Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:48, 25 August 2015

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Troubles, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances) Neutrality: All editors on Troubles-related articles are directed to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Northern Ireland Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Northern Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Northern Ireland on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Northern IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject Northern IrelandTemplate:WikiProject Northern IrelandNorthern Ireland-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Belfast Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belfast, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the City of Belfast, Northern Ireland on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.BelfastWikipedia:WikiProject BelfastTemplate:WikiProject BelfastBelfast-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Ireland Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Crime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as Low-importance).

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on December 4, 2014.

Untitled

The list of names of those killed in this incident was removed in accordance with Misplaced Pages policy, but the list can still be seen by those interested at: Previous version including list of names

Conspiracy Theory?

Some of the info is pretty far out and with the exception of a non neutral source, are completely unvertifible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.152.21.16 (talk) 21:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Article revised

This article has now been revised and is no longer a stub class article - the stub status should be removed. Because the above commentator is unsigned and "unvertifiable", and made no attempt to revise or correct the article, he/she should have been ignored. Ardfern (talk) 22:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Article overhauled to remove errors, unreferenced speculation and irrelevant material.Billsmith60 (talk) 22:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Volunteers / members

"IRA volunteers" would be better worded as "IRA members" would it not? --Eamonnca1 16:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it would. We either need IRA volunteers and UVF volunteers or IRA members and UVF members. We can't have an article that calls one group of paramilitaries their preferred titles but the others not. JonChapple 17:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

It should be "members' in both cases. "Volunteers" is too loaded, it's a small step away from calling them "patriots" or "heroes". --Eamonnca1 17:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. It's all over Misplaced Pages though; you've got your work cut out. JonChapple 17:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

You can agree, but you need consensus to change the current use. This is well discussed, and has its own article.--Domer48_'fenian' 18:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you'd like to discuss here instead, seeing as your talk page is strictly off-limits. Why is it OK to you to describe IRA members as volunteers but not those of the UVF (Ulster Volunteer Force)? JonChapple 18:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Per links provided above.--Domer48_'fenian' 18:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Read 'em. JonChapple 18:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. It's either "members" for both groupings or "volunteers" for both. "Members" is my preference, of course. Mooretwin (talk) 19:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The earlier consensus referred to above is here:"In the main text of an article the word, volunteer, is free to be used, but this has to be judged in each particular instance to achieve maximum sense and good style. It should not be used rigidly and other terms such as "IRA member" can also be used or any other appropriate reference. Different terms can be interspersed, and may vary from article to article." So both can be used. Same applies to loyalist groups judging by the discussions on the volunteer page. Agree that we should be consistent. Valenciano (talk) 19:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The matter is now being discussed at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Ireland. --Eamonnca1 00:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The Matter is not been discussed there. Your conducting an ill informed straw poll based on the unsupported opinion of editors. This issue was well discussed Mediation Case, detailed discussion and consensus on the Article talk page and supported by a referenced and sourced article on Volunteer Article. While consensus can change, this straw poll conducted by and editor oblivious to these previous discussions is not going to do it.--Domer48_'fenian' 17:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Links still don't work over here. JonChapple 17:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The language about "two IRA volunteers" having been killed is sourced to the Ombudsman's Report, p. 37, which deals with anonymous letters mailed to the police in the aftermath of the bombing. If you read the relevant pages of the report, you will find no reference to "volunteers". It refers simply to IRA "members", while the letters in question seem to have used the term "Provos". Therefore, whatever the merits of the debate about the use of "volunteer" in a broader context, it is simply not supported by the source cited in this particular case. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 00:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Very interesting, thanks Ivor. So if we end up going down the route of "call them what the sources call them" with regards to volunteer, in this case, at least, it wouldn't be appropriate. JonChapple 06:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

In this case it would clearly be inappropriate, as we would be saying something that the cited source just doesn't say. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 14:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

What guideline or policy mandates that we have to use verbatim language from the source and not an appropriate reword? Mo ainm~Talk 15:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

There appears to be a dispute over whether what you term the "reword" of the source is in fact appropriate. Why depart from the indisputably NPOV language - "member" - in the source, when the alternative language is unsourced and disputed? Ivor Stoughton (talk) 16:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The is a long held consensus on the use of the term volunteer, a term which is considered NPOV. If it is your opinion that the term volunteer is not, I'd suggest you get sources to back it up.--Domer48_'fenian' 17:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

No, I have no problem with the use of the term volunteer in cases where the sources support it. However in this particular case we are attributing its use to a source (the Ombudsman's report) that does not in point of fact use it. We must be absolutely scrupulous in our use of sources, don't you agree?Ivor Stoughton (talk) 18:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Here's the sentence in question that is currently in the article:

"Three other unsigned letters were sent to the RUC. They suggested that it was an IRA bomb "in transit" and that two IRA volunteers were killed."

This is presently sourced to page 37 of the Ombudsman's report. So we are in effect representing that the report says that the letters say that two IRA "volunteers" were killed. In fact the report uses the term "members", while (according to the report) the letters seem to use the term "Provos". So what's the sourcing for the claim that the letters referred to "volunteers" in this case?. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 18:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The letters are not being quoted, if for example it said "two IRA volunteers were killed" in quotation marks, well then you would have a point, because we would be misquoting what the source says. Since we are not quoting verbatim there is no problem.--Domer48_'fenian' 18:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Direct quotation or not - and the use of quotation markes around "in transit" seems to suggest an element of direct quotation - we are still representing what the letters say. Best to do it more accurately than not, surely? Ivor Stoughton (talk) 18:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

So for example if I were to follow your suggestion as I did here were it is a direct quote, it would be ok and that this here would be wrong. This is just an example.--Domer48_'fenian' 18:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see the relevance of those diffs. Policy is clear that article content must be directly supported by the cited source. In this case, "member" is directly supported by the source; "volunteer" is not. Or, if you prefer, we could also go the route of direct quotation from the letters and say "Provos". So that would be:

"Three other unsigned letters were sent to the RUC. They suggested that it was an IRA bomb "in transit" and that two "Provos" were killed." Ivor Stoughton (talk) 19:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I cited those diff's as examples only and they are very relevant to the point you are trying to make. The article content is supported by the source cited. It is not inaccurate, misleading or distorting anything. If for example the source said IRA Freedom Fighter, would we be having this discussion? The most important information in that sentence is: They suggested that it was an IRA bomb "in transit". After all, this whole discussion is based on the fact that two editors hadn't a clue that this had been discussed to death and a consensus had already been reached.--Domer48_'fenian' 19:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

If the source said that the letters said "IRA Freedom Fighter", and we were concerned to represent what the letters said, then we would say "freedom fighter". As things actually stand, we should say "member" or "Provo" as that is what the source in fact says. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 19:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Soldiers / British soldiers

See discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Ireland on whether to refer to "soldiers" or "British soldiers". --Eamonnca1 18:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

BA violence

It's misleading to write "launched armed campaigns" as if they came out of the blue. The Provos were almost all from places that had been on the receiving end from both the RUC and (for less time, but no less deadly) the BA. See Falls Curfew etc. 12:59, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

That's a poor reason to give. Also it's misleading to state "NPOV - RUC killings of Catholic civilians long predated attacks on police" when the change you made also affects the mention of the army and Northern Ireland government. Republicans targeted the army first so how could they be retaliating against them? Also how does it sound like they came out of the blue? You can plan armed campaigns for years before actually launching them so that doesn't hold water. Events like the Falls Curfew happened after the IRA had started attacking the army so how can that be used as a reason for "retaliated" in the context of the wording in the article? Heck if you want we can into even further detail the IRA's Border Campaign of the 1950s which didn't help Catholics very much. Your edit also ignores the other factors in the IRA's reasons for action against the security forces and state, most notably the fact they wanted to establish an united Irish republic. The IRA used and abused the mistreatment of Catholics for its own ends and your edit only seeks to imply that that was the only reason for it. Mabuska 19:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

It's an excellent reason, and my edit summary wasn't misleading; all of these institutions had initiated aggression against Catholic neighbourhoods long before any IRA retaliation. While the BA had been doing so for the least time, it still had form. "Republicans targeted the army first" - that's just flat out wrong - the BA put it up to republicans first, starting with forcing through Orange marches with violence in March 1970. After the '69 riots, the IRA had been concentrating on defence; I don't know of any attacks on the BA until the Falls Curfew in August 1970. I don't know of any others until February '71 when the BA again came into Catholic areas and got Gunner Curtis killed. I don't see the relevance of the Border Campaign at all; how did you meander in that direction? "The IRA used and abused the mistreatment of Catholics for its own ends" - excellent, at last a pearl of fact, but you mess it up with the rest of the sentence, which I don't understand; what do you believe my edit implies? Gob Lofa (talk) 21:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Mabuska. Since I educated you about the beginnings of BA/republican violence, have you any other objections to my edit? Gob Lofa (talk) 12:28, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I do find it funny how you think your a Troubles expert because you read a few websites and think you understand the whole situation considering you didn't even know why the Shankill is considered loyalist and East Belfast not. Mabuska 14:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

You have done no educating, simply POV pushing with your OR, removing accurately (something you can't do) cited information. You have no consensus for your edit. Open a RfC or invite views from the relevant Wikiprojects to see what other editors think. You seem to have a hard time understanding many things on this site and other editors comments. Is English even your first language? Mabuska 14:17, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I see. Which part of my reply above do you take issue with? Gob Lofa (talk) 17:02, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Unless you can verifiably and accurate source it with academic sources, then its OR and personal opinion and Misplaced Pages does not do that. Also you do not address your constant removal of the UVF declaration. What has that got to do with the RUC/BA? Mabuska 21:05, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

An explanation to a colleague temporarily under the wrong impression about a timeline of events isn't for inclusion in the article, so the question of OR doesn't arise here; it's to help you. If you're dubious about any part of it, by all means let me know and I'll bring some links, or you could have fun investigating yourself. As for the cited UVF declaration, I don't see its relevance. Gob Lofa (talk) 23:00, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Any retort? Gob Lofa (talk) 20:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

You have failed to answer my request... provide academic sourcing and not OR and personal opinion. And when I say academic, I mean academic and by reliable scholars who are respected for their knowledge of The Troubles not some half-interest/knowledge that you can poke holes at. Mabuska 14:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

A good read of Jonathan Bardon's critically acclaimed "A History of Ulster" seems like a good retort for your claims above, and makes it clear the PIRA's intention well before those events you "describe". The reasons why they couldn't launch any attacks on the army was a desperate shortage of members and weapons and opinion of the BA amongst Catholics still being highly favourable at the time.

For lack of arms and members read page 675: "In Belfast fewer than sixty men regarded themselves as IRA members and most of these 'drop-outs after the border campaign"... "No arms training had taken place in years and in May 1969 the IRA's total arsenal in the city was a machine gun, a pistol, and some ammunication. A few more firearms were unearthed on the night of 14 August and IRA did fire shots into...". Can't launch or "retaliate" with an armed campaign without a good supply of members and weapons.

This bit I also find revealing especially in regards to your argument and views on the period:

Page 677: "During the first months of 1970 the Provisionals operated with caution, knowing that the great majority of Catholics still welcomed the presense of British troops and openly fraternised with them. If anything, the army encountered more difficulty with Protestants"... "Troops were equally tough when confronted by Catholic mobs. On Easter Tuesday, 31 March 1970, the Junior Orangemen had permission to march in Belfast. On their way out they marched along the Springfield Road without incident, but on their return that evening Catholic youths began to throw bottles at the bands and when about seventy soldiers of the Royal Scots Regiment arrived they were attacked with stones and petrol bombs.

According to you: "the BA put it up to republicans first, starting with forcing through Orange marches with violence in March 1970". That's not what the above by a respected historian says, are you sure? Though the real crux of the matter for what we are on about is whether to state "retaliated" (obviously a poor choice considering the PIRA were intending to launch an armed campaign anyways) or "launched"...

Page 678: "That summer the Provisionals launched a bombing campaign".

It is only one source, but at least its a reliable and academic one. Mabuska 15:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Northern Ireland-related articles
• Mid-importance Northern Ireland-related articles
• All WikiProject Northern Ireland pages
• C-Class Belfast-related articles
• Mid-importance Belfast-related articles
• C-Class Ireland articles
• Low-importance Ireland articles
• C-Class Ireland articles of Low-importance
• All WikiProject Ireland pages
• Unassessed Crime-related articles
• Unknown-importance Crime-related articles
• Unassessed Terrorism articles
• Low-importance Terrorism articles
• Terrorism task force articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
• Selected anniversaries (December 2014)