Talk:Provisional IRA East Tyrone Brigade

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the Irish Republicanism WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to Irish republicanism and Irish nationalism. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.)
High This article is on a subject of High-importance for Irish Republicanism-related articles.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
Ireland Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Ireland on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the priority scale.

Contents

[edit] "Guerilla" or "Terrorist"

Does anyone else feel that "guerilla" is a more neutral term than terrorist? I mean the previous attacks by this particular unit weren't against purely civilian targets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DamnedDamnedDamned (talk • contribs)

[CK]: I'm not sure that targets have to be civilian for an attack to be considered "terrorism". dictionary.com gives us this:

"The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

I changed it back to "terrorist" based on this.

The rest of Wikipedia doesn't follow what you said. That definition is not true at all or else pretty much any armed conflict (that is considered illegal which is POV anyway) would qualify. The Provos considered themselves legally justified by there more then reasonable support base, if you disagree thats fine, but thats POV. The word terrorist is not used to refer to armed Irish Republican groups on wikipedia there was some large arguments on it over at Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army. The arguments alone are indicitive of it being a POV matter, that is easily settled by uses a NPOV word like guerilla, paramilitary, or depending the case not using a discriptive word in that context. (the man was a member of the IRA instead of the man was a member of the [discriptive word] group the IRA).SCVirus 10:40, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] PoV

The SAS held a celebration party after the ambush.: Will we now be listing all the parties held by the IRA after their killings? Andy Mabbett 21:53, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

If you have a source for IRA parties then by all means list them but I've never read or heard anythiing bout the ra celebrating GiollaUidir 10:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Politics

Does anyone know where the IRA in Tyrone stood in relation to the ceasefires? I think they were opposed and some of them went dissident, but I'll have to look it up. We should have a section here about this. Jdorney 00:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

East Tyrone, the area in question were skeptical of the ceasefires and peace process but there wasn't widespread defections. (Irish Republican 05:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC))

I'll add something to it soon--Vintagekits 19:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge from members

Please merge any relevant content from these articles, per their AFDs:

Thanks. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-14 02:13Z

Fantastic-this article is going to get horrendously messy as a result of this and quite possibally unencyclopedic. I hope the POV-pushers are happy. :| GiollaUidir 12:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I am probably going to restart the Patrick Kelly article - he was the overall commander of the Tyrone Brigade and over Jim and Padraig. Anyone got any objections? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vintagekits (talk • contribs) 14:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC).
You'll need to create it in the project preparation area then take it to DRV, you can't just unilaterally recreate it. One Night In Hackney303 14:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I wasnt just going to spring it, I ws going to start in the the project page and add him to the lonely William Flemming. Whats DRV?--Vintagekits 14:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Just making sure you knew. DRV is deletion review, I'll be happy to handle that when the time comes. One Night In Hackney303 14:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
But the page wasnt deleted just merged - anyway, if you are happy to sort it then thats gets. Controrebel looks like he is back for a bit and he knows the ET Brigade inside out so should be a big help on that.--Vintagekits 14:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Deletion review applies to the outcome of any AfD debate, whether it's merge, delete or even keep. If anyone thinks a decision is wrong, that's the next step. One Night In Hackney303 15:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Cool, shouldnt be a problem. I am not going to do the same with Declan, Eugene and Seamus as they were pretty young and the main operation the were involved in but at a later stage might start Gerry's up again.--Vintagekits 15:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mountain lodge?

What about mountain lodge? was that before or after this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.163.67 (talk • contribs)

It might help if you were a bit more clear. What are you talking about? ---Charles 22:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I think he's talking about the 1983 killing of three Protestants in County Armagh by the Catholic Reaction Force, but don't quote me on that. One Night In Hackney303 22:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Aaahhhhh... I recall that event. Well, regardless, what has that to do with this article? ---Charles 22:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely nothing as far as I can see, which is why I'm not sure if that's what he's talking about. One Night In Hackney303 22:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Right. Oh, Mr. Anonymous Editor, you wanna help us out here? I rather doubt we'll get any clarification. It's funny to me that "clarification" was the word he used in the edit summary when he posted the question. Apparently, he was looking for it, not offering. ---Charles 22:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PoV

I think 'ambush' is hopelessly POV, throughout. I'm well aware that 'martyr' is in there due to a certain folk tradition recognising the attackers, but it's a bit rich to keep reverting to 'ambush' when a more neutral stance is 'incident'. Hugorudd 19:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Incident is POV and weasel wording, and it's described as an ambush in plenty of sources. One Night In Hackney303 20:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Loughgall Ambush - [1] [2] [3] [4], and that's ignoring the number of books it can easily be sourced from. Also given your attempt to change Derry to Londonderry on the Bloody Sunday article, your motivation for the POV and weasel wording is apparent. One Night In Hackney303 20:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Just to fully nail this down, you changed "were ambushed and killed by the" to "were killed in an Op/React mission by the" in this edit. Big Boys' Rules by Mark Urban has this to say regarding OP/React missions on page 164:

During the 1980s the term 'ambush' was replaced in SAS orders in Northern Ireland by 'OP/React', short for 'Observation Post/Reactive', according to an SAS man who served there. He says an OP/React order is 'to all intents and purposes an ambush' and believes it was a cosmetic change prompted by RUC sensitivity over the word 'ambush'.

So your use of the rather vague term of "Op/React mission" only serves to confuse the reader. Furthermore let's see what Urban says about the number of troops involved on page 228:

Commanders decided that the twenty-four SAS soldiers resident in Ulster were insufficient for this task, so 22 SAS headquarters in Herford was alerted. A troop of about fifteen soldiers belonging to G Squadron was flown over from Britain to boost the forces in Ulster....In addition the Provisionals would be shadowed by Army surveillance experts and those of the Special Branch's E4A. It is also believed that members of the RUC's highly trained HMSU were deployed in the area. At least fifty of the Army's and the RUC's troops most highly trained in surveillance techniques and the use of firearms were committeed to the immediate operation, and several companies of UDR and regular Army soldiers as well as mobile police squads were to be available to cordon off the Armagh/Dungannon area after the operation. Loughgall was to be an operation involving hundreds of soldiers and police.

Furthermore SAS soldiers were specifically placed inside the station, so that any attempted attack on the station would have allowed any soldier to instantly open fire on those responsible, therefore acting within the terms of the Army Yellow Card. So let's not beat about the bush with weasel or POV wording like OP/React or incident. The security forces had advance knowledge of the operation, and acted upon that information to ambush those responsible. It wasn't some chance encounter where soldiers just happened to be out on patrol, it was a clear and premeditated ambush, all sources agree on that. One Night In Hackney303 03:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Successful

What is a successful attack? One murder? 100 murders?Traditional unionist 10:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The SAS set out to ambuse the Volunteers, in that they were successful. Dose that answer your question? Could I also remind you that we use the discussion page to improve articles, and not as a soap box. --Domer48 11:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I made an edit. It was reverted, I am asking for the rational. What is a successful attack?Traditional unionist 11:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
The opposite of an unsuccessful attack. The previous two were successful, Loughgall was not, so there needs to be a distinction. One Night In Hackney303 11:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
The bomb went off didn't it? Surely that is success by those standards?Traditional unionist 11:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
WP:DFTT. One Night In Hackney303 11:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
It was provocative and unnecessary to link to DFTT. Please respond to reasonable discussion reasonably. I've removed "successful" per WP:WEASEL: obviously if they carried out bomb attacks they were "successful". Otherwise the wording would have been different, e.g. "they attempted to carry out..." or some such. We state the facts and let the reader make the interpretation. Tyrenius 14:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Wrong, it was wholly necessary. He's well aware of the history of the IRA and in particular Loughgall. He referred to an operation where eight members of the IRA were unlawfully killed by the SAS as a success for the IRA. That's provocative trolling. One Night In Hackney303 16:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Eh? The dispute is about the two earlier attacks, which you called successful,[5] and he previously and subsequently reverted. Tyrenius 17:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
At 11:36 I said the "previous two [attacks] were successful, and Loughgall was not". He responded at 11:37 saying "The bomb went off didn't it? Surely that is success by those standards?". Yes the bomb went off, but all eight IRA members were killed and it was the IRA's biggest single loss of life since the 1920s. Now do you see why it's provocative? One Night In Hackney303 17:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)(edit conflict) Oh, I see, you're referring to the post in this thread. It's not trolling, just inappropriate argument, as the whole of this argument is inappropriate, since it's editors putting forward their own evaluation of events, divorced from any sources. Tyrenius 17:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

You don't consider that deliberately provocative? And unlike most editors on this page I have a copy of the major source used in this article, and most of the minor ones too. One Night In Hackney303 17:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
WP:AGF requires you to assume the editor is acting properly, unless you can prove otherwise. You can't prove otherwise: you are conjecturing as to motive. In the context of the conversation, which is about what constitutes "successful" it is valid to point out that this term is open to different interpretations, and that Loughgall could itself be called that, in as much as the objective was achieved. There are plenty of attacks that are deemed successful for that reason despite the assailants perishing in accomplishing their task. This is why editors shouldn't evaluate information, but should state facts and let the reader decide. If you stick to the argument(s) presented and refrain from making personal comments about editors, you will be on much safer ground. Tyrenius 17:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
[6] [7] [8] [9] . One Night In Hackney303 17:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Is there a point, and, if there is, is it anything that wouldn't be better addressed in ArbCom? Tyrenius 18:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
[10] [11] [12] and [13] is relevant too. I'm sure those diffs and plenty more besides will end up at ArbCom, however they are also relevant here and now. One Night In Hackney303 18:09, 17 September 2007 (UT)
How? Tyrenius 18:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

From previous discussions with Traditional unionist on both the Orange Institution and Bobby Sands's Article the description outlined in WP:DFTT would I consider to be good advice. Both discussions resulted in opinion used as evidence, and references being ignored. It is somewhat gratifying that they now place citation tags, and they have been addressed by One Night In Hackney303. If you look at Traditional unionist opening comment on this discussion, improving the content of the article is not what was being sought, therefore their intent was...? --Domer48 18:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I am right now not looking at other discussions. I'm looking at this one. The issue was all about whether attacks should be labelled "successful" or not. This was the point Traditional Unionist was validly addressing at the beginning of the thread. Tyrenius 18:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Well that's a moot point, as "successful" is now "spectacular". I bet TU wishes he hadn't started this now.... One Night In Hackney303 18:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
That just comes across as an attempt at point-scoring and doesn't do you any credit. Please try to work collegiately with other editors. WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground. Tyrenius 18:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
You do realise you're referring to the editor who has repeatedly described me and other editors in good standing as "nationalist vandals" don't you? And that was after you issued him repeated warnings about attacking other editors and after it was brought to your attention your actions were wholly inconsistent. If people want to know why I'm not staying post ArbCom, look no further. One Night In Hackney303 12:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
There's nothing inconsistent. He acted inappropriately and was warned. You acted inappropriately and were warned. The fact that someone else does something wrong doesn't entitle you to also. That is a well-established principle on wikipedia. Tyrenius 18:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:FintonaMortarAttack.jpg

Image:FintonaMortarAttack.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 19:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Tony-Gormley.jpg

Image:Tony-Gormley.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 16:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)