Revision as of 14:27, 22 May 2006 editJdorney (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers10,246 edits →Early Campaign 1970-1980← Previous edit | Revision as of 09:24, 24 May 2006 edit undoFluffy999 (talk | contribs)2,282 editsm →Early Campaign 1970-1980Next edit → | ||
Line 91: | Line 91: | ||
::Sounds good. Its interesting that you think that this article is bit too pro republican and the main article is too anti-republican. Originally they were the same article, but had to be split up for space reasons (a lot of both written by me). Perhaps the balance in both articles was lost to some extent as a result? Btw, I wouldn't spend much time worrying about Devin79. I'm just amazed he's not banned yet. | ::Sounds good. Its interesting that you think that this article is bit too pro republican and the main article is too anti-republican. Originally they were the same article, but had to be split up for space reasons (a lot of both written by me). Perhaps the balance in both articles was lost to some extent as a result? Btw, I wouldn't spend much time worrying about Devin79. I'm just amazed he's not banned yet. | ||
] 14:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC) | ] 14:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC) | ||
:::You did a great job. I'm not calling you a PIRA supporter :) Its not biased one way or the other, its very close to neutralPOV. However Ive a nagging feeling that some components are not touched on- the British military. In particular counter intelligence, surveillance, introduction of various military hardware, budgets, changes to infrastructure (civilian searchers/checkpoints/metal detectors), propaganda, informers etc. | |||
:It is my POV, but im of the view that how the PIRA prosecuted their campaign was influenced more by the reaction and methods used against than it was down to their strategic decisions. Thats POV though. To avoid making that analysis on wikipedia an article on those developments and their chronology would probably work. Then people can compare the two and make their own minds up. As it stands it just looks like the PIRA was out there "2 sheets to the wind" doing what it wanted. Just an idea. ] 09:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Fatalities == | == Fatalities == |
Revision as of 09:24, 24 May 2006
dont see how to edit references #27, the source for my change is: http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/othelem/chron/ch97.htm
CAIN has 1 british army fatality, the last in current round of conflict, on 12/2/1997, 1 RUC fulltime, and 1 RUC reserve shot dead by PIRA on 13/6/1997.
No civilian death from PIRA, RIRA, OIRA, INLA, IPLO etc., (excluding Billy Wright shot 27/12, Glen Greer dead in premature explosion at loyalist weapons dump 25/10, and the attack on Desmond Christopher Moonan 14/8 unattributed in court). http://www.courtsni.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/FE7EE0D2-3D1E-4016-B386-8396FD271C55/0/j_j_NICE3182.htm
the civilian death attributed to loyalists;
- 14/03/1997 - John Slane
- 24/03/1997 - David Templeton
- 08/05/1997 - Robert Hamill
- 12/05/1997 - Sean Brown
- 01/06/1997 - Gregory Taylor (RUC)
- 11/06/1997 - Robert 'Basher' Bates (loyalist)
- 07/07/1997 - Brian Morton (loyalist)
- 15/07/1997 - Bernadette Martin
- 24/07/1997 - James Morgan
- 01/08/1997 - Stewart Hunter
- 08/11/1997 - Robert Kerr (loyalist)
- 09/11/1997 - Raymond McCord
- 05/12/1997 - Gerry Devlin
- 27/12/1997 - Seamus Dillon (republican)
- 31/12/1997 - Eddie Traynor
Fluffy999 22:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
You should be counting 1996 as well as 1997. Two civilians killed in Canary Wharf bomb in Feb 96. One Brit army killed in bomb attack on Thiepval barracks Jdorney 16:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
OK, but I took it to be indicating the year of the ceasefire.
"From December 1995 until July 1997, the Provisional IRA called off its 1994 ceasefire because of its dissatisfaction with the state of negotiations. However its campaign IN THIS YEAR never reached the intensity of that before the ceasefire it killed 2 British soldiers, 2 RUC men and 2 civilians, "
What year? If its indicating a toll for December 1995 until July 1997 then its not a year and the figures given are wrong also. I will check the reference to see what context Ed Moloney, The Secret History of the IRA is cited.
Fluffy999 22:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
- You're right. It was 19 month period and not a year. Jan 96 -July 97.
Jdorney 14:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that the PIRA ceasefire ended on Friday 09/02/1996 not "December 1995" or Jan 96. It was renewed again on 20/07/1997.
PIRA Statement ending Ceasefire http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/events/peace/docs/ira9296.htm
Figures for PIRA fatalities 9/2/1996 - 20/7/1997 are:
- 2 civilians 9th Feb. (excluding DAAD shooting Sean Devlin 06/09/1996 & 1996 INLA feud)
- 2 british army 11/10/96 & 12/2/1997
- 1 Garda - McCabe 7th June 1996
- 2 RUC - 13/6/1997
during same period the figures for loyalist fatalities are:
- 21/06/1996 - Gareth Parker
- 07/07/1996 - Michael McGoldrick
- 12/09/1996 - Michael Whelan
- 14/03/1997 - John Slane
- 24/03/1997 - David Templeton
- 08/05/1997 - Robert Hamill
- 12/05/1997 - Sean Brown
- 01/06/1997 - Gregory Taylor (RUC)
- 11/06/1997 - Robert 'Basher' Bates (loyalist)
- 07/07/1997 - Brian Morton (loyalist)
- 15/07/1997 - Bernadette Martin
Its sloppy. I will clear up the sentence so its clearer.
- Sounds good.
Jdorney 12:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Early Campaign 1970-1980
"As the conflict escalated in the early 1970s, the numbers recruited by the IRA mushroomed, in response to the nationalist community's anger at events such as the introduction of internment without trial and Bloody Sunday (1972) when the Parachute Regiment of the British army shot dead 13 unarmed civil rights marchers in Derry. The IRA leadership took the opportunity to launch an offensive, believing that they could force a British withdrawal from Ireland by inflicting severe casualties, thus undermining public support in Britain for its continued presence."
Just a minor note given that this is supposed to be an unbiased source of information, it has always been claimed by the soldiers involved that they were fired upon first and members of the crowd were armed, this was corroborated by an IRA defector. The Republicans on the other hand have claimed that it was an unprovoked attack on unarmed civilians; since neither side’s story has been proved it seems unfair to report one version as fact. It should also be noted that much of this article seems to be slightly biased in favour of the Republican movement, and I would generally ur on the side of impartiality as much as possible.
- Very good point about what the soldiers say about events- its ok to enter anything to that effect so long as its cited, see also the Bloody Sunday articles. It is possible it is biased towards the RM, but when you see POV you can correct/remove, flag it up as POV, or introduce the other side of the story to balance the POV. There is one thing to remember though- this is an article about a specific group and how they saw the events, how it influenced them. It is perfectly valid to say the PIRA used bloody sunday as a propaganda recruiting tool. They make reference to exploiting such mistakes in the green book.
- Details on British military & Intelligence operations or their campaign/role is missing in all the articles unfortunately. Could be due to space or people subconciously dont even consider them as "players" instead treating them as "stuck in the middle". Some military ops are mentioned here and there- Motorman / Mincemeat but huge security operations like Monarch & Hawk arent found anywhere- that entire period in the 1970s is a bit of a blackhole so far. I hope to get around to writing something on that soon. Fluffy999 11:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
The Tribunal, as far as I'm aware, found that the only shots fired from the nationalist side on Bloody Sunday were revolver shots fired by an Official IRA, after the British troops had opened fire.
Fluffy, re expanding the article, remember that there are space constraints and that this article is actually too long already. Only the most important events and trends should be mentioned. Jdorney 17:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- Right, its an overview sort of thing not a chronicle, but im thinking of some articles that complement this articles. The new ones would focus on british army operations etc. that can be referred to in this one. Its the way the PIRA article works with the PIRA Arms importation article now. Fluffy999 18:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- Sounds good. Its interesting that you think that this article is bit too pro republican and the main article is too anti-republican. Originally they were the same article, but had to be split up for space reasons (a lot of both written by me). Perhaps the balance in both articles was lost to some extent as a result? Btw, I wouldn't spend much time worrying about Devin79. I'm just amazed he's not banned yet.
Jdorney 14:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- You did a great job. I'm not calling you a PIRA supporter :) Its not biased one way or the other, its very close to neutralPOV. However Ive a nagging feeling that some components are not touched on- the British military. In particular counter intelligence, surveillance, introduction of various military hardware, budgets, changes to infrastructure (civilian searchers/checkpoints/metal detectors), propaganda, informers etc.
- It is my POV, but im of the view that how the PIRA prosecuted their campaign was influenced more by the reaction and methods used against than it was down to their strategic decisions. Thats POV though. To avoid making that analysis on wikipedia an article on those developments and their chronology would probably work. Then people can compare the two and make their own minds up. As it stands it just looks like the PIRA was out there "2 sheets to the wind" doing what it wanted. Just an idea. Fluffy999 09:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Fatalities
Its an interesting point that there have been few IRA related fatalities in recent years, this is mainly due to the IRA calling ambulances prior to drilling out peoples knee caps or punishment beatings. This insures that the person in question won't die of blood loss etc. and hence they won't have violated the various agreements.