Talk:Edward O'Brien (Irish republican)

Deletion

The reason I am opposing the deletion of this article is because it is about an IRA member who died in a premature explosion on a bus in London. I am currently trying to source more information to add to this article. He has a song wrote about him called The Ballad Of Ed O'Brien by a band called Fenian Folk. Also the Republican Flute band in Gorey are named after him. He was wrote about in Tirghra Irelands Patriot Dead ISBN 0 9542946 0 2 and also had an article wrote about him in An Phoblacht. He was also the first IRA volunteer death after the ceasefire was broken in 1996. He is also mentioned in Chronology of Provisional IRA actions. So I felt the reader would like to know more about this individual. BigDunc 18:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

But these don't count as "independent, reliable sources" for his notability. AP is the Sinn Fein newspaper, the book is by "Tirghra Commemoration Committee" and printed by "Republican Publications", and the folk band and flute band aren't notable in themselves. These all seem like memorial references to someone seen as a fallen comrade, not evidence that he was historically notable outside of that single incident, or notable outside of the republican community. While the bomb incident generated news coverage at the time, and his name was connected to it, there doesn't seem to be any subsequent interest in or coverage of the man's life in the wider media.

So I'd say he's not notable enough to warrant his own article here, and there simply aren't enough independent sources to make the article verifiable. Thomjakobsen 19:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I have changed a little of the language used in the article as it previously read like a eulogy and thus ran the risk of glorifying terrorism. Whatever your feelings on Irish Republicanism, the glorification of terrorist offences is something we should steer clear of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthsayer1977 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

This article in it's previous form was far from neutral. It read like a eulogy for someone who died while attempting to conduct a terrorist attack. As the article on the 9/11 terrorist attacks calls them exactly that (terrorist attacks), I feel that this article should be written using the same language. Regardless of your opinion of the northern (small n) Ireland question, you should agree that people who kill (or attempt to kill) civilians in cold blood in the name of a political cause (however noble you might think it is) are terrorists and should be described as such. Incidently, An Phoblacht being a Sinn Fein publication is hardly a source of neutral comment. I am therefore going to change the article again to include appropriate language.Truthsayer1977 20:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Truthsayer1977 20:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:TERRORIST. "Terrorist" is a POV label, as I think is "Volunteer". We need to avoid such labels, although if you can cite a notable source calling him such you're welcome to quote them. I'm replacing "terrorist"/"volunteer" with "member", which is a WP:NPOV term. Not sure what a neutral wording of "on active service" would be, though. Thomjakobsen 20:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed; "member" is best neutral wording. Have changed "travelled to England on active service" to "made his last trip to England". Neutral I think. Truthsayer1977 17:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

No I do not think so. --Domer48 18:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Care to explain? "Volunteer" is IRA terminology for its members and is just as POV as "terrorist". Surely it's best to use a term that anyone could use and is neutral? Thomjakobsen 20:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the link on volunteers explains everything. And this might also help [1].I did use small "v's" to avoid POV --Domer48 20:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm familiar with its special meaning. I don't have an issue with capitalization: my main problem was using it without context in the first sentence, which would be confusing to a general reader. As per here (which I wasn't aware of), how about: "member" in the first sentence, then "He joined the IRA in 1992 as a volunteer", then we can leave the remaining use of "volunteer" as its special meaning has then been properly introduced. Thomjakobsen 22:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Volunteer .28IRA.29 supercedes the mediation cabal. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that just for the issue of capitalization, though? Thomjakobsen 22:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

More than that seems to be discussed. The recommendation seems to be a piped volunteer for the first usage, then member thereafter. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The discussion seems to be about when to capitalize "volunteer" when it does get used, so I'm assuming it only overrides the part of the mediation that says "always use lowercase (for now)". They don't seem to challenge the part that says "use member in the lead, then introduce the term later", which appeared to get complete consensus here. Thomjakobsen 22:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Notable

I remember this Volunteer from reading An Phoblacht. I remember there was quite a bit of coverage in both the British and Irish media. I am surprised this article was nominated so quickly, having hardly got off the ground. I thought it might have been an automated response, but apparently not? --Domer48 18:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I would have liked to have seen some of the above information in the article. The news item listed at the end doesn't give this individual's name so can hardly be called a demonstration of notability. There's nothing in the article about the above-noted song, the eponymous band, the citation for the book doesn't indicate that he's mentioned in it, and there's no link that I saw to Chronology of Provisional IRA actions. So, for someone like myself who had never heard of him, I think it's reasonable to suggest that the article be deleted. I suggest that it would be wise to actually add some of the information into the article rather than leaving it on the talk page. I've deleted my own reversal of the speedy deletion tag, after having investigated further, but another editor could return it at any time. Accounting4Taste 19:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Ed o brien is very well known for his short life span and his position as a volunteer,im supprised the above editors have so much to say about somebody they know so little about..seems to me like their POV is bursting at the seems to invalidate this volunteers status..I suggest more details from editors before the negitive POV runs away like so many other topics..Breen32 01:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Removed cat

This cat implies that it was suicide as at the time of his death he was an IRA Vol, so how could he have been killed by the IRA. BigDunc 11:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Why does it imply suicide? I don't see any real difference between him being categorised as having being killed by the IRA and any other civilian that was killed by an IRA bomb (such as Tim Parry or Jonathon Ball). All three were, if you believe the IRA line, accidental casualties but all were still killed by an IRA action. The word kill does not imply intent. Rockpocket 19:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

He was an IRA member carrying a bomb the Cat says killed by the IRA if a plane crashes are the passengers killed by the pilot. BigDunc 19:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Based on Rockpocket logic, any British soldier killed in the north of Ireland was killed by the British Army. They did send them to Ireland! It is a silly Cat to apply to this article. --Domer48 20:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

If the pilot was negligent, then yes. If a plane crashes the passengers are are killed by the pilot. I would be an example of negligent homicide or perhaps of manslaughter. You misinterpret my logic, because sending troops to Northern Ireland is not the criminally negligent act that led to a death. In contrast carrying a primed bomb is. That is the difference. Rockpocket 21:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Are they not carrying loaded weapons? BigDunc 21:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The question is a non-sequitur. The basic facts of the death of O'Brien do not differ from, for example, Gordon Hamilton-Fairley: both were killed by an IRA bomb intended for someone else. If you wish to argue intent is required for inclusion then people like Hamilton-Fairley shouldn't be included either. The IRA most certainly didn't intend to blow him up, just as they certainly didn't intend to blow up O'Brien. If you want to limit inclusion in this cat then you should make clear in the cat what is and is not to be included. Rockpocket 23:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree Domer48 it is ridiculous. BigDunc 20:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Rockpocket please stop being ridiculous. --Domer48 00:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Address the point rather than cast aspersions on the person, please, Domer. My concern is a serious one: cats should either be inclusive based on their title, or what is intended should be elucidated. I'm not bothered which it is, but we should be consistent. Rockpocket 00:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Why was Ed O’Brien in England with a bomb? Was it because of the IRA, or was it because of the political and military occupation of the six north eastern counties in Ireland? I’m not casting any aspersions, so I need no reminding of WP:NPA. You have been around these articles long enough to know how ridiculous the cat is. If however that is your perception, I will withdraw the comment, least we end up discussing it rather than the subject at hand. So why was Ed O’Brien in England? --Domer48 07:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what his motivation was for wanting to detonate a bomb in London. Unless otherwise stated, there is nothing in the cat that suggests motivation is a factor for inclusion. The germane question is, was O’Brien killed by an IRA made bomb? I think the answer to that is yes which is why I think the cat is relevant. If it is not relevant then it should be made clear, in the cat, that motivation is a factor for inclusion (i.e. accidental deaths during IRA actions should not be included). That is all I am arguing. Oh, and if you think the cat is ridiculous then you should nominate it at CfD. Rockpocket 18:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully this resolves the debate. Rockpocket 18:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I cant speak for Domer but I think he was calling your argument ridiculous not you so please WP:AGF BigDunc 13:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak for Domer either, but I think he was suggesting I am being ridiculous, which, by definition, is a state of being and hence a comment on a person. But thanks for your insight. Rockpocket 18:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you explain to me how you feel link you gave Rockpocket is some resolution to this. -- BigDunc (talk) 19:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Er, yes, there was an unfortunate typo in that edit. It has been corrected by ONiH. Now, I hope, it is clear. Rockpocket 20:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

As crystal. BigDunc (talk) 21:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Suicide bomber?

Should the article describe O'Brien as a suicide bomber? Irvine22 (talk) 23:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. GoodDay (talk) 23:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me that O'Brien did exactly what Hasib Husain did some nine years later. Irvine22 (talk) 00:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Premature detonation is an accident, not the act of a suicide bomber. I see the old editing pattern is back again Irvine; find a hobby horse and ride it across several articles regardless of context, facts or anything much else for that matter. Please try and reform .... --Snowded ^TALK 00:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

How do we know that premature detonation was the case here? I suspect immature detonation, myself. Irvine22 (talk) 03:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

QED on your editorial intent--Snowded ^TALK 11:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, you can't say how we know the detonation was premature, rather than the intentional act of a suicide bomber? Irvine22 (talk) 18:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

What does it matter? O'Brien is history. GoodDay (talk) 19:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll not be feeding this at all. But it is getting a bit tiresome. --Domer48_'fenian' 12:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about GD? BigDunc 19:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Irvine22's question is irrelevant. GoodDay (talk) 19:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean "O'Brien is history"? BigDunc 19:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

O'Brien is dead. GoodDay (talk) 19:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but was his death a suicide, is the question? Irvine22 (talk) 01:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

He didn't plan to kill himself. GoodDay (talk) 01:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

How do you know that? Irvine22 (talk) 01:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

People make mistakes. GoodDay (talk) 01:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

And sometimes they also carry out evil intentions. Irvine22 (talk) 01:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Dunc serious, don't keep feeding. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

If you're referring to the corresponding AfD? I've struck-out my 'vote'. GoodDay (talk) 20:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Telling that no-one has been able to address the question of how O'Brien's actions differ from those of Hasib Husain. Irvine22 (talk) 01:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Right Irvine, O'Brien did not detonate the bomb so it was not a suicide please cut this bull shit you give the air of intelligence will you try and show some instead of trying to stick rubbish into articles that you know are controversial. BigDunc 12:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Did Hasib Husain detonate his bomb? Irvine22 (talk) 19:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes. BigDunc 19:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure? And how did O'Brien's bomb go off, if he didn't detonate it? Irvine22 (talk) 22:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Try not be silly Irvine. Normally your disruption at least shows the odd spark of creativity, but this is tedious. --Snowded ^TALK 22:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

We still don't know if it was suicide, or if he changed his mind, or if he wasn't murdered by the IRA on the run-up to the Good Friday Agreement. Some of the more combative volunteers were eliminated, or their arrests were arranged, in this period of 1994-97. Volunteer, as a descriptor, again there's no evidence that he had volunteered to be blown up on a bus.78.19.203.141 (talk) 09:58, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

More sources

Now that the Edward O'Brien AFD has ended with a Keep result, I'd like to point attention to the additional O'Brien sources I've found and brought up at that AFD discussion. I plan to eventually incorporate this info in the article at some point, but if anyone else would like to go ahead and do it first, be my guest! :) — Hunter Kahn _(c) 21:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The description of O'Brien's move to UK "on active service" is a euphemism and an uninformative way to describe someone whose intent was to set off bombs. Also the article implies that his death was some kind of tragic accident - I very much doubt that the bystanders and those injured would see it that way, which is why I have tagged this article. These are real concerns--AssegaiAli (talk) 21:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

If you have sources then fix it, otherwise don't bother tagging the article to suggest the inclusion of points of view that aren't documented in reliable sources. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

This article violates WP:UNDUE--79.66.149.164 (talk) 20:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion on the template, but I have altered the unqualified use of the term "on active service" which is jargon that only seems to be used by Republican sources. It has an unclear meaning to anyone not already familiar with the subject, so lets just explain what it actually means in as neutral terms as possible. Rockpocket 21:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I changed the heading "Active service" to "Paramilitary activity" in the interests of NPOV, but O Fenian reverted. Surely it is POV to use the term "active service" which, as noted above, is a term used by republican (and loyalist) paramilitary groupings to denote legitimacy to their activities. Mooretwin (talk) 01:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Active service is not only military jargon, its also a very non-descriptive term that can cover a wide range of unspecified activities. I wouldn't recommend its use in the biography of a member of a professional military force, and it is especially problematic in one about a member of a proscribed paramilitary force where it also carries a number of POV implications. Can we be more specific about what this "active service" consisted of (prior to the bus bombing obviously)?--Jackyd101 (talk) 12:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I support using the term paramilitary activity--AssegaiAli (talk) 13:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Disruption by IP editor

I see this article is under attack by one, and possibly more (although I doubt there is more than one), editor. Firstly the primary sources tag is inappropriate, since the "non-primary" source footnotes outnumber the "primary" source footnotes. This, plus attempts to add youtube links regarding "own goals" and the removal of sourced information claiming it wasn't sourced means I'm not prepared to assume good faith with this editor. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 10:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)