & Social Services Board [www.whssb.n-i.nhs.uk/dept/Strabane.html] the population of Strabane in 2001 was 38248. The article states that in 2008 the population was estimated at 16000. That's a drop of over half in 7 years, quite something I'm sure you'd agree. If there's a proper cite for the up to date population figure, please provide it, else I'll go with the 2001 census report.Alastairward (talk) 07:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Well obviously the figure of 38248 refers to Strabane Council area you dummy. This is a page for the TOWN of Strabane which has a population of 16000. Strabane may be a hole but I doubt that 60% of its population would leave within 7 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rumpabumpa (talk • contribs) 19:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC) Can you provide a cite for the town by itself? Alastairward (talk) 20:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Alwynw's recent edits
Without wanting to start an edit war, I felt that user Alwynw's recent edits and his/her idea of a controversial killing were best left to one side. Therefore I reduced the paragraph describing the killings in the town during the Troubles to a simple, "civilians and soldiers" killed, with an opinion on whether they were "controversial" left up to the reader. They can find out enough about that in the article The Troubles in Strabane which is linked to at the top of the Troubles section, without adding selected deaths to the main article. Alastairward (talk) 20:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that's reasonable. Happy with the edit. Mooretwin (talk) 23:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Scots name?
The infobox gives Stràbane as the Ulster Scots version of Strabane. Have we any reliable sources to support this? ~Asarlaí 18:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The website for the district council has the name of the council in English, Irish, and Ulster Scots. Or at least I assume the third name listed in the top left of the screen is Ulster Scots; Stràbane Destrick Cooncil. Alastairward (talk) 20:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Disputed figures
"Strabane Grammar School has a 100% achievement rate of grades A-C at GCSE level" - citation? Where did this come from? If you're going to post something like this, please provide a link to where you got your information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.224.156 (talk) 14:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I cited it, but the reference dates back to 2005, so I amended the text to match. Which is a crude solution I'm happy to admit. Alastairward (talk) 21:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Strabane. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121006132758/http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Pa8BwMozdvE to http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Pa8BwMozdvE

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Talk to my owner :Online 08:51, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Strabae
The infobox names this place as "Strabae" multiple times. Intentional or a mistake?Hza a 9 (talk) 22:28, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

"Straban" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Straban and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 16 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. <b style="color: #ea5a5a;">Tartar</b>Torte 03:21, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Strabane